Thinking beyond the UNMOGIP, and its mandate
Arjimand Hussain Talib
A spokesperson for the United Nations (UN) Secretary General said last week that their office was closely monitoring the on-going situation in Kashmir. He further said they were in regular touch with the UN Military Observers’ Group (UNMOGIP) office in Srinagar. But what beyond that?
The unrest and the civilian killings in Kashmir over the last one month are colossal in scale. The state actions in containing demonstrations of unarmed civilians are extraordinary. The use of live ammunition on unarmed protesters, army deployment prolonged curfews, widespread detentions, media and communications curbs, etc. signal to an extraordinary political and humanitarian situation. Although the unrest has received some degree of international media attention, yet the international community remains as oblivious to the happenings in Kashmir as ever before.
There are basically two reasons why the international community is not so concerned about the current Kashmir situation. One reason is that there is almost negligible advocacy at international level for an international intervention. If at all there is some advocacy by a handful of groups that is symbolic and ill guided. Globally, Kashmiri Diaspora is largely ill-organized. Facebook activism is no substitute to other recognized methods of advocacy.
Another reason has surely something to do with 9/11. Kashmir has acquired an image of a place which is part of the “problem”, read “international terrorism”. There are fewer takers for the argument that Kashmir’s unrest is driven by a peaceful nationalist movement – seeking a change in political status quo and tight military control. There are hardly any takers for the argument that if unaddressed Kashmir will impact Pakistan and Afghanistan’s stability.
On another plane, the current international indifference has also something to do with the obsession of Kashmir’s political groups in looking exclusively at the UN’s political resolutions on Kashmir. It is a fact that the UN continues to portray Kashmir as a disputed region in all its maps. Its communications also recognize it as such. But there is a technical difference between depiction of a region as ‘disputed’ and ‘conflict affected’. The ‘disputed’ status, despite its own political significance, does not necessarily underline humanitarian urgency. Designation of Kashmir as a ‘conflict zone’ would do that.
The question here is why hasn’t such thing happened so far? Naturally, the governments in New Delhi and Srinagar would not do that. Those advocating for Kashmiri right to self determination and safeguarding of their human rights at home and abroad have missed an important point over the years: the role of UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in Kashmir. And also the absence of the UN Cluster System and a Humanitarian Coordinator (HC) in Kashmir
The United Nations’ Military Observers’ Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP), based in Srinagar and Muzaffarabad, has a limited mandate. Their primary work is to report any violations or change in the status quo of the Line of Control (LoC).
OCHA as an arm of the UN Secretariat which has a broader mandate - to “mobilize and coordinate effective and principled humanitarian action” to alleviate human suffering in emergencies, which includes conflict situations. Importantly, one of its missions is also to “advocate for the rights of people in need.”
Beyond humanitarian coordination, what is required in Kashmir today is underlining the urgency for some urgent political initiatives to ensure that the trouble in Kashmir does not spill over to the larger South Asian region. That urgency would come if there are credible situation reports from a body like the OCHA, which are taken more seriously by the international community. Today Kashmir needs situation reports by impartial international actors who would depict the real humanitarian situation there.
Although the European Commission (EC) some days back announced an emergency aid of 2 million euros ($2.5 million) for the victims of the conflict in Jammu and Kashmir, it was not a special initiative in response to the current situation. The EU’s low scale humanitarian aid for Kashmir has been pouring in for some eight years now, addressing the longer term impacts of the conflict.
The UN Resolution 46/182 which serves as the basis of the OCHA mandate is clear that the “responsibility for people affected by emergency lies – first and foremost - with their respective states”. But it also says that the “states in need are expected to facilitate the work of responding organizations.” Given the UN’s recognition of Kashmir as a disputed territory, the definition of the governing ‘State’ cannot be normal in meaning and scope.
There are people who argue that since there is no UN OCHA office in India, its ambit of work cannot be extended to Kashmir. That is not a convincing argument. UN OCHA has directly and indirectly responded to many emergency situations in India. One example is the Gujarat earthquake.
Then there is a full-fledged UN OCHA office in Pakistan, whose area of work includes Pakistan Administered Kashmir (PAK). UN OCHA has played, and continues to play, a key role in the coordination of the government and the international emergency response efforts in PAK.
The UN OCHA has a strong presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) as well. Humanitarian actors, donors, and diplomatic missions alike rely on OCHA for its wide range of information and analytical products in the OPT. These include bridging the gaps in humanitarian needs, weekly and monthly humanitarian updates, briefings and field tours. One of its key functions is the regular reporting on the overall humanitarian situation, and routine monitoring, reporting on, advocating for, and facilitating humanitarian access in the OPT.
Looking at the dire humanitarian situation in Kashmir today, especially the highly inadequate infrastructure to treat the casualties, UN OCHA has a strong case in Kashmir. Its case is also strong for the fact that people are dying for lack of timely medical aid and treatment. The death of two women last week just because their travel to hospital was hindered by troopers serves as a grim reminder. There must be many more instances which go unreported.
The policy of widespread detainment of civilians, including children, on frivolous charges is also a matter of serious concern. These state actions raise serious questions related to juvenile justice. The detainment of prominent human rights defender and President of Kashmir High Court Bar Association, Mian Qayoom, on highly questionable charges, is a grave matter too.
All these matters where the rule of law has hit a low of unacceptable limits in international law deserve international attention. And UN-OCHA could just be apt to do that.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Myth of Jammu & Kashmir's Financial Dependence
Arjimand Hussain Talib
Yaoundé (Cameroon), July 19: It is an old story now that 60 percent of Jammu & Kashmir state’s expenditure now comes from central ‘grants.’ Within India, and even abroad, this theory is widely circulated and believed.
Media in India is again posing questions today: ‘how come a state which gets such generous grants from New Delhi remains so discontent and rebels so often?’ These questions reverberate every now and then. But there are many facts which remain unknown. Facts, which are plain facts.
A latest Reserve Bank of India (RBI) study “State Finances: A Study of Budgets of 2009-10” reveals some parts of those facts. It sheds some interesting light on the state’s administrative expenditure and lower social spending. It also gives some comparisons with other states, sharpening our understanding of the ‘dependency syndrome.’
According to the document, J&K received Rs 13,252 crore as grants from the Centre in 2009-10. In comparison, the eight conflict-ridden northeastern states received grants and loans worth Rs 29,084 crore from the Centre in 2009-10, which, as per the report, was 44% of their combined total expenditure. And what does that mean?
It may mean that these states generate more internal revenues and that is why these grants constitute only 44 % of their expenditure. But if that is so, why do these states need such grants in the first place?
The RBI document sheds important light on the pattern of public spending in J&K. It says the government spending on the social sector in the state — education, healthcare, rural development, social welfare, etc — is a mere 30% of the total expenditure. And this kind of social spending has remained stagnant in J&K since 1980.
These percentages mean J&K has the fourth lowest proportion of social spending among all states in India. The all-state average of social spending is 40% in India. And then there are states like Chhattisgarh which spends 54% on social sector, Maharashtra spends 50% and Rajasthan 46%.
According to J&K’s 2010-11 budget document; power, interest payments, security expenditure and ‘other expenditure’ consumes 30 per cent of the state’s budget. The rest about 40 per cent goes into salaries and pension.
Out of this, power, some interest payments and security expenditure are not due to the state’s fault.
Let us take power, for example. Central-government owned National Hydro Power Corporation (NHPC) produces 1560 MW of power from J&K.
NHPC’s generation cost per unit of power in J&K is an average 0.30 paisa, but the state is charged a much higher tariff. Our power deficit and the drain on the budget are primarily for this reason.
Then is the question of the state’s energy deficiency. According to the Draft J&K State Hydel Policy, 2010, at present J&K’s unrestricted demand for power is 2120 MW, while suppressed demand is 1450 MW with scheduled curtailment. That means there is a deficit of about 500 MW even vis-a-vis restricted demand. Can industries really thrive?
The per capita power consumption in J&K makes interesting analysis as well. According to the J&K State Hydel Policy, 2010, J&K’s per capita power consumption is 750 units, compared to 872 units in Himachal Pradesh, 706 units in Uttarakhand, 1506 units in Punjab and 1208 units in Haryana. These are the main states where J&K’s power goes.
Then the political question. Despite repeated demands from the state and the Rangarajan Committee’s recommendation of handing over of some of the power houses back to the state, New Delhi has chosen to look the other way. This is despite the fact that the NHPC-run projects in the state have earned huge profits since commissioning.
J&K’s State Hydel Policy, 2010 proposes a hydel project in private-public partnership to remain out of state hands only for 35 years. That does not apply to the NHPC because New Delhi wishes that so.
Interestingly, NHPC reported a 94 per cent jump in consolidated net profit at Rs 2,090.50 crore for the financial year 2009-10. A bulk of its profits comes from J&K. Its Chairman and Managing Director, S.K. Garg was quoted in the Business Line in May saying that the hydro power firm was looking to invest its surplus funds in the mutual funds market!
The RBI report also sheds interesting light about the high administrative expenditure - 12% of all expenditure - in J&K. The report says that there are states with similar harsh terrains, like Himachal Pradesh and Sikkim, which spend only about 6% on administration.
Then let us take the issue of the annual per capita spending. The RBI document says that J&K’s annual per capita spending by the government was about Rs 20 lakh in 2009-10. In other ‘economically backward’ and conflict-ridden states like Sikkim, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh, the per capita spending is much higher - Rs 59 lakh, Rs 35 lakh and Rs 38 lakh respectively for the same period.
Then there are other ‘economically-backward’ states like Meghalaya, Manipur and Nagaland where government per capita spending ranges between Rs 18 to 21 lakh per annum.
Jammu & Kashmir’s annual imports are to the tune of around Rs 25000 crore. There is hardly any official mechanism to calculate the inbuilt taxes that J&K’s citizens pay on those imports, which go directly to government of India’s tax kitty. If an average of 12 percent of such taxes is calculated, J&K state pays Rs 3000 crore in terms of in-built taxes, which are never reflected in any system.
Jammu and Kashmir’s record in internal tax collection is not bad either. It retains its top position in terms of Value Added Tax (VAT) collection in whole of India. The government has already revealed that the Commercial Taxes Department collected record revenue of Rs 1721.59 crore by the end of February 2009 as compared to Rs 1623.87 crore during the same period in 2008.
However, there is a flaw in some direct taxes analysis. Many direct taxes, like the income tax, are not reflected in the state’s finances just because they are directly booked by non local companies outside the state. They get never reflected in the state.
Add to all this the misery of J&K’s tourism sector. Despite a show piece airport at Srinagar labeled as an ‘international airport’, the government of India is yet to find the political will to make it so. And it still looks for the clues for the unrest in Kashmir’s streets.
Yaoundé (Cameroon), July 19: It is an old story now that 60 percent of Jammu & Kashmir state’s expenditure now comes from central ‘grants.’ Within India, and even abroad, this theory is widely circulated and believed.
Media in India is again posing questions today: ‘how come a state which gets such generous grants from New Delhi remains so discontent and rebels so often?’ These questions reverberate every now and then. But there are many facts which remain unknown. Facts, which are plain facts.
A latest Reserve Bank of India (RBI) study “State Finances: A Study of Budgets of 2009-10” reveals some parts of those facts. It sheds some interesting light on the state’s administrative expenditure and lower social spending. It also gives some comparisons with other states, sharpening our understanding of the ‘dependency syndrome.’
According to the document, J&K received Rs 13,252 crore as grants from the Centre in 2009-10. In comparison, the eight conflict-ridden northeastern states received grants and loans worth Rs 29,084 crore from the Centre in 2009-10, which, as per the report, was 44% of their combined total expenditure. And what does that mean?
It may mean that these states generate more internal revenues and that is why these grants constitute only 44 % of their expenditure. But if that is so, why do these states need such grants in the first place?
The RBI document sheds important light on the pattern of public spending in J&K. It says the government spending on the social sector in the state — education, healthcare, rural development, social welfare, etc — is a mere 30% of the total expenditure. And this kind of social spending has remained stagnant in J&K since 1980.
These percentages mean J&K has the fourth lowest proportion of social spending among all states in India. The all-state average of social spending is 40% in India. And then there are states like Chhattisgarh which spends 54% on social sector, Maharashtra spends 50% and Rajasthan 46%.
According to J&K’s 2010-11 budget document; power, interest payments, security expenditure and ‘other expenditure’ consumes 30 per cent of the state’s budget. The rest about 40 per cent goes into salaries and pension.
Out of this, power, some interest payments and security expenditure are not due to the state’s fault.
Let us take power, for example. Central-government owned National Hydro Power Corporation (NHPC) produces 1560 MW of power from J&K.
NHPC’s generation cost per unit of power in J&K is an average 0.30 paisa, but the state is charged a much higher tariff. Our power deficit and the drain on the budget are primarily for this reason.
Then is the question of the state’s energy deficiency. According to the Draft J&K State Hydel Policy, 2010, at present J&K’s unrestricted demand for power is 2120 MW, while suppressed demand is 1450 MW with scheduled curtailment. That means there is a deficit of about 500 MW even vis-a-vis restricted demand. Can industries really thrive?
The per capita power consumption in J&K makes interesting analysis as well. According to the J&K State Hydel Policy, 2010, J&K’s per capita power consumption is 750 units, compared to 872 units in Himachal Pradesh, 706 units in Uttarakhand, 1506 units in Punjab and 1208 units in Haryana. These are the main states where J&K’s power goes.
Then the political question. Despite repeated demands from the state and the Rangarajan Committee’s recommendation of handing over of some of the power houses back to the state, New Delhi has chosen to look the other way. This is despite the fact that the NHPC-run projects in the state have earned huge profits since commissioning.
J&K’s State Hydel Policy, 2010 proposes a hydel project in private-public partnership to remain out of state hands only for 35 years. That does not apply to the NHPC because New Delhi wishes that so.
Interestingly, NHPC reported a 94 per cent jump in consolidated net profit at Rs 2,090.50 crore for the financial year 2009-10. A bulk of its profits comes from J&K. Its Chairman and Managing Director, S.K. Garg was quoted in the Business Line in May saying that the hydro power firm was looking to invest its surplus funds in the mutual funds market!
The RBI report also sheds interesting light about the high administrative expenditure - 12% of all expenditure - in J&K. The report says that there are states with similar harsh terrains, like Himachal Pradesh and Sikkim, which spend only about 6% on administration.
Then let us take the issue of the annual per capita spending. The RBI document says that J&K’s annual per capita spending by the government was about Rs 20 lakh in 2009-10. In other ‘economically backward’ and conflict-ridden states like Sikkim, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh, the per capita spending is much higher - Rs 59 lakh, Rs 35 lakh and Rs 38 lakh respectively for the same period.
Then there are other ‘economically-backward’ states like Meghalaya, Manipur and Nagaland where government per capita spending ranges between Rs 18 to 21 lakh per annum.
Jammu & Kashmir’s annual imports are to the tune of around Rs 25000 crore. There is hardly any official mechanism to calculate the inbuilt taxes that J&K’s citizens pay on those imports, which go directly to government of India’s tax kitty. If an average of 12 percent of such taxes is calculated, J&K state pays Rs 3000 crore in terms of in-built taxes, which are never reflected in any system.
Jammu and Kashmir’s record in internal tax collection is not bad either. It retains its top position in terms of Value Added Tax (VAT) collection in whole of India. The government has already revealed that the Commercial Taxes Department collected record revenue of Rs 1721.59 crore by the end of February 2009 as compared to Rs 1623.87 crore during the same period in 2008.
However, there is a flaw in some direct taxes analysis. Many direct taxes, like the income tax, are not reflected in the state’s finances just because they are directly booked by non local companies outside the state. They get never reflected in the state.
Add to all this the misery of J&K’s tourism sector. Despite a show piece airport at Srinagar labeled as an ‘international airport’, the government of India is yet to find the political will to make it so. And it still looks for the clues for the unrest in Kashmir’s streets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)