Comments by "Rutvik" (@rutvikrs) on "ThePrint"
channel.
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
 @Ahmad-mf7yu some clarifications are in order:
1. My contention isn't primarily against Kashmir or Kashmiris, it is against the national narrative of the benefits of social spending. I hold similar views on my neighbouring states KL and TN, my own states insane policy of free bus rides for women, AAP's free electricity, BJP and Congress freebies and UP's free cycles/laptops. In a democracy, this is how conversation happens with states/identities becoming markers for policy/direction. Gujarat model/Kerala model, "South feeds, North breeds", Hillbilly middle America, Southern Italian Mafiosi politics, Finlandisation, Chinese Debt diplomacy, EU's Eurocentricism, Argentinian financial mismanagement, need any more examples?
2. Does the 10% expenditure include the defence budget? I am open to being corrected but I have not received a qualitative or quantitative argument. A defence expenditure barring infrastructure is state/region agnostic. There is no special division or equipment that is specific to the state or has a separate defence budgetary allocation. Therefore the expenditure is under the central list, it won't count in state allocation. If the army did build bunkers primarily with that money and let's charitably say that it took up 75%, it still means Kashmir got 2.5% of the budget for 1% population. (Btw, the last set of assumptions are overstated because check the erstwhile JKVAT/ today's GST collection and compare the special allocation history.).
3. Even assuming the charitable 2.5% spent on the 1% premise, look around and visualise the intensity of economic activity in the state. How many profitable industries are present, what is the turnover of the median business or even outliers, did you see the hustle of a Mumbai/Bengaluru/Chennai or even the Kerala style mega gold trade/private individual land deals(Crore plus deals in the 90's). The answer is no.
4. Much like the rest of India, the average state citizen overestimates the economic volume of the state. This is true for the "earning states" too. Kashmiri politicians much like the regional satrapy of the rest of India spent the money pulling people out of poverty and designed policies to have shadow businesses and offshore accounts. No state in India is swimming in money, but some get more than others and Kashmir has historically ranked very high on an absolute and per capita basis. Easy money has always led to progressive politics. Even Sikkim was the same, they currently have a demographic problem due to high rates of female empowerment.
5. I want financial infusion into Kashmir and other border states, but my only issue is the principle of reciprocation, will those states give back to South and West Indian states if and when there is a revenue downturn? Are they willing to accept periods of financial self reliance? I fear not in the case of Kashmir and certain NE states, their politics seem to operate in a premise of a conditional union with India for financial gain. If there is a change like we saw with Assam and Sikkim, there was no need for this wall of text.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7