TeaThe government’s plan to disband military encampments was set into motion on 27 April, when a notification ceased to exist as one of the Yol Cantonments of the Ministry of Defence, Himachal Pradesh. The decision meant that the identified civilian areas of these former cantonments would be merged with the adjacent civil municipalities/local bodies, while the armed forces would exclusively administer the remaining parts as military stations. The order was introduced as a reform to do away with an ‘archaic colonial practice’. According to media reports, the next in line is the Nasirabad cantonment of Rajasthan. This would be followed by bifurcation of the existing 62 cantonments across India, wherever possible.
Reality of Cantonment Change
The conversion of cantonments to military stations has been under discussion for decades, driven by the growth of civilian population in and around these cantonments. This demarcation includes the separation of the cantonment into military and civilian areas. However, this is easier said than done due to the mix of civilian and military elements such as population, infrastructure and civilian facilities. This is also a task that would require a termination agreement between the MoD and the municipal/local authorities.
For the state, this means a greater outflow of financial resources for the expansion of civic responsibilities. For the military, this should mean that the earlier practice of financial allocation to cantonment boards by the Ministry of Defense in the form of ‘grant-in-aid’ can now be devoted exclusively to military stations, which are characterized by low population and low civic amenities. have to be completed. ,
One of the benefits of this demonetisation is the savings in the army’s revenue budget, which will be freed from the payment of service charges – levied since 1956 – to the Cantonment Boards, now under the control of the Ministry of Defence. As per constitutional provisions, wealth tax cannot be levied on central government entities. However, the envisaged savings are unlikely as some states are already levying service charges on military stations, which are being paid to the municipal corporations. Other states can be expected to follow suit.
Another reason for the reorganization of cantonments is to facilitate access to central/state welfare schemes which were hitherto unavailable to the civilian population in cantonment areas. In practice, however, this would mean that the welfare pie would have to be divided among a large number of beneficiaries in the civilian sector. The financial position of most state governments is precarious, while most central schemes require a fixed percentage contribution by state governments. Limited benefits to welfare schemes can be expected at the cost of the environment provided by the cantonments through better governance. They were protected from predatory real estate sharks and corruption in local governance.
Read also:
Who will benefit?
Exploitation of civic sectors by real estate moguls can be expected to reap more benefits. In league with politicians and officials, these groups would benefit from increased population pressure on land. The case of Yole Cantonment is an example.
The Army has been pushing for de-notification of Yol Cantonment for more than a decade. There is a large stretch of private land inside the cantonment where senior military officers have built bungalows. It also includes a housing colony with about 80 houses. Now the situation is set to get worse, as inside the former cantonment, building restrictions will no longer apply and new building bye-laws will come into force. Land sharks will be in pursuit, and this is likely to be the case in most free-ranging cantonments.
Ideally, state governments should shape policies/regulations to ensure that the benefits of joining municipalities are accessible to the poor and lower middle-class sections as well. But this is unlikely to happen, as it happens in most In places (such as Yol), local politicians would collude with land sharks and certain sections of military officers to further their narrow vested interests.
Conversion can improve the quality of life at military stations while providing increased security due to the reduction of responsibilities associated with civilian populations. Significant parts of the existing infrastructure – in terms of army barracks, offices and housing – date from the pre-independence era and are in need of reconstruction and major repairs. This requirement has long been vexed by defense budget constraints as well as poor management.
The question now arises whether there is scope to monetize the transfer of land to municipalities and use those funds to improve the living conditions of military personnel. The military leadership should give priority to this aspect and avoid building structures that are non-utilitarian, such as massive ornamental gates at entry points. But whether the monetary benefits arising out of handing over the land will be used for the purposes of improving the quality of life of military personnel through the Defense Budget from the Consolidated Fund of India is a moot point.
Read also:
The success of the scheme rests on transparency
Thus far, the policy governing land properties taken over by central/state entities for infrastructure creation for any purpose required compensation to the MoD. The question that arises now is that, though the Defense Ministry may decide to de-notify the cantonments, will the state have the monetary means to compensate? If the state does not have the means to compensate, how can the cantonments be abolished? In Yol’s case, the de-notification order would have preceded long-drawn negotiations between the Himachal Pradesh government and the Defense Ministry. It is not yet known whether compensation is included and if so, how much will be paid. If nothing is being paid, has the Ministry of Defense developed any new policy for handing over defense land to state authorities? These are questions that will ultimately determine the distribution of potential benefits.
The success of the plan will depend on whether the Defense Ministry is able to negotiate a path of reform in an environment of transparency. The process will also depend on the budget constraints of the Ministry of Defense and the state government. If, for whatever reason, the policy is to allow conversion without compensation, military benefits will be mostly confined to the area of security. The main beneficiaries would then be the real estate lobby who would take advantage of the pervasive culture of corruption that is deeply embedded in property and land transactions.
It is also possible that converting some of the cantonments into military stations could result in a positive improvement. But as always, the devil lies in the details. A scarce resource like land in existing cantonments will attract the worst of real estate sharks who have acquired financial clout which can be used to bend rules and procedures. Only transparency in deals between the Ministry of Defence, the state and private parties can keep the forces of corruption in check.
Therefore, the Ministry of Defense should make public the details of the deal made in Yol. The information will indicate who will be the real beneficiaries of the conversion. Will it be the civilian population, military organizations, private real estate entities or all/some of them? Without transparency, the answer will be left in the air.
Lt. Gen. (Dr.) Prakash Menon (Retd.) is the Director of the Strategic Studies Program at the Takshashila Institute; Former Military Advisor, National Security Council Secretariat. He tweeted @prakashmenon51. Thoughts are personal.
(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)