From Batta to Rice Therapy – CM Omar Abdullah’s Budget Chooses Handouts Model Over Investment-Driven Growth
Batta is the Kashmiri word for cooked rice – a staple in all Kashmiri households. We Kashmiris love rice, and CM Omar Abdullah has given us the rice therapy model for the economic vision of Jammu and Kashmir. I don’t think that is what our region needs.
For those not from an economics background, Rice Therapy model is used to describe a planning paradigm that emphasizes aid, subsidies, or short-term relief measures that create dependency. This kind of model contrasts with strategies that emphasize self-sufficiency, investment in productive sectors, entrepreneurship, and sustainable economic growth.
Why The Rice Therapy Model Is Wrong For Kashmir
Globally, the experience is that regions that follow a Rice Therapy model may struggle with innovation, industrialization, and competitiveness because their economic structure is focused on receiving aid rather than developing internal capabilities.
This is what the economic roadmap for J&K looks like. Overtly, the fiscal measures outlined in the budget appear to craft an inclusive economic strategy. But a meticulous examination exposes a policy framework that erodes economic self-sufficiency in favour of transient populist appeasement.
A close examination of the budget reveals it as a handout-driven system where external assistance has been regarded as a structural part of the economy, leading to over-reliance on external support rather than internal economic development.
In my interactions with young Kashmiri scholars, I have noted that many of them believe that our region stands at an inflection point, a critical juncture where pragmatic economic policymaking should dictate fiscal decisions. From their perspective, the budget seems to be a wasted opportunity. It appears to be restricted to an anachronistic welfare model that modern economies have long jettisoned. The budget disappoints those who were hoping for an investment-driven paradigms that prioritize innovation, industrialization, and productivity enhancement.
The government should have positioned the region for robust economic expansion. Instead, we now have a policy framework that neglects the empirical lessons of successful economies. It seems to prioritize short-term political considerations over the long-term imperatives of Jammu and Kashmir’s sustainable development and structural resilience.
Misalignment of Budgetary Allocations
A granular analysis of the budgetary allocations reveals a glaring discrepancy between fiscal priorities and the fundamental governance needs requisite for sustainable economic expansion. The excessive focus on welfare schemes, particularly for Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) beneficiaries and other reserved groups, reflects a misunderstanding of fiscal responsibility and economic optimization.
Take, for example, the government’s decision to offer free electricity up to 200 units exclusively for AAY households and free transport for women. The investment-driven paradigms of successful economies teach that this decision may be regarded as social justice but is economically indefensible.
While global economies are leveraging technological advancements, digital innovation, and skill-based industrialization to drive self-sufficiency, Jammu and Kashmir remains shackled to an outdated economic orthodoxy that rewards passivity over productivity
Statistically, AAY beneficiaries constitute a mere fraction of the population—less than ten percent. Then why does the government persist in expending disproportionately vast fiscal resources on a limited demographic segment while largely ignoring the broader, productivity-oriented economic imperatives of the remaining ninety percent?
This selective redistribution of resources lacks robust economic justification. Does it mean that the J&K government is governed more by political calculus than by the principles of empirical economic policymaking? This seems to be a malaise with politicians not just in India but worldwide. But at this critical juncture, this is not what Jammu and Kashmir needed.
Regressive Policy Paradigm
Jammu and Kashmir does not need a blueprint that institutionalizes a dependency-driven economic framework. We need investment that seeks self-reliance and sustainable growth. Across the global economic spectrum, forward-thinking nations have transitioned toward models predicated on investment in human capital, technological innovation, and industrial diversification.
A careful analysis of the budget reveals that the policymakers in Jammu and Kashmir seem tethered to an obsolete handout-centric approach that has been largely discredited even in traditional socialist economies. A historical perspective elucidates this folly. Economies that have entrenched dependency on state handouts have historically stagnated, while those that have pivoted toward investment-driven models have witnessed exponential growth.
The irony is inescapable. While the global economic landscape shifts towards fostering entrepreneurship, technological innovation, and skill development, this budget steadfastly anchors Jammu and Kashmir in a model of economic inertia that its historical proponents have long since abandoned. Even Scandinavian welfare economies – often cited as paragons of social justice – have embraced market-oriented reforms that prioritize workforce participation, human capital development, and entrepreneurial incentives.
Political Expediency over Economic Rationality
The budget speech of Chief Minister Omar Abdullah was carefully analyzed by the opposition ranks. It also failed to assuage the concerns of serious economic observers.
Critics pointed to the dissonance between the government’s rhetoric and its actual fiscal allocations. The administration’s economic narrative seems to be rife with contradictions. It is disingenuous for a government that previously dismissed statistical data as unreliable to now invoke selectively curated figures as definitive proof of its economic vision.
This selective appropriation of economic indicators is not merely inconsistent. It constitutes a deliberate exercise in political expediency, raising profound concerns regarding governance credibility and transparency. Economic policymaking necessitates a commitment to empirical rigour, intellectual honesty, and methodological consistency. However, this budget exemplifies an opportunistic cherry-picking of statistics, designed to perpetuate a narrative of economic competence rather than present a substantive blueprint for fiscal stability and growth.
The reliance on manipulated economic indicators further erodes confidence in the administration’s capacity for sound governance, reinforcing concerns that economic management is being subordinated to short-term electoral considerations.
Long-Term Fiscal Risks
The fiscal framework embedded in the budget raises significant concerns regarding long-term financial sustainability. With an estimated expenditure of ₹1.12 lakh crore and a fiscal deficit nearing 3%, the budget seems to evince disregard for the principles of prudent economic management. Fiscal discipline is an essential prerequisite for economic stability. Yet this budget channels disproportionate resources into narrowly targeted welfare schemes while neglecting the foundational pillars of economic growth: infrastructure, education, and industrialization.
Empirical evidence underscores that genuine economic expansion is not catalyzed by arbitrary subsidies. It is catalyzed by strategic investment in productivity-enhancing sectors. The absence of substantive provisions to stimulate private enterprise, generate employment, or cultivate an innovation-driven economy is conspicuous. The welfare-centric expenditure model, devoid of structural economic planning, represents an unsustainable approach. This is akin to feeding a man for a day while systematically eroding his capacity to provide for himself in the long term.
A visual analysis of the budget allocation highlights the inherent inefficacy of its financial structuring. A disproportionate share of resources is allocated to welfare schemes, leaving key economic sectors critically underfunded. The ramifications of this misallocation extend beyond fiscal inefficiencies. It actively subverts the region’s long-term economic trajectory, perpetuating dependency while stifling the development of a self-sufficient and competitive economic ecosystem.
Electoral Maneuvering Over Macroeconomic Stability
Beyond its economic shortcomings, this budget epitomizes a governance philosophy that prioritizes electoral maneuvering over macroeconomic stability. Public finance, when wielded judiciously, serves as a catalyst for inclusive growth, fostering broad-based economic empowerment.
However, the fiscal trajectory delineated in this budget treats governance as a zero-sum game—where benefits extended to one segment of society necessitate the systematic neglect of another. This is neither a sound economic strategy nor justifiable public administration. One may argue that this constitutes a dereliction of fiduciary responsibility and a blatant disregard for the principles of equitable development.
From a scholarly perspective, the most damning indictment of this budget is its complete absence of a forward-looking economic vision. There is no coherent roadmap for industrialization, no significant investment in employment-generation initiatives, and no meaningful commitment to cultivating a competitive economic landscape.
Instead, what emerges is a fiscal framework entrenched in the archaic doctrines of welfare dependency. This is an approach that not only lacks innovation but actively impedes long-term economic progress. The lessons of economic history are unequivocal. Nations and regions that have entrenched perpetual welfare models have invariably stagnated. Those that have prioritized human capital development, technological innovation, and entrepreneurial expansion have flourished. Sadly, the Omar government appears determined to disregard these empirical lessons, opting instead to replicate the failed economic paradigms of the past.
Economic Stagnation
If the primary objective of this budget was to perpetuate a dependency-driven economic model, it has succeeded with remarkable precision. However, if the intended goal was to set Jammu and Kashmir on a trajectory toward sustainable development, inclusive prosperity, and economic resilience, then it seems set for failure.
The stark irony of this fiscal blueprint is difficult to ignore. While global economies are leveraging technological advancements, digital innovation, and skill-based industrialization to drive self-sufficiency, Jammu and Kashmir remains shackled to an outdated economic orthodoxy that rewards passivity over productivity.
Ultimately, this budget is not a roadmap for economic resurgence. Rather, it comes across as a calculated exercise in political patronage disguised as fiscal policy. It is more than a mere economic miscalculation. The Omar government should focus on the region’s economic potential and plan investment accordingly. A short-sighted blueprint risks condemning future generations to economic stagnation.
When the inevitable economic reckoning arrives, it will not be the privileged few who shall bear the brunt of this misguided policy framework. If investment-driven paradigms are not prioritized, the entirety of Jammu and Kashmir will suffer the long-term consequences of this wasted opportunity for growth.
………………………
Dr. Toseef Ahmad Bhat is a Former Research Fellow at the Institute of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies, a premier research institute at New Delhi. He is Adhoc Assistant Professor with JK Higher Education, and a Research Fellow at the University of Kashmir, South Campus.
Got a fresh perspective? C-KAR invites original articles and opinion pieces that haven’t been published elsewhere. Send your submissions to deputydirector@c-kar.com