Central financial bailout for ailing projects

A State mired in fiscal inelasticity in the form of poor financial management and deficiency of political and administrative will to augment revenue sources, like Jammu and Kashmir, cannot obviously afford developmental projects to have a smooth sailing. Such projects though started with initial fanfare and pageantry,are either left halfway, kept incomplete or are indefinitely postponed, if not finally abandoned. The scenario depicts a sort of haplessness by the  agencies as any restarting  measures  of long pending projects involve heavy cost escalation and more time in  redrafting plans,  revising project reports , floating tenders and  completing other requisite formalities. Restarting the work on projects is directly related to the reviving measures with assured financial flow, commensurate with the stages of work completion. In short, reviving defunct projects is tantamount to pulling a blinder.
Taking  stock of and appraising the present status with regard to  various developmental projects pending for years together for want of financial support and funds flow, Governor has asked the State Planning, Development and Monitoring Department to prepare a comprehensive list of all such incomplete developmental projects. He also directed for an assessment of the total funds required including the cost overrun so as to have such shut projects completed in all respects within the next two years.
After drawing up a reliable assessment of the financial requirements of the pending projects, the State Administration is scheduled to approach Union Government for a request of “one time” sanction of a special grant of funds. In other words, the Central Government had to bail out the State in meeting the cost (now escalated) plus overhead and ancillary costs of the dormant and defunct projects. The moot question is as to how the request for granting funds could be called as “one time” request and on what cogent basis could it be deduced that such requisitioning shall not be forthcoming from the State again in future. It is primarily because there cannot be a stage in the ever continuous process of economic development where no more of projects could be decided based on infrastructural needs. If more of projects have to be there which cannot be denied, how come the Centre could not be approached for more bailouts?  It could be said only under prospects of enhancing of receivables and revenues and making a paradigm shift in fiscal management.
It, therefore, is paramount that the State, as a long term measure, adopt a holistic approach of less dependence on Centre and more relying on indigenous resources for which widening the tax range and revising the existing one was of very critical nature. It had to ensure that all the three regions of the State collected taxes and revenues with equitable regularity and with fewer arrears.  Besides, rewards and punishments for better performance by the State apparatus was more important which we, from time, have been stressing upon and towards which Governor NN Vohra also has referred to by asking the Chief Secretary for instituting annual awards to recognize and reward engineers, construction companies, contractors, and others actively engaged in projects building whose performance was found commendable. He felt concerned after visiting many districts in all the three regions having number of old projects which had not been completed due to resources constraints.