MPLADS – J&K MP Faces Backlash Over Uttar Pradesh Spending
MPLADS – Jammu and Kashmir has witnessed a political row after a Rajya Sabha member from the Union Territory directed most of his MPLADS allocation to projects outside his home region.
A storm of criticism has erupted around BJP Rajya Sabha member Ghulam Ali Khatana after data showed that a substantial portion of his Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme funds was spent in Uttar Pradesh rather than in Jammu and Kashmir.
Majority of Funds Directed Outside Home Region
Khatana, a senior Bharatiya Janata Party leader and a prominent Gujjar representative from Jammu and Kashmir, was nominated to the Rajya Sabha in September 2022. Since then, he has recommended projects amounting to ₹14.7 crore under the MPLADS programme.
Under the scheme, each Member of Parliament can propose development works worth up to ₹5 crore per year. The objective is to create durable community assets such as roads, drinking water facilities, school infrastructure and other public utilities. While district authorities execute and release the funds, the selection of districts and specific works lies with the MP.
Official figures indicate that out of 176 sanctioned projects, 144 were carried out in Uttar Pradesh. These projects accounted for ₹10.58 crore, representing nearly 94 percent of the total funds allocated so far. In comparison, only 32 works were undertaken in Jammu and Kashmir, amounting to approximately ₹94 lakh.
The allocation pattern has raised questions within political circles in the Union Territory.
Political Parties Question Allocation Pattern
Leaders from the National Conference and the People’s Democratic Party have strongly criticised the spending distribution. They argue that an MP nominated from Jammu and Kashmir should prioritise development initiatives within the region.
Tanvir Sadiq, spokesperson of the National Conference, publicly questioned the rationale behind the allocation, stating that the figures reflect a troubling imbalance. He suggested that the situation raises concerns about whether the region is receiving adequate representation in Parliament when such a large share of development funds is being utilised elsewhere.
Similarly, Aditya Gupta, youth president of the People’s Democratic Party, described the spending pattern as disappointing for residents of Jammu and Kashmir. He alleged that the overwhelming allocation to Uttar Pradesh undermines the expectations of people who look to their parliamentary representatives for local development support.
Both parties have framed the issue as one of regional equity, arguing that public resources earmarked under MPLADS should primarily benefit the communities an MP is associated with or represents.
How the MPLADS Scheme Operates
The Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme was introduced to allow legislators to recommend small but essential infrastructure projects in their constituencies or chosen districts. The funds are not handled directly by MPs; instead, they are routed to district administrations responsible for execution and monitoring.
Importantly, the guidelines permit MPs, including those in the Rajya Sabha, to recommend works in one or more districts of their choice. This provision allows flexibility but has also, at times, led to debates over geographical priorities.
In the current case, the scale of allocation to a single state outside the MP’s home region has intensified scrutiny.
Broader Debate on Representation and Accountability
The controversy has added to an ongoing discussion in Jammu and Kashmir about representation in national institutions and the distribution of development resources. Critics argue that elected and nominated representatives must ensure that public funds reflect local aspirations and needs.
There has been no detailed public response yet from Khatana addressing the criticism. However, party insiders indicate that the allocations were made within the framework of existing MPLADS guidelines.
As the debate continues, the issue has become a focal point in regional political discourse, highlighting the delicate balance between statutory provisions and public expectations. Observers note that the controversy may prompt closer examination of how parliamentary development funds are recommended and whether clearer norms are needed to ensure equitable distribution.