Government rebuts parties’ campaign on strategic areas

Tribune News Service

Jammu, July 19

In a stinging response to a “misinformation” campaign launched by some political groups against the new rules regarding “strategic areas” to meet the armed forces’ requirement for land for operational and training purposes in the militancy-hit Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), the government on Sunday said the campaign was misleading.

The special dispensation amendment, approved by the Administrative Council on July 17, envisaged regulating construction in “strategic areas” required by the armed forces for “their direct operational and training requirements”, but it set off a fast and furious campaign by some political parties, terming it as “a move to transfer the land to the armed forces”.

The government came heavily on such groups and explained in detail the purpose of the new dispensation of strategic areas in J&K where the armed forces were deployed to defend the frontiers and also to counter insurgency. It said the misleading campaign had been launched, and irrational interpretations have been opened by the political groups to mislead people.

It said the decision had nothing to do with the transfer of any land to the armed forces, and added that the “transfer, both acquisition or requisitions, continues to be governed by the existing law and the norms on the subject”.

“There is no decision to either transfer any new land or declare areas outside cantonments or Army land as strategic. In fact, it is the stated policy of the government to regulate and harmonise the requirement of the land by the armed forces to meet the competing demands of development and internal security.”

“During past some years, the defence forces have brought to the notice of the government that multiple issues keep commonly coming up in their infrastructure development activities which are not only cumbersome and time-consuming, but at times go against strategic interests.”

It said “keeping in view the strategic importance of constructing such infrastructure within a defined timeframe, it had been felt that a special mechanism needed to be put in place for such strategic infrastructure needs. It also assured that “adequate safeguards had been kept to ensure that the provisions were not misused”.

“Only an Army Authority, not below the level of a Corps Commander, could make a request to the government for earmarking such an area as strategic only for direct operational and training requirements of the armed forces,” the government stated.