Land-to-landless: NC, PDP seek clarification on beneficiaries list

Srinagar, Aug 25: The Jammu and Kashmir Conference on Friday sought clarity over the eligible beneficiaries of the administration’s land-to-landless scheme, calling for greater transparency from the administration regarding the scheme’s intentions and implications.
In a statement issued here, the party’s chief spokesperson Tanvir Sadiq said, “We aren’t against the decision of granting land to landless, our party has been a forerunner in elevating the plight of landless and deprived sections. However such decisions should have been left to an elected government. The makeshift administration that is currently ruling J&K should confine themselves to day-to-day issues and not take decisions that have far-reaching consequences. Everywhere such decisions are usually taken by an elected government.”
He added, “The most important question that the people are asking is whether these beneficiaries were domiciles before August 2019 or after that. If it’s the latter, then it raises a question on the entire process.”
Jammu & Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party (JKPDP) chief spokesperson Syed Suhail Bukhari, in a statement expressed concern over the purported land-to-landless scheme and called for greater transparency from the government regarding the scheme’s intentions and implications.
Bukhari emphasised the need for clarity surrounding the developments related to the land-to-landless scheme. He underscored that with each passing day and new developments surrounding the policy, there emerges a sense that the government is withholding crucial information, thereby raising suspicions among the public about the true intentions behind the scheme.
The JKPDP chief spokesperson drew attention to the eligibility criteria outlined in the policy, which includes domiciles as beneficiaries. He highlighted a pivotal question that requires addressing: the identity of these domiciles. “The party had information suggesting that domicile certificates had been granted to numerous non-state subjects. This prompted the question of whether these newly recognised domiciles are authentic state subjects or non-locals who have been granted domicile status,” he said.
He asserted the importance of transparency on the part of the government and stressed the necessity of making the relevant data public, particularly the number of non-state subjects who have been granted domicile status.
Bukhari urged the government to “reveal the true demographic impact” of the policy, particularly in terms of the inclusion of non-locals as domiciles.