The uproar in the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly over the Special Assistance to States for Capital Investment (SASCI) scheme reveals a troubling level of policy illiteracy among some of our elected representatives. On February 9, 2026, PDP MLA Waheed Ur Rehman Para described SASCI as a “death trap,” comparing it to an IMF bailout or a private corporate loan that would mortgage the Union Territory to big industrialists. He demanded a House Committee probe and urged Chief Minister Omar Abdullah to reject the facility, claiming it would enslave future generations, while pointing out that 23 other states have already accepted it without similar alarm.
This outburst stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what SASCI actually is. Launched by the Union Finance Ministry in 2020-21 and refined in later years, SASCI provides states and Union Territories with 50-year interest-free loans strictly for capital expenditure—building roads, bridges, tourism infrastructure, water supply systems, and other productive assets. It is not market borrowing, not NABARD funding, and certainly not a conditional loan from international lenders or private companies. The scheme requires no collateral beyond the state’s commitment to repay principal over five decades, with zero interest burden. Its sole purpose is to accelerate infrastructure creation and economic recovery, especially after the pandemic.
In 2024-25 alone, the Centre sanctioned 40 tourism-focused projects across 23 states worth ₹3,295.76 crore under the tourism-specific SASCI window. Examples include Andhra Pradesh’s Gandikota fort enhancement (₹77.91 crore), Uttarakhand’s Rishikesh rafting base station (₹100 crore), Kerala’s Ashtamudi eco-hub (₹59.71 crore), and Madhya Pradesh’s Orchha medieval precinct development (₹99.92 crore). These are state-implemented, centrally funded projects evaluated on sustainability, connectivity, and tourism potential, with a strict two-year completion timeline.
For Jammu and Kashmir, inclusion in SASCI for 2025-26 is a significant opportunity. The UT has been allocated ₹1,431 crore initially under the scheme, of which ₹944 crore has already been released as the first instalment. This funding supports 222 capital works across 27 departments—162 ongoing and 60 new—with ₹758 crore already spent. Additional tranches depend on progress and integration with systems like SNA SPARSH for Centrally Sponsored Schemes. Union Home Minister Amit Shah has publicly described these funds as enabling dairy development, disaster-resilient infrastructure, and tourism assets—hardly the profile of a predatory loan.
Contrast this with J&K’s grim fiscal picture. Outstanding debt stands at 51% of GSDP (end-2023-24), fiscal deficit is projected at 5.6% for 2025-26 (₹16,107 crore), and committed expenditure on salaries, pensions, and interest consumes roughly 60% of the ₹1.13 lakh crore 2026-27 budget. Own tax and non-tax revenue covers only about 25%, with heavy dependence on central transfers (₹42,752 crore) and CSS inflows (₹13,400 crore). GSDP is expected to grow 9.5% to ₹3.15 lakh crore in 2026-27, but without interest-free capital infusions like SASCI, the UT would have to rely on costlier market borrowings at 7-8% interest, pushing debt even higher.
When MLAs reject such concessional funding—already utilised successfully by Gujarat, Rajasthan, Kerala, and others—they are not protecting the people; they are blocking the very investments needed for job creation, tourism revival, and long-term growth. Calling for rejection of SASCI while the UT drowns in high-interest debt and limited own resources is not fiscal prudence; it is fiscal myopia.
Our legislators must move beyond theatrical rhetoric and acquire basic understanding of central schemes. Without it, the Assembly risks remaining a platform for soundbites rather than solutions. Jammu and Kashmir cannot afford such ignorance when every rupee of interest-free capital can mean the difference between stagnation and progress.
