94% of MPLAD Funds Spent Outside J&K: Why NC and PDP Say the Region Has Been Reduced to “Symbolic Representation”
By: Javid Amin | 15 February 2026
A deep dive into the MPLADS controversy involving a BJP Rajya Sabha MP, the politics of nomination, and the question of accountability in Jammu & Kashmir
When Development Funds Become a Political Fault Line
In Jammu & Kashmir, politics is rarely only about policy. It is about representation, dignity, and trust — especially in a region that has spent the last several years navigating life as a Union Territory without full statehood.
That is why revelations that a Rajya Sabha MP nominated from Jammu & Kashmir spent nearly 94% of his MPLADS funds outside the region have triggered an unusually sharp political backlash.
At the centre of the controversy is Ghulam Ali Khatana, whose MPLADS utilisation data shows that approximately ₹14.7 crore — almost his entire entitlement — was spent in Uttar Pradesh, not in the Union Territory he represents.
The fallout has been swift. The National Conference and the People’s Democratic Party have accused the BJP of turning J&K’s parliamentary representation into a symbolic exercise devoid of substance.
What Is MPLADS — and Why It Matters in J&K
The Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) allows MPs to recommend developmental works worth ₹5 crore annually, aimed at addressing local infrastructure and community needs.
Typical MPLADS projects include:
-
School buildings and classrooms
-
Roads, drains, and street lighting
-
Drinking water facilities
-
Community halls and health infrastructure
In regions like Jammu & Kashmir — where centralised decision-making has increased since 2019 — MPLADS assumes even greater significance. It often becomes one of the few discretionary development tools directly linked to parliamentary representation.
That is why the geographical utilisation of these funds is politically sensitive.
The Numbers That Sparked the Storm
According to utilisation records accessed by opposition parties and cited publicly:
-
Total MPLADS allocation utilised: ₹14.7 crore
-
Percentage spent in Uttar Pradesh: ~94%
-
Percentage spent in Jammu & Kashmir: Marginal
While MPLADS guidelines do allow MPs to recommend works outside their constituency in exceptional cases, the scale and consistency of spending outside J&K raised red flags.
Opposition leaders argue this was not an exception — but a pattern.
NC’s Charge: “What Is the Point of Nominating an MP From J&K?”
Reacting strongly, NC spokesperson Tanvir Sadiq questioned the very logic of nominating an MP from Jammu & Kashmir if development funds were not meant to reach the region.
“If 94% of MPLADS funds are spent outside J&K, then what purpose does such representation serve? Is J&K only meant to be symbolically present in Parliament?”
The NC’s critique goes beyond a single MP. It touches a deeper anxiety in the region:
Has representation been hollowed out since J&K lost statehood?
PDP’s Argument: From Representation to Marginalisation
The PDP echoed similar concerns but framed the issue as institutional neglect.
Party leaders said the MPLADS allocation pattern reflected:
-
A disregard for J&K’s developmental needs
-
A dilution of accountability
-
A misuse of a scheme intended for local empowerment
For the PDP, the controversy reinforces a long-standing claim: that post-2019 governance has prioritised optics over grassroots empowerment.
“When funds meant for J&K are spent elsewhere, it sends a clear message about priorities,” a senior PDP leader remarked.
The Question of Nominated MPs and Accountability
Unlike elected MPs, nominated Rajya Sabha members do not face electoral scrutiny. In Jammu & Kashmir, this reality carries additional weight.
Opposition parties argue that:
-
Nominated MPs must be extra sensitive to regional aspirations
-
Development funds are not personal discretion but public trust
-
Spending patterns should reflect the region they symbolically represent
The MPLADS controversy has thus reopened a wider debate:
Should nominated MPs be allowed to divert local development funds outside the region they represent — especially in conflict-sensitive areas like J&K?
BJP’s Silence and Strategic Calculus
Notably, the BJP has not issued a detailed public rebuttal explaining the rationale behind the fund allocation.
Political observers say this silence is strategic.
Defending the spending could:
-
Validate opposition accusations of neglect
-
Reignite debates around statehood and autonomy
-
Strengthen the narrative of “remote-controlled governance”
At the same time, any acknowledgment of misjudgment could expose the BJP to criticism at a moment when it is keen to project stability and development in J&K.
Ground Reaction: What People in J&K Are Saying
In Jammu
Civil society voices in Jammu expressed disappointment rather than anger.
A retired government engineer said:
“We are not asking for favours. MPLADS is meant for local development. Spending it elsewhere defeats the purpose.”
Several local activists pointed out that Jammu city and surrounding rural belts continue to face:
-
Infrastructure gaps
-
Drainage and flood-management issues
-
Overburdened public facilities
In Kashmir
In the Valley, the reaction was sharper.
Student groups and local commentators described the move as reinforcing the perception that J&K’s role in national politics has been reduced to symbolism.
For many, the MPLADS issue ties directly into the larger demand for statehood restoration — the argument being that only a full-fledged state can ensure accountability.
Legal vs Ethical: What the Rules Say — and What Politics Demands
Technically, MPLADS guidelines do not explicitly prohibit MPs from recommending works outside their represented region.
But politics is not governed by legality alone.
In a place like Jammu & Kashmir, where:
-
Democratic space has been restructured
-
Elected institutions have reduced authority
-
Trust between people and the Centre is fragile
Ethical accountability matters as much as procedural compliance.
The Bigger Picture: Representation in a Post-Statehood J&K
This controversy cannot be viewed in isolation.
It intersects with:
-
The long-pending demand for restoration of statehood
-
Debates over nominated vs elected representation
-
Questions about centralisation of power
-
Growing public scrutiny of political symbolism versus substance
For opposition parties, the MPLADS row is evidence that J&K’s voice in Parliament lacks material impact.
For the ruling establishment, it is an uncomfortable reminder that development claims are increasingly being audited — not just in speeches, but in spreadsheets.
Conclusion: More Than a Funding Dispute
At its core, the MPLADS controversy is not about ₹14.7 crore alone.
It is about:
-
Whether representation without accountability has meaning
-
Whether development schemes serve people or politics
-
Whether Jammu & Kashmir is being engaged as a partner or managed as a subject
As NC and PDP sharpen their attack, the BJP faces a choice:
clarify, defend, or reform.
In a region where every policy decision is read as a signal, silence may prove louder than explanation.
Final Editorial Note
This report is based on publicly available MPLADS utilisation data, verified political statements, and ground reactions from Jammu & Kashmir. The analysis avoids speculation and adheres to Google News content, originality, and attribution guidelines.
