Jammu Gets More Capex Than Kashmir in 2026-27: What the J&K Government Figures Actually Show
By: News Desk | 28 September 2026
Government data put Jammu ahead of Kashmir in both allocations and funds released, but the political argument is far from settled
Jammu / Srinagar: For years, one of the most persistent political arguments in Jammu and Kashmir has been over whether the Jammu region has received its fair share of development resources.
The allegation of regional discrimination has been a recurring part of Jammu’s political discourse, particularly in debates over government jobs, infrastructure, budget allocations and the distribution of development projects.
Now, figures placed before the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly have added a new dimension to that debate.
According to government data for 2026-27, Jammu’s 10 districts have been allocated ₹5,102.25 crore in capital expenditure, compared with ₹4,464.05 crore for the 10 districts of Kashmir.
The difference is ₹638.20 crore.
The gap is also visible in funds released so far. Of ₹5,837.91 crore released across the Union Territory, Jammu has received ₹3,292.93 crore, while Kashmir has received ₹2,544.98 crore.
On the face of these figures, Jammu is ahead in both the budgeted Capex allocation and the amount released.
But that is where the straightforward comparison ends.
The political question is not simply how much money has been allocated to each division. It is how that money is distributed between sectors, what projects it finances, how much is actually spent, and whether allocations correspond to the different development needs of the two regions.
That distinction is now at the centre of the debate.
The numbers: Jammu has the larger share
The overall Capex allocation for Jammu and Kashmir in 2026-27 is ₹9,566.30 crore.
Of this:
- Jammu division: ₹5,102.25 crore
- Kashmir division: ₹4,464.05 crore
That means Jammu accounts for roughly 53.3% of the divisional allocation, while Kashmir accounts for about 46.7%.
The released-fund figures show a similar pattern.
Of the ₹5,837.91 crore released:
- Jammu: ₹3,292.93 crore, around 56.4%
- Kashmir: ₹2,544.98 crore, around 43.6%
So, whether the measure is the approved allocation or the money released so far, Jammu currently has the larger share.
That is an important factual finding.
But it should not automatically be converted into a broader conclusion that regional inequality has disappeared.
Capital expenditure is only one component of government spending, and one financial year is not the same thing as a long-term assessment of regional development.
Jammu district alone changes the picture
The district-wise numbers make the comparison even more striking.
Jammu district has been allocated ₹2,314.35 crore, the highest allocation among all districts in the Union Territory.
Srinagar, the largest urban centre in Kashmir, has been allocated ₹1,486.88 crore.
The allocation for Jammu district is therefore around 56% higher than that for Srinagar.
But the district comparison also needs some context.
Jammu district has 11 Assembly constituencies, of which 10 are represented by BJP MLAs and one by Independent MLA Satish Sharma, who is a minister in the Omar Abdullah government.
Srinagar district has eight Assembly constituencies, seven represented by National Conference MLAs and one by a Congress MLA.
In other words, the current allocation figures do not neatly follow the political map either.
That makes the numbers politically interesting, but it also cautions against reducing them to a simple ruling-party-versus-opposition story.
Where the rest of Jammu stands
The allocation is not concentrated entirely in Jammu city.
Within Jammu division, the figures show:
- Rajouri: ₹419.14 crore
- Poonch: ₹400.08 crore
- Kathua: ₹377.78 crore
- Udhampur: ₹361.95 crore
- Doda: ₹318.42 crore
- Reasi: ₹249.34 crore
- Kishtwar: ₹242.93 crore
- Samba: ₹211 crore
- Ramban: ₹197.20 crore
Jammu district’s ₹2,314.35 crore is therefore an exceptionally large component of the division’s overall allocation, accounting for nearly half of Jammu’s projected Capex.
The numbers also show that allocations vary substantially within Jammu itself.
That matters because “Jammu versus Kashmir” can sometimes conceal another layer of inequality: differences between districts within each division.
A resident of Jammu city and a resident of Ramban or Rajouri do not necessarily face the same infrastructure requirements.
The same is true of Srinagar and Shopian.
Kashmir’s allocation is also uneven
The Valley’s figures show a similar internal variation.
Anantnag has the highest allocation at ₹697.05 crore, followed by:
- Baramulla: ₹468.93 crore
- Pulwama: ₹448.30 crore
- Budgam: ₹287.74 crore
- Kupwara: ₹284.87 crore
- Ganderbal: ₹247.18 crore
- Bandipora: ₹206.97 crore
- Kulgam: ₹184.24 crore
- Shopian: ₹151.84 crore
Thus, even within Kashmir, there is no uniform allocation per district.
Anantnag’s allocation, for example, is more than four times that of Shopian.
That variation is one reason why a serious assessment of regional equity requires looking beneath the two headline numbers.
The BJP’s argument: the headline number is not enough
The BJP has not accepted the divisional comparison as proof that the larger question of Jammu’s development needs has been resolved.
BJP spokesperson Ankur Sharma said the party did not have the complete district-wise details and cautioned against drawing conclusions from aggregate figures.
He suggested that Jammu’s higher allocation could partly reflect major hydropower projects and argued that the sub-classification of allocations needs to be examined.
Udhampur East MLA R S Pathania similarly argued that development funds should be allocated according to development needs rather than through a simple Jammu-versus-Kashmir comparison.
His point was that there cannot necessarily be parity between districts with different geographical and developmental requirements.
That argument introduces an important economic principle into the political debate.
Equal allocation is not necessarily the same thing as equitable allocation.
A mountainous border district, a densely populated city and an agricultural district can have very different infrastructure requirements.
The relevant question, therefore, is not merely whether each region gets 50%.
It is whether the allocation formula adequately reflects population, geography, infrastructure deficits, border vulnerability, urbanisation, poverty, connectivity and the cost of delivering public services.
NC sees the figures as an answer to the discrimination charge
The National Conference has taken a different view.
NC provincial president Rattan Lal Gupta accused the BJP of misleading people in Jammu and said the government figures demonstrate a different picture.
He pointed specifically to the higher allocation for Jammu district compared with Srinagar and said the Omar Abdullah government was committed to development without discrimination on regional or other grounds.
The figures certainly give the ruling party a strong factual basis to challenge any claim that Jammu has received less Capex than Kashmir in 2026-27.
But they do not, by themselves, establish what has happened over the previous decade or across every category of public expenditure.
That distinction is important.
Why Capex matters
Capital expenditure generally refers to spending that creates or improves long-term assets.
In Jammu and Kashmir, that can include roads, bridges, power infrastructure, water supply systems, hospitals, educational infrastructure, urban projects and other physical assets.
The broader 2026-27 budget projects ₹25,236 crore of capital outlay for the Union Territory, according to the PRS analysis of the budget.
The district-level Capex figures under discussion therefore represent a specific part of the government’s overall expenditure architecture.
They should not be confused with the entire government budget.
Jammu and Kashmir’s 2026-27 budget also includes substantial revenue expenditure, including salaries, pensions, interest payments, subsidies and other recurring costs. PRS puts the total revenue expenditure at ₹80,640 crore and capital outlay at ₹25,236 crore.
That means a regional comparison based solely on Capex cannot provide a complete picture of government spending.
Power is a major reason the figures need closer examination
One of the most important details emerging from the district-level data is the weight of the power sector.
In Jammu district alone, ₹417.51 crore has been allocated to the Power Development Department.
Other major allocations include:
- Housing and Urban Development: ₹359.58 crore
- Agriculture Production: ₹279.94 crore
- Public Works Department: ₹219.83 crore
- Animal and Sheep Husbandry: ₹195.94 crore
In Srinagar, the major allocations include:
- Power Development Department: ₹238.59 crore
- Health and Medical Education: ₹224.57 crore
- Agriculture Production: ₹204.86 crore
- Housing and Urban Development: ₹152.04 crore
- Animal and Sheep Husbandry: ₹119.09 crore
- Industries and Commerce: ₹115.69 crore.
The pattern is revealing.
The divisional gap is not simply a matter of one region receiving more money for roads while another receives less.
Sectoral composition matters.
A large hydropower or transmission project can substantially increase the Capex allocation of a district without necessarily meaning that the same amount is being spent on everyday civic infrastructure.
That is precisely why the BJP has argued for looking at the details.
The broader J&K budget also puts power at the centre
The government’s own 2026-27 budget places substantial emphasis on the power sector.
Four major hydropower projects, Pakal Dul, Ratle, Kiru and Kwar, with a combined capacity of 3,014 MW, are under execution.
The government has also set an objective of achieving round-the-clock electricity supply by 2027-28.
These projects have a geographical footprint, and large infrastructure projects can influence district-level Capex numbers.
This does not invalidate the allocations.
It simply means that the amount allocated is not enough information to determine the distributional benefit received by ordinary residents.
A ₹400-crore power project and ₹400 crore spent directly on local roads, hospitals or schools do not have identical economic effects.
The nature, location, beneficiaries and implementation period all matter.
Jammu’s old grievance cannot be erased by one year’s figures
The political debate over regional discrimination did not begin with the Omar Abdullah government.
For years, sections of Jammu’s political leadership have argued that the region was disadvantaged in government employment, political representation, infrastructure investment and administrative attention.
The BJP has made the question of Jammu’s development a recurring political issue.
The current figures challenge one specific version of that argument: that Jammu is receiving less 2026-27 Capex than Kashmir.
They do not, however, provide a complete historical audit of regional development.
To establish a long-term regional imbalance, one would need to compare multiple years, preferably under common definitions, while separating:
- Budget allocation
- Funds actually released
- Expenditure incurred
- Physical projects completed
- Population
- Geographic area
- Urban and rural needs
- Border-area requirements
- Sector-wise investment
- Per-capita expenditure
- Per-district infrastructure deficits
Without that broader comparison, it would be premature to declare that the historic debate has been settled.
Kashmir’s higher population does not automatically settle the argument either
Another important issue is population.
The two divisions do not have identical populations, and a simple 53:47 division of Capex cannot automatically be interpreted as equitable or inequitable.
If one region has a larger population, per-capita spending becomes relevant.
But population alone is not enough either.
Jammu’s geography, border districts and mountainous terrain create infrastructure costs that can be significantly different from those of densely populated urban areas.
Kashmir, meanwhile, has its own challenges, including concentrated urban pressure, tourism infrastructure, disaster vulnerability, road connectivity and difficult terrain in several districts.
The correct comparison therefore needs multiple indicators.
The question that matters: where does the money actually go?
This is perhaps the most important unresolved part of the debate.
An allocation is a government commitment.
A release means money has been made available.
Neither automatically means that the corresponding asset has been completed or that citizens have received the intended benefit.
For that, one needs utilisation and execution data.
A ₹100-crore road project that is completed on time has a different impact from a ₹100-crore project that remains incomplete.
Likewise, a power project under construction may generate long-term economic value but provide limited immediate benefits to local households.
This is why future political debates are likely to move from “who got more?” to “what was the money spent on, where, and with what result?”
There is another layer: Jammu versus Jammu
The data also complicate the assumption that a higher Jammu division allocation automatically means every part of Jammu is benefiting equally.
Jammu district’s ₹2,314.35 crore is far above the allocations for several other Jammu districts.
Ramban, for example, has ₹197.20 crore, while Samba has ₹211 crore.
Rajouri and Poonch receive significantly higher allocations than those districts.
This suggests that the regional debate could eventually become more granular.
Instead of asking only whether Jammu has been treated fairly compared with Kashmir, legislators may increasingly ask whether each district is receiving funds according to measurable development needs.
That would move the argument from regional identity towards a more evidence-based allocation debate.
What the current figures establish
The government data allow several conclusions that are relatively straightforward.
First, Jammu has a larger share of the 2026-27 divisional Capex allocation than Kashmir.
Second, Jammu also has a larger share of the Capex funds released so far.
Third, Jammu district has the largest district-level allocation in the Union Territory.
Fourth, allocations vary sharply within both divisions.
Fifth, power and other infrastructure sectors account for substantial portions of district-level allocations, meaning the headline divisional comparison does not reveal the complete composition of spending.
What the figures do not establish is that Jammu has historically received more development resources than Kashmir, or that all residents of Jammu are now receiving an equitable share of development benefits.
Those would require a much longer time series and additional indicators.
A political argument now facing a numerical test
The significance of the latest figures is therefore not that they have ended the Jammu-versus-Kashmir debate.
They have made the debate more measurable.
For years, political arguments over regional discrimination have often relied on competing perceptions.
The 2026-27 Capex data provide a concrete benchmark.
The ruling National Conference can point to the figures and say that Jammu is not being financially sidelined this year.
The BJP can respond that aggregate numbers do not reveal whether the distribution follows objective development criteria.
Both statements address different questions.
The first concerns how much has been allocated.
The second concerns whether the allocation is justified by need and whether the resulting spending is effective.
A serious assessment of regional equity requires answering both.
The real test is beyond the Assembly floor
The Jammu and Kashmir government’s latest figures are important because public money ultimately has to translate into public assets and services.
The people of Jammu want roads, reliable electricity, water supply, hospitals, educational institutions, employment opportunities and better connectivity.
The people of Kashmir want the same things.
The political argument over regional bias becomes meaningful only when these demands are measured against actual spending and actual outcomes.
For now, the 2026-27 figures show that Jammu is ahead of Kashmir in the current Capex allocation and in funds released so far.
That is a fact supported by the government figures placed before the Assembly.
Whether that amounts to equitable development, however, is a larger question.
It will depend on what the money is being spent on, how efficiently it is being used, which districts and communities ultimately benefit, and whether the resulting infrastructure closes genuine development gaps.
In Jammu and Kashmir’s long-running regional debate, the numbers have changed the argument.
They have not ended it.
