The government’s plan to disband military cantonments was set in motion on 27 April, when, following a notification from the Ministry of Defence, Himachal Pradesh’s Yol cantonment ceased to exist as one. The decision meant that the identified civil areas of these former cantonments would merge with adjoining civilian municipalities/local bodies while the armed forces would exclusively administer the remaining portions as military stations. The order was projected as a reform meant to do away with an ‘archaic colonial practice’. According to media reports, Nasirabad cantonment in Rajasthan is next in line. It will likely be followed, wherever possible, by the bisection of the existing 62 cantonments across India.
The reality of cantonment conversion
The conversion of cantonments to military stations has been under discussion for decades, driven in part by the growth of civilian populations in and around these cantonments. This demarcation involves segregating the cantonment into military and civilian areas. However, this is easier said than done due to the commingling of civilian and military elements such as population, infrastructure and civic amenities. It is also a task that will require concluding agreements between the MoD and municipal/local authorities.
For the state, it means a greater outflow of financial resources for the enlargement of civic responsibilities. As for the military, it should mean that the earlier practice of financial allotment to cantonment boards in the form of ‘grants in aid’ by the MoD could now be devoted exclusively to military stations that would have to cater to lesser populations and reduced civic amenities.
One benefit of this denotification is that savings would accrue to the Army’s revenue budget, which would now be relieved of paying service charges – imposed from 1956 onwards – to cantonment boards which are under the MoD’s control. As per constitutional provisions, property tax cannot be imposed on central government entities. However, the savings envisaged are unlikely as a few states are already imposing service charges on military stations, which are being paid to municipal corporations. One can expect other states to follow suit.
Another stated reason for restructuring cantonments is facilitating access to central/state welfare schemes that were hitherto unavailable to the civil population in cantonment areas. In practice, however, this would mean that the welfare pie would have to be split between larger numbers of beneficiaries in civil areas. The financial situation of most state governments is precarious, while most central schemes require laid down percentages of contribution by state governments. Access to welfare schemes could be expected to bring in limited gains at the cost of the ambience that the cantonments provided through better governance. They were protected from predatory real estate sharks and corruption in local governance.
Also read: MoD protecting Army in Nagaland killings gratifying. SIT acted as handmaiden of state govt
Who will reap benefits?
The well-to-do can be expected to reap greater benefits from the exploitation of civic areas by real estate moguls. In league with politicians and officialdom, these groups would profit from the growing population pressure on land. The case of Yol cantonment is illustrative.
The Army has been pushing for the denotification of Yol cantonment for over a decade. There are large chunks of private land inside the cantonment where senior military officers have constructed bungalows. It also includes a housing colony with about 80 homes. Now the situation is set to get worse as, inside the former cantonment, building restrictions will no longer apply and new building bylaws will prevail. Land sharks will be in stalking mode, and a similar situation will likely prevail in most denotified cantonments.
Ideally, state governments must shape policies/rules to ensure that the benefits of incorporation into municipalities are also accessible to poor and lower middle-class sections. But it is unlikely to happen, as in most places (like Yol), local politicians will pursue their narrow vested interests in connivance with land sharks and some segments of military authorities.
Conversion can improve the quality of life in military stations while providing enhanced security due to shedding of responsibilities connected to the civil population. Significant portions of existing infrastructure – in terms of the Army’s barracks, offices and housing – is from the pre-Independence era and need rebuilding and major repairs. This requirement has been troubled for long by constraints of the defence budget as well as poor management.
The question that arises now is whether there is scope to monetise the transfer of land to municipalities and utilise those funds to improve the living conditions of military personnel. The military leadership must prioritise this aspect and desist from building structures that are non-utilitarian, such as massive decorative gates at entry points. But whether the monetary benefits accruing from the handing over of land will be channelled from the Consolidated Fund of India via the defence budget to the purposes of improving the quality of life of military personnel is a moot point.
Also read: Don’t wait for National Security Strategy. Bring theatre command system, first things first
Scheme’s success rests on transparency
Thus far, the policy governing land assets taken over by central/state entities for building infrastructure for any purpose entailed compensation to the MoD. The question that arises now is that, though the MoD can decide to denotify cantonments, would the state have the monetary means for compensation? If the state does not have the means for compensation, how can cantonments be done away with? In the case of Yol, the order for denotification would have been preceded by long-drawn negotiations between the Himachal Pradesh government and the MoD. It is not yet known whether compensation is involved and how much will be paid if it is. If nothing is going to be paid, has the MoD evolved a new policy on handing over defence land to state authorities? These are questions that will finally determine the delivery of possible benefits.
The scheme’s success will depend on the MoD being able to negotiate the reform path in an ambience of transparency. The process would also depend on the MoD’s and the state government’s budget constraints. If, for whatever reason, the policy is to allow conversion without compensation, military benefits will be restricted mostly to the domain of security. The main beneficaries would then be the real estate lobby that will leverage the pervasive culture of corruption that remains deeply embedded in property and land transactions.
It is also possible that converting some cantonments to military stations could translate into a positive reform. But as usual, the devil lies in the details. A scarce resource like land in existing cantonments would attract the worst propensities of real estate sharks who have acquired financial power that can be used to bend the rules and procedures. Only transparency in the deals between the MoD, the state and private parties can keep the forces of corruption under check.
Therefore, the MoD must publicise details of the deal it struck in Yol. The information will indicate who the actual beneficiaries of the conversion will be. Would it be the civilian population, the military organisation, private real estate entities or all/some of them? Without transparency, the answer will continue blowing in the wind.
Lt Gen (Dr) Prakash Menon (retd) is Director, Strategic Studies Programme, Takshashila Institution; former military adviser, National Security Council Secretariat. He tweets @prakashmenon51. Views are personal.
(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)