NewsEye Desk
Srinagar: MLA Pulwama Waheed ur Rehman Para on Thursday stirred a major debate over welfare delivery in Jammu and Kashmir, alleging that hundreds of crores shown as “disbursed” under key social schemes have not actually reached beneficiaries and are still lying in the treasury.
Reacting to the official Assembly reply on the Ladli Beti Scheme and Marriage Assistance Scheme, Para said that the figures being projected by the government amount to “paperwork dressed up as relief.”
According to the data, the government has shown ₹300 crore disbursed under the Ladli Beti Scheme up to 2025–26. However, an official footnote clarifies that ₹200 crore is still pending in the treasury, awaiting transfer to the pool account for further disbursement to sanctioned beneficiaries.
Similarly, under the Marriage Assistance Scheme, ₹234 crore has been marked as disbursed, while ₹70 crore worth of bills are still pending in the treasury, yet to be released by the Finance Department.
“If ₹70 crore and ₹200 crore haven’t even left the treasury and are stuck with finance, how is this called disbursal?” Para questioned in a post on X, adding that poor families need “money in hand, not figures in files.”
The MLA said the disclosure exposes a serious gap between sanctioning funds on paper and actually delivering financial relief to vulnerable families, particularly those dependent on marriage assistance and long-term security for girl children.
The revelation has raised uncomfortable questions about the government’s accounting practices and welfare claims, especially when cumulative beneficiaries under Ladli Beti have crossed 1.98 lakh, while large sums remain unreleased.
Para sought accountability from the highest level, asking who would answer for the delay and the apparent misrepresentation of figures, tagging Omar Abdullah in his post.
With rising economic stress and inflation, observers say delayed welfare payments defeat the very purpose of these schemes. As the issue gains traction, pressure is mounting on the government to explain whether “disbursal” now means actual payment — or merely movement of files.
