Centre has begun the process of merging the civilian pockets of Cantonments with the local municipalities and to retain the military areas as military stations. Most cantonments, as well as Jammu and Srinagar, have significant civilian pockets that make segregation difficult. The argument is that the bifurcation policy would benefit all stakeholders. It will benefit civilians who were previously denied access to state government welfare programmes. The Centre claims that because cantonments have become unmanageable, the move would allow for increased security, simplified land management, and the prevention of encroachments.
There are arguments for and against the Cantonment, which frequently performs the majority of the mandatory functions of the ULB, having a town planning scheme, but no provision for a comprehensive master plan. As a result, there has been no Master Plan for the Cantonments to date. The cantonment has land-use details, but they are restricted for security reasons. Cantonments were always considered high-security zones, isolated from civilian populations. While major changes have occurred in the basic concept and methodology of warfare, as well as the role of the army in a developing society, it is still necessary to expose the army to local self-government philosophy and principles.
The cantonment is similar to a Union Territory in that it is a political subdivision and agency of the Central Government that performs state functions. However, the fact that the majority of cantonments are located within the territorial jurisdiction of respective state governments should not be overlooked. The people of the cantonments will have the same aspirations as the people of the state in which the cantonments are located.
Because the Ministry of Defence and the army are in the non-plan sector, residents of cantonments are unable to access development funds. Even though resources are allocated based on population, state governments do not share them with cantonments.
Cantonment Boards, which include representatives from local military authorities, oversee affairs such as building construction, land conversion, and civic amenities. The approval process is lengthy and, as a result, can be frustrating.
The new policy is expected to bring fiscal responsibility to defence management. Exclusion of cantonments has been a popular demand among civilian residents, but there are still concerns that the powerful politician-builder lobby will resort to indiscriminate construction. The plan requires careful execution and scrutiny, with plenty of room for changes in the interest of security. Cantonments in Satwari, Jammu, and Batwara-Sonwar, Srinagar, for example, are tightly knit with civilian areas. The perceptions of the local municipal body and the cantonment board on land-use, land conversion, and residential and commercial building plans may differ, which could have serious consequences for military formation.
The Centre's decision is being characterised as a break from the archaic colonial practise of establishing cantonments, which had served a useful purpose. They were built outside of cities to ensure privacy, smooth training, and adequate space for military equipment storage. Rapid development and an increasing population brought about many changes, but restrictions kept violations in check. It is critical to have a sanitised belt around military bases. Buildings sprouting up everywhere can pose a significant security risk. Every cantonment strives to maintain a clean and healthy environment. One can only hope that in the de-merged areas, some effort will be made to maintain some semblance of discipline.
