Ease of Doing Business – Part-X

Srinagar, Apr 4: After nine successive episodes examining the ground realities of industry in Jammu and Kashmir, a consistent and uncomfortable truth has emerged: the much-publicised framework of ‘Ease of Doing Business’ has, in practice, failed to translate into any meaningful facilitation for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs). Instead, what has evolved over the past decade is a system marked by procedural burdens, policy inconsistencies, and institutional indifference – collectively weakening the industrial ecosystem rather than strengthening it.

In this backdrop, the recent decision of the government to constitute a high-level committee under the chairmanship of the Additional Chief Secretary (Finance), with the Administrative Secretary Industries and Commerce and the Managing Director of J&K Bank as members, to draft a new comprehensive industrial policy, assumes significance.

It is, perhaps, an acknowledgement – belated but necessary – that the existing framework has not delivered.

This episode, therefore, examines this initiative in the spirit of “better late than never,” while placing it in the broader context of systemic failures that have defined the so-called Ease of Doing Business regime in J&K.

At the core of the issue lies a fundamental distortion in governance.

A basic principle of public administration is the clear distinction between revenue-generating departments and development-promoting departments.

Departments like Revenue, Excise, and Commercial Taxes are designed to mobilise financial resources for the state.

In contrast, departments like Industries and Commerce are meant to facilitate, promote, and nurture enterprises – their success measured not in revenue collection but in sustained growth, employment generation, and import substitution.

What has unfolded in Jammu and Kashmir, however, is a troubling role reversal.

The Industries and Commerce Department, instead of acting as a facilitator, has increasingly assumed the character of a regulatory and revenue-oriented authority. Procedural compliances, fees, certifications, and controls have multiplied, while facilitation, handholding, and policy responsiveness have receded.

In effect, a department meant to facilitate and support enterprises is now seen as imposing additional financial and procedural burdens, thereby eroding the very idea of ease in doing business.

This drift stands in stark contrast to the policy direction articulated at the national level.

Flagship initiatives such as ‘Make in India’, ‘Startup India’, and ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’ have consistently emphasised deregulation, simplification, and incentivisation.

The state, in this vision, is not an extractor but an enabler tasked with creating an ecosystem where enterprises can thrive. Repeated public statements by the Prime Minister, Union Home Minister, Lieutenant Governor, Chief Minister, and Chief Secretary reiterating commitment to industrial growth and Ease of Doing Business only reinforce this intent.

Yet, the disconnect between policy articulation and administrative practice in J&K remains glaring.

The constitution of the present committee must therefore be seen not merely as a routine policy exercise, but as an opportunity for institutional introspection.

It must take cognisance of the wide-ranging issues highlighted in this series ranging from land allotment and credit constraints to procurement exclusion, delayed payments, and regulatory overreach.

More importantly, it must recognise that the problem is not confined to policy design alone, but lies equally in policy implementation, departmental orientation, and accountability deficits.

Equally significant is the composition of the committee itself.

While it brings together key government functionaries, the absence of independent industry voices is a critical gap.

A policy intended to revive MSMEs cannot be meaningfully shaped without the participation of those who operate within that ecosystem.

The inclusion of one or two non-governmental industry experts or practitioners with demonstrated experience in MSME operations, market realities, and regional constraints would have brought practical insight, grounded feedback, and a measure of credibility to the process. Without such representation, there remains a risk of policy being framed in abstraction and disconnected from the lived realities of enterprises it seeks to serve.

What has been particularly damaging over the years is the absence of any course correction despite persistent distress signals from the ground.

MSMEs have repeatedly flagged issues of shrinking market access, rising compliance burdens, and financial stress.

Yet, these concerns have not translated into timely policy response.

The result is an industrial landscape where existing units struggle for survival and new investment remains confused.

The challenge before the newly constituted committee is therefore far deeper than drafting another policy document.

It must confront a more fundamental question: why has Ease of Doing Business, despite its repeated invocation, failed to materialise for MSMEs?

Why has a framework intended to simplify and enable instead resulted in complexity and exclusion?

And why have institutions tasked with industrial promotion remained largely passive in the face of these distortions?

Greater Kashmir’s ‘Ease of Doing Business’ series would continue and further examine sector-specific challenges and policy gaps.

However, this moment, marked by the constitution of a high-level committee, offers a critical inflexion point.

It is an opportunity to move beyond rhetoric and re-align governance with the true spirit of Ease of Doing Business.

For if the past decade has demonstrated anything, it is this: Ease of Doing Business, for MSMEs in Jammu and Kashmir, has remained more a claim than a reality.