MUZAFFARABAD, June 23: The Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly on Monday initiated debate on the budget for fiscal year 2008-9 in a house amid the announcement of the opposition that it would stage symbolic sit-ins throughout the session as a mark of protest from Tuesday.

Taking advantage of empty opposition benches, the ruling party legislators lavishly praised the government for presenting a “wonderful” budget for the region’s development and accredited Prime Minister Sardar Attique Ahmed Khan for building up resources for the purpose.

However, outside the house, the opposition blasted the government for committing “the biggest ever fiscal terrorism” in the name of budget and declared it would expose “false official claims” on development and good governance with the help of independent media.

“The government did not leave any option for the opposition but to boycott the budget session. However, we are not oblivious of our parliamentary responsibilities and will expose the mal- administration and extravagance of the government from outside the house,” vowed opposition MLA Chaudhry Anwaarul Haq at a press conference in the opposition chamber.

Mr Haq, who belongs to the Peoples Muslim League, was flanked by lawmakers from the Mutahidda Quami Movement and Peoples Party, the largest constituent of the combined opposition in the assembly.

He announced that the joint opposition would stage symbolic sit-ins on a green lawn at the entrance of assembly building throughout the ongoing budget session to protest against the “fascist attitude” of the government.

Speaking about the budget, Mr Haq said the budget deficit had attained alarming proportions and if the “development loans from Pakistan” were also added to it, the shortfall could swell to over Rs14 billion.

Opposing the deduction by the AJK Council of 20 percent of the taxes collected from the AJK territory, he said there was no justification for it.

Mr Haq pointed out that Section 5.1 of the agreement between the AJK government and Wapda clearly stated that the AJK Council would not make 20 per cent deduction after the initiation of Mangla dam extension project, but that commitment was not being followed.

Nor anyone in the ranks of government was drawing attention of the federal government towards it, he added.

Mr Haq also said that the government was not getting royalty of Mangla dam but the finance minister had wrongly referred to the water use charges of the dam as royalty in his budget speech.

He said while the next year’s budget proposed a raise of only Rs10 million in water use charges, the Wapda had increased the electricity charges to the AJK government by Rs55 million.

Had the government raised voice and claimed the royalty of Mangla dam, it could have presented a surplus budget, Mr Haq added.

“All these issues need strong political will and firm belief in democracy. But how can a leadership, provided by a brigadier, take such daring steps,” he said, in an apparent reference to a military intelligence official, who, the entire opposition blames, for masterminding the rigging in July-2006 elections in AJK.

Mr Haq also criticised the government for not introducing any austerity measures in the budget and instead the non- developmental expenditures of the prime minister and S and GAD had recorded unparalleled surge in the current year.

Reading figures from the budget book, he said that allocations for ‘secret service fund’ of prime minister were made at four different places and allocations for donations and gifts by the premier were made at three places.

Giving an example, the PML lawmaker said Rs4.9 million were placed in one head of secret service expenditures in the current year but the premier had spent Rs16.7 million.

Similarly, he said Rs9 million were earmarked in one head of gifts and donations but the premier had spent Rs21.9 million.

“This is just tip of the iceberg. The lavish spending by prime minister suggests as if we are living in the rule of a Mughal emperor,” he said.

He also criticised the creation of more posts in the PM secretariat, including that of a military secretary, “although the army chief was rightfully pulling out military officials from all civilian institutions.”