The 6.83 per cent increase in electricity tariff in Jammu and Kashmir could not have come at a more politically inconvenient time. At a time when households are struggling with rising living costs and the government is repeatedly speaking of economic relief, an electricity tariff hike sends an entirely different message: that the burden of adjustment is once again being shifted onto the common consumer.
What makes the increase particularly contentious is not merely the percentage involved, but the promise that preceded it. The National Conference came to power with a clear political commitment to provide 200 units of free electricity to every household. That promise created expectations among ordinary families, particularly those already struggling to manage household budgets. Instead of moving towards that commitment, consumers are now being asked to pay more.
Leader of Opposition Sunil Sharma has rightly described the move as a “betrayal” of public trust. His criticism is politically motivated, but the question he has raised cannot simply be dismissed as opposition rhetoric. Where is the promised 200 units of free electricity? That is the question the government must answer directly and convincingly.
A government cannot seek votes on the strength of a promise and then expect citizens to remain silent when precisely the opposite direction is taken. If circumstances have changed, the government owes the public an honest explanation. If financial constraints have made the promise difficult to implement, those constraints should be placed before the people transparently. What is unacceptable is allowing a major electoral commitment to gradually disappear from public discussion while tariffs move upward.
The government may have its own justification for the hike. Electricity distribution has costs, power purchases are expensive, infrastructure requires investment and the power sector in J&K has long faced financial and operational challenges. These are legitimate concerns. But they cannot become an excuse for avoiding political accountability.
The real issue is not whether tariffs can ever be increased. It is whether ordinary consumers are receiving better services in return for what they pay.
Frequent power disruptions, overloaded distribution systems, damaged transformers and inadequate infrastructure remain familiar complaints in many areas. Before asking consumers to shoulder additional costs, the administration must demonstrate that every rupee collected is being converted into reliable electricity supply and stronger infrastructure.
The business community too has reason to be concerned. For small shops, workshops, hotels, restaurants, bakeries and manufacturing units, electricity is not a luxury; it is a basic input. Any increase in power costs eventually finds its way into the cost of production and services. At a time when businesses are already coping with multiple operating expenses, another tariff burden could weaken competitiveness and discourage investment.
The government must therefore avoid treating this as merely an accounting exercise. Electricity is an essential service, and tariff policy has a direct bearing on household welfare, employment, business activity and the overall cost of living. If a tariff increase is unavoidable, there must be a credible social and economic protection mechanism for vulnerable consumers.
More importantly, the government must revisit its promise of 200 free units. If the commitment is still on the agenda, a clear roadmap, timeline and eligibility framework should be made public. If it is no longer financially feasible in its original form, the government should have the courage to tell the people why.
