For an ordinary household in Jammu and Kashmir, inflation is not a statistic printed in a government report. It is the shrinking grocery bag at the end of the month. Milk at an average retail price of ₹62.67 per litre, sugar at ₹63.33 per kilogram, moong dal at ₹121.33 and masoor dal at ₹104.33 may appear as mere numbers in an official price table. For a family already struggling to balance food, electricity, education, healthcare and transport expenses, however, these numbers translate directly into a harder and more expensive life.
What makes the situation more troubling is that J&K is not without a price-monitoring system. The Directorate of Economics and Statistics claims to collect retail prices of essential commodities from selected markets and shops across all 20 districts. The data is analysed to identify fluctuations and regulate supplies, while daily prices of 22 essential commodities are reportedly shared with the Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs.
The obvious question is: if the government knows what commodities cost, why do consumers continue to feel helpless in the marketplace? Price monitoring cannot become an exercise in collecting figures and forwarding reports. The real test of a monitoring mechanism is whether it protects the consumer standing before a shop counter.
The Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department has a clear responsibility to monitor both the prices and availability of essential commodities. Its enforcement machinery, including Legal Metrology authorities, is empowered to check packaged commodities, weights, measures and pricing. Yet consumers frequently complain that the market operates with a confidence that suggests enforcement is either inadequate, irregular or simply too distant from their daily reality. There is a fundamental difference between monitoring a market and controlling violations in a market.
A department may know the prevailing price of a commodity. But if a consumer is charged more than the permissible or prevailing rate, the existence of a database offers little comfort unless there is immediate enforcement. A price list pinned to an office wall cannot protect a family at the cash counter. The government must therefore move beyond statistics and paperwork. Price surveillance needs to be visible, frequent and district-specific. Surprise inspections should not be ceremonial exercises conducted only when complaints become politically inconvenient. Violators must face penalties that actually deter profiteering, while repeat offenders should invite progressively stronger action.
There is also a need for greater transparency. Consumers should know the officially monitored prices of essential commodities and have an easy mechanism to report overcharging, underweight supplies, manipulated packaging or artificial shortages. Complaints should not disappear into departmental files; their disposal should be measurable and publicly accountable.
The issue is particularly serious in a geographically challenging region like J&K, where transportation costs, seasonal disruptions and supply-chain constraints can legitimately influence prices. But legitimate cost pressures must not become a permanent excuse for arbitrary pricing. The administration cannot control every rupee spent by a household. It can, however, ensure that the consumer is not cheated in the name of market conditions. The kitchen is ultimately where government policy meets the common citizen. If milk, pulses, sugar and other necessities steadily become more expensive while enforcement remains invisible, then the credibility of the entire price-monitoring mechanism comes under question.
J&K does not need more price data alone. It needs price justice. The government already has the machinery. What is missing is the urgency to make that machinery work where it matters most, in the marketplace, before the consumer is forced to pay the price.
