“The political debate over Jammu and Kashmir’s recent 6.5% power tariff hike fails to answer whether ordinary consumers can actually afford the increased bills.”
The latest increase in electricity tariffs in Jammu and Kashmir has triggered a political debate that was perhaps inevitable. Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has pointed out that the present government has raised power tariffs by around 6.5 per cent, arguing that this is nearly half of the 13 per cent increase effected by the previous elected government. The comparison may have political relevance, but it does little to answer the more important question confronting ordinary consumers: Can people afford the higher electricity bills? Power tariffs are not merely a statistic to be debated between rival political dispensations. Electricity is an essential service, and for a household struggling with rising prices, irregular incomes and growing monthly expenses, even a modest increase can put additional pressure on the family budget. Therefore, the real debate should be about affordability, transparency and the quality and reliability of electricity supply—not simply about which government increased tariffs more. The Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission’s approval of an average 6.83 per cent increase in retail supply tariffs from September 1, 2026, comes at a time when consumers are already confronting a higher cost of living. The government may legitimately argue that the increase is lower than that imposed during the previous government’s tenure. But a lower increase does not automatically make the new tariff affordable for every section of society. There is another reason why the government cannot avoid difficult questions on the issue. The present administration sought the people’s mandate with a significant promise of providing 200 units of free electricity. That promise created expectations among households, particularly lower- and middle-income consumers that electricity bills would become easier to manage. Having campaigned on such an assurance, the government must now explain clearly how the promise is being implemented, who qualifies for the benefit and how the tariff revision affects consumers who were expecting relief. This is where the political argument over whether the previous government increased tariffs by 13 per cent and the current government by 6.5 or 6.83 per cent becomes inadequate. Voters did not cast their ballots merely to see one percentage compared with another. They expected better governance, relief from economic pressures and fulfillment of commitments made during the election campaign. The government’s responsibility, therefore, is not simply to defend the tariff hike but to explain its necessity in terms that consumers can understand.
“Electricity is a basic necessity, not a political bargaining chip—and consumers deserve transparency over partisan distraction. The current debate must move past historical government comparisons to focus on what actually hits monthly bills: ensuring tariffs remain fair, explaining why prices are rising, and setting a clear, accountable timeline to deliver the promised 200 units of free power.”
If the increase is required because of rising power purchase costs, transmission and distribution expenses, financial losses of power distribution companies or other structural pressures, these facts should be placed transparently before the public. At the same time, consumers have every right to ask what they are getting in return. If electricity tariffs rise, there must be a corresponding effort to improve reliability, reduce unscheduled power cuts, strengthen distribution infrastructure and address billing-related grievances. A consumer who pays more reasonably expects a service that is dependable and efficient. The Government also needs to distinguish between different categories of consumers. A tariff increase can have a very different impact on a low-income household, a small shopkeeper, a farmer and a large commercial establishment. Any relief mechanism, including the promised free-power scheme, must therefore be designed and implemented transparently so that the most vulnerable consumers are not disproportionately burdened. Political parties will naturally compare their records. That is part of democratic accountability. But the public interest demands a debate that goes beyond political scorekeeping. The question is not whether one government raised tariffs more than another. The question is whether the present tariff structure is fair, affordable and sustainable. The Government should also recognise that the promise of 200 units of free electricity was not an ordinary political slogan. It was an electoral commitment that shaped public expectations. The administration cannot now evade questions about the power tariff hike by turning the discussion into a comparison with the previous government. Ultimately, electricity is not a political commodity. It is a basic necessity. For consumers, the difference between 6.5 per cent and 13 per cent matters, but so does the final amount appearing on the monthly bill. The government would do well to focus less on winning the argument over percentages and more on ensuring that every household understands why tariffs have increased, what relief is available and when the promised 200 units of free power will become a meaningful reality. That is the debate consumers deserve—and the accountability an elected government must provide.
