Fiscal Disparity in J&K
Dr. Shenaz Ganai
The 2025-2026 Budget for Jammu & Kashmir, presented by Chief Minister Omar Abdullah in his role as Finance Minister, starkly exposes the widening gap between electoral promises and fiscal reality. What was heralded as a budget of economic empowerment and social justice has, in practice, turned out to be an exercise in financial illusion-where grand announcements mask systemic inefficiencies and exclusions. To be precise, the budget seems nowhere near matching the expectations of the people. In fact, this budget is a document of financial gimmickry.
The budget has squeezed welfare schemes by making benefits conditional. Welfare schemes that were initially projected as universal benefits are now being subjected to restrictive conditions. Take, for instance, the government’s promise of 10 kg of free ration, which has been categorized in a manner that limits its accessibility, leading to dissatisfaction among many families who had expected it to be universally available. This categorization has created confusion, and the main question remains: why is essential food support being selectively granted? While the administration has touted Its commitment to inclusive welfare, however, is contradicted by an objective financial analysis, which reveals a skewed allocation framework that disproportionately excludes a substantial segment of the ration-dependent population.
Skewed Food Security
Of the 98.5 lakh ration beneficiaries (rationees) spanning approximately 24.69 lakh households, only 2.24 lakh households under the Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) stand to gain from the new budget. This translates to less than 10% of total households, effectively sidelining the vast majority (over 90%) of ration- dependent families, including those under the Priority Household (PHH) and Non-Priority Household (NPHH) categories.
This allocation structure contradicts the government’s own manifesto, which pledged economic equity and comprehensive social security. Instead, the budget presents a regressive fiscal stance, where resource distribution remains heavily skewed toward a limited subset of beneficiaries, leaving the larger public exposed to economic vulnerability.
Power Policy Paradox
The much-publicized provision of 200 units of free electricity per month for all households has been restricted to Antyodaya families with BPL (Below Poverty Line) ration cards in J&K. As a result, the majority of eligible households will not benefit from the widely advertised scheme anytime soon.
In fact, the government’s electricity policy exposes glaring technical loopholes and fiscal mismanagement, making its manifesto promises hollow and impractical. The commitment to 200 units of free electricity has now been strategically diluted to benefit only AAY households under the PM Awas/Ghar Yojana, effectively excluding the majority of the population.
Metering Infrastructure Deficiency: A Non Implementable Policy
The government’s policy hinges on metered connections, yet only 25-30% of metering has been completed. This oversight is particularly damaging in rural areas, where the majority of AAY beneficiaries lack metered connections. This raises an alarming technical contradiction.
How can the subsidy be implemented when a vast portion of the intended beneficiaries lack metered infrastructure?
The government is essentially announcing a scheme that cannot be availed due to systemic inadequacies, making it a fiscal mirage rather than an energy welfare initiative.
Urban-Rural Power Disparity: A Policy That Fails the Most Vulnerable
Jammu has around 11.5 lakh power connections, and Kashmir has approximately 12.5 lakh, yet rural areas-where the majority of AAY households reside-face higher metering deficits. This creates a double-layered exclusion:
First, ration -dependent households are left out of the budgets benefits due to inadequate metering, and second , even those eligible for the power subsidy also lack the infrastructure to receive it.
A Politically Motivated, Technically Flawed Policy
This haphazardly structured electricity subsidy is more of a political stunt than a sustainable energy reform. Without a universal metering roadmap, equitable access, and realistic subsidy distribution, the present government’s policy is set to collapse under its own contradictions. What was promised as a universal relief measure has now shrunk into an inaccessible, impractical, and exclusionary scheme, exposing the government’s lack of technical planning, fiscal discipline, and policy integrity. Moreover there are concerns for Fiscal and Grid stability also.
An Energy Taxation Trap
The biggest deception in this scheme lies in the conditional nature of the subsidy: If a household consumes exactly 200 units or less, they get full relief.
However, if they consume even a single unit above 200, they lose the entire benefit and must pay for all 200+ units at full price.
This is a manipulative financial trick, designed not to help the poor but to push them into an impossible consumption threshold. Who can perfectly control electricity usage to stay at exactly 200 units? Most households in Kashmir require heating in winter, easily pushing consumption beyond 200 units. Even a minor excess in consumption means they are forced to pay for the entire bill, completely nullifying the benefit.
This is not a subsidy-it is an energy taxation trap masquerading as relief.
Gender Budgeting Missing
The budget proposed that all women in Jammu and Kashmir will be granted free ridership on government-owned public transport, including e-buses from 1st April 2025. The question is, where is the fleet of government-owned buses?
How many routes are covered by government-owned public transport? The fact that gender budgeting is missing in the budget is a critical oversight. The aim should have been to address various disadvantages that women and girls face.
Notably, gender budgeting should have been a perfect route to spot the needs and priorities of women, especially those who are poor. It would have led to an examination of existing policies, programs, and schemes to determine whether or not they meet these priority needs. It simultaneously helps in corrective reprioritization of budgetary allocations so that desired outcomes are attained.
Budget Fueling Inflation
The budget proposed to reduce the rebate on petrol by Rs. 1 per litre and on HSD by Rs. 2 per litre and increase the tax rate on aviation turbine fuel to 5%.
This means the cost of fuel is all set to increase. This increase in the cost of petrol and diesel has a direct bearing on domestic budgets, as the prices of essential and non-essential commodities will go up.So, the reduction in the rebate on fuel is yet another anti-people measure.
Driving Unrest Among Daily Wagers
The budget has bluntly ignored the long-standing demand of daily wage workers. J&K has a huge army of daily wage workers, serving in various government departments for years.. The budget failed to provide a clear roadmap for their regularization.Across departments, an estimated
60,000 to 100,000 daily wagers toil without permanency or fair pay
Conclusion: Fiscal Governance or Electoral Optics?
From a financial governance standpoint, this budget reflects a misalignment of fiscal policy with socio-economic commitments, failing to address inflationary pressures on essential commodities, structural food insecurity, and the purchasing power crisis among lower-income demographics.
The selective nature of this welfare intervention raises concerns over the administration’s budgetary priorities, financial planning efficiency, and commitment to holistic economic welfare.
The Budget is Missing Concrete Steps Toward Addressing Unemployment, Improving Public Services, and Ensuring Economic Growth
A government’s credibility is measured not just by the volume of funds allocated, but by the equity in their disbursement. This budget, rather than reinforcing inclusive economic security, institutionalises economic exclusion-an approach that contradicts both financial prudence and social justice. If unaddressed, such policy asymmetry risks exacerbating disparities and further alienating the state’s vulnerable population from the very benefits they were promised.
J&K needs a budget that not only makes promises but delivers tangible results. The government must recognize that true progress lies not in announcements but in action-ensuring that every welfare scheme, every infrastructure project, and every job creation initiative translates into real benefits for the people.
A budget is not merely a ledger of expenditures and revenues, it is a reflection of governance priorities. The 2025-26 budget however falls short of its promise of equitable growth. Rather than fostering economic inclusion, it systematically sidelines those who seek State support the most.
Lastly, the chief minister began his budget speech with a Persian couplet, “Tan Hama Daag Daag Shud-Punmba Kuja Kuja Neham” (My body is torn with wounds; the solution to my problems is distant and difficult).
Indeed this is the plight of people of Jammu and Kashmir- promised relief, but given a budget that has deepened their struggles. If the grievance is truly about public service, then the budget must be revisited – not in rhetoric, but in real action.
(The author is former legislator and executive member of
BJP and can be reached at sganai19@ gmail.com)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
