The politics of deflection cannot substitute democratic accountability

Sunil Sharma

writetomlapadder@gmail.com

As the Leader of the Opposition in the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly, my responsibility is not to oppose every decision of the government but to hold it accountable for the promises it makes and the policies it implements. Democracies thrive when governments are transparent with people, particularly when difficult economic choices become unavoidable. They begin to falter when political leadership seeks to evade responsibility, rewrite electoral commitments, or shift blame onto others instead of honestly explaining its own decisions. The recent electricity tariff hike in Jammu and Kashmir is not simply a debate over energy pricing. It is a test of whether the existing government believes accountability is an essential principle of democratic governance or merely an inconvenience to be managed.

Before the elections, the National Conference sought the people's mandate on a series of welfare commitments, among which the promise of providing 200 units of free electricity to every household featured prominently. It was projected as a clear assurance that would ease the financial burden on ordinary families. Understandably, people voted with the expectation that this commitment would be honoured. Today, however, consumers have instead witnessed a 6.83 per cent increase in electricity tariffs, including for households that were led to believe they would receive meaningful relief.

Let me be clear. No responsible opposition argues that governments can never revise electricity tariffs. Every government faces fiscal pressures, rising power procurement costs and the challenge of maintaining financially viable distribution companies. There are occasions when tariff revisions become unavoidable. The issue before us is not the tariff revision itself. The issue is the manner in which this government has chosen to explain or rather, avoid explaining its own decision.

Earlier this year, the Chief Minister's Office publicly assured the people that there would be no general increase in electricity tariffs. Only months later, the same government approved a tariff revision affecting domestic consumers across Jammu and Kashmir. Rather than candidly informing citizens that changing financial circumstances required a difficult decision, the government attempted to reinterpret its earlier electoral promise, suggesting that the commitment of free electricity was linked to a future solar initiative rather than existing tariff rates. Such retrospective reinterpretation may serve short-term political convenience, but it weakens public trust in democratic institutions. Electoral promises cannot be re-draft after elections simply because governing has become more difficult.

Even more concerning is the government's persistent attempt to distance itself from responsibility by invoking the Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission (JERC). The impression being created is that the tariff hike was essentially imposed by an independent regulator, leaving the elected government with little choice. That is only a partial account of the institutional process. The proposal for tariff revision originated from Jammu Power Distribution Corporation Limited (JPDCL) and Kashmir Power Distribution Corporation Limited (KPDCL), both state-owned entities functioning under the authority of the Jammu and Kashmir administration. These proposals were processed through the Power Development Department, which is headed by the Chief Minister himself, before being placed before the regulator for statutory approval. The JERC performs an important regulatory function, but it does not independently conceive tariff proposals. Presenting the regulator as the principal decision-maker while remaining silent about the government's own role amounts to political deflection rather than administrative transparency.

Unfortunately, this episode reflects a broader pattern that has increasingly characterised the Omar Abdullah-led government. Instead of accepting ownership of difficult policy decisions, the government appears determined to enjoy the authority of office while avoiding the accountability that necessarily accompanies it. Whenever governance becomes politically inconvenient, responsibility is shifted elsewhere towards independent institutions, inherited circumstances, or increasingly, towards the Central Government.

Such an approach is fundamentally inconsistent with democratic governance. Federalism does not absolve regional governments of their constitutional responsibilities. The people of Jammu and Kashmir did not elect this government just to explain why someone else is responsible for every challenge confronting the Union Territory. They elected it to govern. They expect leadership that accepts responsibility for both successes and failures. An elected government cannot claim full political credit for welfare announcements while simultaneously attributing every unpopular decision to New Delhi, regulatory authorities, or administrative compulsions. Accountability cannot be selective.

Blaming the Central Government has increasingly become the default political response whenever difficult questions are raised about governance. This tendency may generate temporary political narratives, but it cannot substitute for effective administration. Every Government functions within fiscal, constitutional and institutional constraints. Mature political leadership acknowledges those constraints while accepting responsibility for decisions taken within its own sphere of authority. It does not seek refuge in perpetual victimhood.

The people deserve straightforward answers. Why was the public assured that electricity tariffs would not increase if the government was already aware of mounting financial pressures? How many households have actually benefited from the promised 200 units of free electricity? What is the precise financial condition of JPDCL and KPDCL that necessitated this tariff revision? Why was there no transparent public explanation before the decision was taken? These are legitimate questions that deserve factual answers rather than political reinterpretation.

As Leader of the Opposition, I believe that democracy is strengthened not when governments avoid criticism but when they respond to it with honesty and transparency. Our duty is not merely to oppose but to insist upon higher standards of public accountability. Jammu and Kashmir deserves a government that has the courage to own its decisions, explain its policies candidly and remain faithful to the promises on which it sought the people's mandate.

Ultimately, the credibility of any elected government rests not on the promises it makes during election campaigns but on its willingness to accept responsibility once in office. Governance cannot become an exercise in enjoying power while outsourcing accountability. The people of Jammu and Kashmir deserve better. They deserve a government that governs with honesty, accepts responsibility without hesitation and recognises that in a democracy, accountability is not optional-it is the very foundation of public trust.

(The author is Leader of the Opposition, Jammu & Kashmir Legislative Assembly)