The recently announced Jammu and Kashmir Budget 2025 is yet another exercise in political grandstanding, offering freebies and tall promises while ignoring the fundamental economic rot plaguing the region. Omar Abdullah’s government has painted a rosy picture, yet the budget reveals a deep disconnect from ground realities. Instead of addressing core issues such as unemployment, fiscal sustainability, and industrial stagnation, the budget relies on populist measures designed to appease voters rather than build a self-sufficient economy. Here’s a critical analysis of five key budgetary decisions that expose the administration’s lack of vision.
Electricity Handouts:
A Temporary Fix or Long-Term Burden?
One of the headline announcements is the provision of 200 units of free electricity to Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) families. While this move may sound pro-poor, it fails to acknowledge the deeper structural problems in J&K’s power sector. The region already faces chronic power shortages, with frequent outages and an inefficient electricity distribution network. Instead of investing in improving generation capacity, reducing transmission losses, and tackling electricity theft, the government has chosen the easy route – offering subsidies funded by the Indian taxpayer.
This decision highlights the administration’s failure to devise sustainable economic policies. Rather than making J&K a power-surplus region through hydroelectric projects and private sector investments, the budget locks the region into a cycle of dependency. It is a band-aid solution that does nothing to solve the fundamental crisis in J&K’s power sector. Worse, by doling out free electricity, the government risks burdening the already overstretched exchequer while discouraging any efforts towards responsible power consumption.
AAY Families:
But That Is Only 2.05% of Total Population!
As of the latest available data, Jammu and Kashmir have identified 2.51 lakh families under the Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY), a central government scheme aimed at providing highly subsidized food to the poorest households.
This figure represents a significant portion of the region’s population, highlighting the pervasive poverty that persists despite numerous government interventions. The identification criteria for AAY families include landless agricultural laborers, marginal farmers, rural artisans, slum dwellers, and individuals earning their livelihood on a daily basis in the informal sector. Additionally, households headed by widows, terminally ill persons, disabled individuals, or persons aged 60 years or more with no assured means of subsistence are also eligible.
The substantial number of AAY beneficiaries in Jammu and Kashmir underscores the urgent need for sustainable economic policies that address the root causes of poverty, rather than temporary relief measures that fail to create long-term socioeconomic improvements. It needs a deeper thought on how to salvage them from the condition in which they are. Omar Abdullah cannot think beyond 200 units of free electricity.
Tourism Development:
Genuine Investment or Misplaced Priorities?
The allocation of Rs 400 crore for tourism may appear to be a forward-thinking initiative, but it once again highlights the government’s narrow vision for economic development. Tourism is undeniably an important sector, but over-reliance on it has made J&K’s economy fragile and seasonal. What about investments in manufacturing, technology, and entrepreneurship that could create stable year-round employment opportunities?
Decades of conflict have shown that tourism is a volatile industry, susceptible to security concerns and external factors. Instead of putting all eggs in one basket, the government should have focused on creating a diversified economic model. Where are the incentives for setting up industries? Why hasn’t the budget introduced policies to attract corporate investments, IT hubs, or start-up incubators? A region cannot develop solely on the basis of hotel bookings and sightseeing revenue. The Rs 400 crore could have been better utilized in building an industrial base, boosting infrastructure for businesses, or providing skill development for J&K’s youth. This misdirected allocation proves that the government is stuck in a decades-old mindset rather than adapting to the economic needs of the present and future.
Free Public Transport for Women:
Empowerment or Populist Gimmick?
Another grand announcement is free public transport for women in government-owned buses. While women’s empowerment is a noble cause, this decision reeks of short-sighted populism rather than a well-thought-out policy move. The ground reality is that public transport in J&K is woefully inadequate, unreliable, and in many areas, nonexistent. What good is free travel if there aren’t enough buses to take passengers where they need to go?
Instead of providing token free rides, the government should have focused on modernizing the transport infrastructure. Why not allocate funds to expanding bus fleets, improving last-mile connectivity, and ensuring safe and efficient transportation for everyone? Additionally, free services without any revenue model strain government finances and lead to a decline in service quality over time. If the intent was truly to help women, targeted financial assistance, better employment opportunities, and safer urban mobility measures would have had a far more lasting impact. But once again, the budget has chosen a headline-grabbing stunt over meaningful change.
Marriage Assistance Hike:
Social Support or Fiscal Irresponsibility?
The decision to increase marriage assistance for AAY category girls from Rs 50,000 to Rs 75,000 is another example of misplaced priorities. While financial aid for marginalized communities is important, using public funds to finance weddings is an ill-conceived policy. This is not a measure that fosters economic self-reliance; it is simply a handout that does nothing to lift families out of poverty in a meaningful way.
If the government is truly concerned about the well-being of underprivileged women, why not invest in skill development programs, scholarships, or employment initiatives? Providing financial incentives for education and entrepreneurship would have empowered women far more than a one-time wedding grant. The state needs policies that create opportunities, not just short-lived monetary relief. This announcement is nothing but a political sop designed to win favor among voters without addressing the real socio-economic challenges they face.
Infrastructure Promises:
Genuine Development or Empty Rhetoric?
The budget also boasts of plans to construct 500 new Panchayat Ghars and various infrastructure projects. However, this promise rings hollow given J&K’s long history of abandoned and poorly executed projects. Grand infrastructure announcements have been a recurring feature of budgets for years, yet the state remains plagued by underdeveloped rural areas, potholed roads, and inadequate civic amenities.
Instead of Panchayat Ghars that will be used for occasional meetings, the government could have established small-scale industrial parks or business incubation hubs in key districts to attract private investment and create jobs. Encouraging entrepreneurship, particularly in handicrafts, horticulture, and IT, would have a long-term economic impact.
Or, sample this. J&K faces a severe lack of accessible healthcare in rural areas. Many villages are still dependent on overburdened district hospitals. Instead of Panchayat Ghars, establishing primary healthcare centers (PHCs) and equipping them with doctors, diagnostic labs, and maternity care would have been a life-changing investment.
Or, sample even this. Many rural students still lack access to quality education. Instead of Panchayat Ghars, the government could have built smart classrooms, e-learning centers, and digital libraries to bridge the education gap. This would prepare J&K’s youth for competitive careers beyond the region.
The government’s decision to invest in Panchayat Ghars reflects a lack of creativity and long-term economic vision. Infrastructure projects should be designed to generate economic returns and improve lives, not merely fulfill bureaucratic formalities. Instead of funding underutilized buildings, the focus should have been on empowering people with skills, healthcare, jobs, and better education – the real foundations of a self-sustaining economy.
Where is the plan to ensure timely and corruption-free execution of these projects? Who will be held accountable if these promises remain unfulfilled? Instead of making vague declarations, the government should have presented a concrete roadmap with deadlines, funding sources, and transparent oversight mechanisms. Without these crucial details, these announcements are nothing more than the same old rhetoric designed to give the illusion of progress while reality remains unchanged.
Conclusion:
Dependency in Intellectual Bankruptcy
Omar Abdullah’s budget for 2025 is a textbook example of how to spend without earning, promise without planning, and announce without executing. It offers temporary relief but no structural reforms. It provides handouts but no roadmap for economic independence. It is a budget of dependency, designed to keep J&K tethered to central assistance rather than enabling it to stand on its own feet.
J&K deserves better. It deserves leaders who focus on wealth creation, not just wealth distribution. It needs policies that generate employment, attract investment, and build a self-sufficient economy rather than freebies that serve as political bait. Until the government wakes up to the ground realities and makes real economic reforms, budgets like this will continue to be nothing more than exercises in deception, leaving J&K trapped in the same cycle of stagnation and dependency.
