Dr.Thomas (Special Correspondent)
The recent Union Budget presented by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman has triggered intense political debate across the country,with opposition parties and policy analysts alleging that the budget is strategically designed to benefit the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in upcoming state elections, rather than addressing India’s balanced and federal development needs.
Budget as an Electoral Tool:
A close reading of the budget reveals disproportionately high fund allocations, infrastructure announcements, and flagship projects for select states that are politically significant and facing imminent or strategically important elections.
Such targeted spending has raised serious questions about whether the Union Budget has been used as an electoral instrument to influence voter sentiment, instead of serving as a neutral national financial plan.
Historically, Union Budgets are expected to follow principles of equitable federalism, ensuring fair distribution of national resources.
However, critics argue that this year’s allocations reflect political calculation over constitutional responsibility.
States Allegedly Favoured for Electoral Gains:
According to opposition leaders and independent policy observers, the following states received notable fund allocations and high-visibility projects, allegedly aimed at maximising political advantage:
Bihar:
• Announcements for major highway projects, railway upgrades, and river infrastructure.
• Special emphasis on urban housing and connectivity.
These allocations are viewed as politically significant given Bihar’s crucial role in coalition arithmetic and upcoming electoral contests.
Uttar Pradesh
• Expanded funding for expressways, rail corridors, and defense manufacturing hubs.
• Continued focus on religious tourism and urban infrastructure.
Critics argue that sustained financial focus on Uttar Pradesh serves to reinforce electoral dominance rather than address regional imbalance.
Maharashtra:
• Large allocations for metro rail expansion, urban transport, and industrial clusters.
• Support for ports, logistics, and financial infrastructure.
Political analysts note that these announcements coincide with efforts to stabilize political influence in a state marked by shifting alliances.
Andhra Pradesh:
• Central assistance for capital-region development, ports,and infrastructure projects.
• Selective project support highlighted prominently in the budget speech.
Observers suggest these measures are aimed at regaining political relevance in the state.
Opposition parties contend that while development is necessary, the concentration of major announcements in politically sensitive states indicates that electoral considerations have heavily influenced budgetary priorities.
Alleged Neglect of Southern States:
One of the most contentious aspects of the budget is the perceived partiality against southern states, particularly Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala.
Despite being among the highest contributors to the national tax pool and demonstrating strong economic indicators, these states reportedly received:
• Limited new flagship project announcements.
• Lower visibility in capital expenditure commitments.
• Minimal mention in major infrastructure initiatives.
Southern states have consistently raised concerns about:
• Lower per-capita central fund allocation.
• Reduced visibility in new infrastructure projects.
• Lack of proportional returns despite higher GST and income tax contributions.
This has strengthened the argument that the budget undermines the spirit of cooperative federalism enshrined in the Constitution of India.
Selective Generosity and Political Messaging:
Major announcements related to railway expansion, highways, industrial corridors, and special development packages appear concentrated in a handful of politically sensitive states.
While infrastructure development is welcome, the uneven geographic distribution fuels allegations that public money is being deployed to shape electoral outcomes, rather than promote inclusive growth.
Political analysts point out that budget speeches increasingly resemble campaign narratives, highlighting region-specific promises aligned with electoral timelines.
Constitutional and Democratic Concerns
Using the Union Budget to favor certain regions raises fundamental constitutional questions.
Article 14 (Equality before Law) and the federal structure envisioned by the Constitution demand non-discriminatory governance.
A budget perceived as partisan risks eroding public trust in democratic institutions and weakening the fiscal autonomy of states.
The Union Budget is not merely a financial document—it is a moral and constitutional commitment to the people of India.
When fiscal policy appears aligned with electoral strategy, it blurs the line between governance and political campaigning.
As India approaches multiple state elections, the growing perception that the budget has been tailored to secure political victories rather than ensure balanced national development demands greater transparency, accountability, and adherence to federal principles. The credibility of economic governance depends not on slogans, but on fairness.
