Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman poses with the case carrying the Union Budget 2024, at Finance Ministry, North Block in New Delhi (PTI)
The criticism of the various sections of the Opposition, including Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, besides Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, Trinamul Congress supremo Mamata Banerjee and others, that politics laid the broad contours of the Union Budget presented by the finance minister in Parliament on Tuesday, is unfair. While the subject of national finances, taxation, resource allocations and policies around these together comprise the branch of political economy, there has never been a single apolitical Budget in the history of Independent India, so such an allegation is peculiarly selective.
Taxation, the fundamental and permanent feature of any Budget, is driven by ideology. There is almost no justification to it, save the political view that the rich must pay for the upkeep of the poor, and that, within a nation, state, region, or geography, a government is obliged to enforce such redistribution of wealth.
Each Budget is an exercise in defining the priorities of a government, and people. This might include sectoral allocations — agriculture, education, industry, energy and electricity, healthcare, defence and infrastructure — breaking these down further into roads, railways, airports, ports, and so on or be classified based on beneficiary — farmers, women, youth, senior citizens, physically challenged and minorities. The distribution can be based on states even, and legitimately.
As long as the Centre has fairly allocated for and complied with certain statutory distributions, like GST share for states, it is the fair prerogative of the Central government and the finance minister to make provisions, allocations, sub-policies, schemes and special schemes for different states as and how they deem fit.
Therefore, while Andhra Pradesh and Bihar have been called out for being granted a disproportionately large share of resources this year, given the power balance in the NDA government and the existential dependence of the BJP on the two allies, the Telugu Desam Party and the Janata Dal (United), neither its motivation, nor the actual allocation, can be considered wrong.
Even parents don’t always distribute resources and assets with precision or go by the equal distribution principle every time. Bihar has been one of the most backward states in the country and it is of paramount importance to address it for larger national success. Similarly, the state of Andhra Pradesh has been without a capital city for a decade since its bifurcation.
The allocation for Bihar and Andhra, therefore, must be seen as rightful national investments in the future turnaround of these states which would then give fair returns to the nation as a
whole.
It is also rather churlish conduct, and unwise, of the Opposition to believe that the Narendra Modi government must not take decisions based on pragmatic realities based on the peculiar characteristics of the electorate’s verdict. If anything, the Budget of Ms Nirmala Sitharaman must be celebrated as a victory of democracy — and if the lottery was won by Andhra Pradesh and Bihar, why not?
Different states, at different times, and for different reasons, have been given allocations that might have been dubbed unfair or discretionary. Take the examples of Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra and Gujarat. Let us not be guided by convenient logic.
Criticise the budget by all means, but not on the basis of regional bias or compulsions of power politics. So what if this is a ‘kursi bachao’ Budget?
Taxation, the fundamental and permanent feature of any Budget, is driven by ideology. There is almost no justification to it, save the political view that the rich must pay for the upkeep of the poor, and that, within a nation, state, region, or geography, a government is obliged to enforce such redistribution of wealth.
Each Budget is an exercise in defining the priorities of a government, and people. This might include sectoral allocations — agriculture, education, industry, energy and electricity, healthcare, defence and infrastructure — breaking these down further into roads, railways, airports, ports, and so on or be classified based on beneficiary — farmers, women, youth, senior citizens, physically challenged and minorities. The distribution can be based on states even, and legitimately.
As long as the Centre has fairly allocated for and complied with certain statutory distributions, like GST share for states, it is the fair prerogative of the Central government and the finance minister to make provisions, allocations, sub-policies, schemes and special schemes for different states as and how they deem fit.
Therefore, while Andhra Pradesh and Bihar have been called out for being granted a disproportionately large share of resources this year, given the power balance in the NDA government and the existential dependence of the BJP on the two allies, the Telugu Desam Party and the Janata Dal (United), neither its motivation, nor the actual allocation, can be considered wrong.
Even parents don’t always distribute resources and assets with precision or go by the equal distribution principle every time. Bihar has been one of the most backward states in the country and it is of paramount importance to address it for larger national success. Similarly, the state of Andhra Pradesh has been without a capital city for a decade since its bifurcation.
The allocation for Bihar and Andhra, therefore, must be seen as rightful national investments in the future turnaround of these states which would then give fair returns to the nation as a
whole.
It is also rather churlish conduct, and unwise, of the Opposition to believe that the Narendra Modi government must not take decisions based on pragmatic realities based on the peculiar characteristics of the electorate’s verdict. If anything, the Budget of Ms Nirmala Sitharaman must be celebrated as a victory of democracy — and if the lottery was won by Andhra Pradesh and Bihar, why not?
Different states, at different times, and for different reasons, have been given allocations that might have been dubbed unfair or discretionary. Take the examples of Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra and Gujarat. Let us not be guided by convenient logic.
Criticise the budget by all means, but not on the basis of regional bias or compulsions of power politics. So what if this is a ‘kursi bachao’ Budget?
Next Story
