2023 polls will be my last; won't contest from Chamundeshwari: Siddaramaiah

Bengaluru: Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar on Sunday criticised the Union Budget presented by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, claiming it offered no tangible benefit to the state.

Though he said he was yet to study the budget in detail, Shivakumar asserted that Karnataka had gained little from it. “There is no benefit for our state from the central budget. I was observing it. They have now named a programme after Mahatma Gandhi, after repealing the MGNREGA Act that was named after him,” he said.

Speaking to reporters here, the Deputy Chief Minister demanded the restoration of MGNREGA, and made it clear that the newly enacted rural employment scheme — VB-G RAM G — which proposes a 60:40 fund-sharing formula between the Centre and the states, would not be implemented in Karnataka.

“I don’t see any major share for our state in this budget,” he added.

Shivakumar, who also holds charge of Bengaluru development, said there were high expectations for the city from the Union Budget. “The Prime Minister calls Bengaluru a ‘global city’, but what has the Centre done for it?” he asked.

He also drew attention to the problems faced by sugar factories, particularly those in the cooperative sector, alleging a lack of timely decisions and support from the central government.

Noting that the Centre has the authority to fix the minimum support price (MSP) for agricultural produce, Shivakumar said the Union government must take concrete steps to protect farmers’ interests.

Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot read only three lines from the 122-paragraph address prepared by the Congress-led state government while addressing the joint session of the Legislature on Thursday, effectively bypassing large sections critical of the BJP-led Union government.

The omitted portions of the customary Governor’s address outlined what the state government described as a “suppressive situation in economic and policy matters” under India’s federal framework. The speech also sharply criticised the Centre’s move to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) with the Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, commonly referred to as the VB-GRAM (G) Act.

Governor Gehlot had earlier conveyed his objection to several paragraphs that were explicitly critical of the Union government. On Thursday, he confined himself to the opening lines — “I extend a warm welcome to all of you to the joint session of the State legislature. I am extremely pleased to address this august House” — before jumping directly to the concluding sentence of the final paragraph.

He ended the address by reading the last line of paragraph 122: “Overall, my government is firmly committed to doubling the pace of the State’s economic, social and physical development. Jai Hind — Jai Karnataka.”

According to the prepared speech, the Karnataka government demanded the scrapping of the VB-GRAM (G) Act, describing it as “contractor-centric” and detrimental to rural livelihoods, and called for the full restoration of MGNREGA. The state government argued that the new law undermines decentralisation, weakens labour protections, and centralises decision-making in violation of constitutional norms.

Key points from the unread sections of the speech:

•    Karnataka facing a “suppressive” economic and policy environment within the federal system

•    Repeal of MGNREGA described as a blow to rural livelihoods

•    VB-GRAM (G) Act accused of protecting corporate and contractor interests

•    New law alleged to weaken decentralised governance

•    Decision-making said to be imposed by the Centre without consulting states

•    Rights of Adivasis, women, backward classes and agrarian communities curtailed

•    Labourers allegedly placed under contractor control

•    States facing mounting fiscal stress due to central policies

•    VB-GRAM (G) Act accused of enabling large-scale corruption

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, during his visit to Thiruvananthapuram on Friday, January 23, indicated that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is aiming to expand its political footprint in Kerala ahead of the Assembly elections scheduled in the coming months.

Speaking at a BJP-organised public meeting, Modi drew parallels between the party’s early electoral gains in Gujarat and its recent victory in the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation. The civic body win, which ended decades of Left control, was cited by the Prime Minister as a possible starting point for the party’s broader ambitions in the state.

Recalling BJP’s political trajectory in Gujarat, Modi said the party was largely insignificant before 1987 and received little media attention. He pointed out that the BJP’s first major breakthrough came with its victory in the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation that year.

“Just as our journey in Gujarat began with one city, Kerala’s journey has also started with a single city,” Modi said, suggesting that the party’s municipal-level success could translate into wider electoral acceptance.

The Prime Minister alleged that successive governments led by the Left Democratic Front (LDF) and the United Democratic Front (UDF) had failed to adequately develop Thiruvananthapuram. He accused both fronts of corruption and neglect, claiming that basic infrastructure and facilities were denied to the capital city for decades.

According to Modi, the BJP’s control of the civic body represents a shift driven by public dissatisfaction with the existing political alternatives. He asserted that the BJP administration in Thiruvananthapuram had begun working towards development, though no specific details or timelines were outlined.

Addressing the gathering at Putharikandam Maidan, Modi said the BJP intended to project Thiruvananthapuram as a “model city,” reiterating his party’s commitment to governance-led change.

The Prime Minister’s visit to Kerala also included the inauguration of several development projects and the flagging off of new train services, as the BJP intensifies its political outreach in the poll-bound state.