Union Minister Pralhad Joshi, representing the Dharwad Lok Sabha constituency, publicly criticized the Karnataka state government, led by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah of the Congress party, for failing to utilize approximately ₹5,000 crore allocated by the Central government through various schemes. This accusation, made amid ongoing political tensions, has reignited debates about fiscal management, governance, and accountability in Karnataka. Joshi, the Minister of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution and New and Renewable Energy, argued that the state’s inability to spend these funds reflects financial mismanagement and an attempt to deflect blame onto the Centre to mask unfulfilled electoral promises. The controversy underscores broader issues of fund allocation, state-Centre relations, and Karnataka’s capacity to deliver on development goals, particularly in critical sectors like agriculture, infrastructure, and social welfare.
Karnataka, a key economic hub with a GDP of ₹22.4 lakh crore in 2023, relies on both state and central funds to drive its development agenda. The Central government allocates funds through schemes like the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY), and agricultural programs, which are critical for rural and urban development. According to Joshi, the unspent ₹5,000 crore represents a significant portion of these allocations, with 34% of centrally sponsored projects—amounting to ₹5,727 crore—remaining unutilized as of mid-February 2025. Additionally, funds allocated to the state’s agriculture department have not been effectively spent, raising concerns about delays in supporting farmers, a key demographic in Karnataka’s agrarian economy.
The state government, however, has countered these claims, arguing that the Centre has not released adequate funds or cleared pending grants, which has constrained Karnataka’s ability to implement projects. Siddaramaiah has accused the Central government of fiscal inequality, pointing to disparities in tax devolution and grant-in-aid. Historical data shows that Karnataka received ₹60,000 crore in grants during the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) period from 2004 to 2014, compared to ₹2.36 lakh crore under the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) from 2014 to 2024. In terms of tax allocation, the UPA provided ₹63,000 crore, while the NDA released ₹3.25 lakh crore, indicating a significant increase in funding under the current regime. Despite this, the Congress government claims that the Centre’s allocation formulas, determined by the Finance Commission, disadvantage Karnataka due to its relatively higher per capita income and urbanized economy.
The political context of this dispute is critical. Karnataka’s Congress government, in power since May 2023, has faced scrutiny for its financial management, particularly after introducing ambitious guarantee schemes promising free electricity, cash transfers for women, and subsidized transport. These schemes, estimated to cost ₹52,000 crore annually, have strained the state’s budget, with 38% of the 2024–25 budget remaining unspent as of mid-February 2025. Joshi has accused the state of using these guarantees to divert attention from internal leadership conflicts, notably between Siddaramaiah and Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar, while failing to address rising inflation and new taxes, such as the garbage cess introduced in Bengaluru on April 1, 2025. The cess, ranging from ₹100 to ₹500 monthly for households and businesses, has drawn criticism for adding to citizens’ financial burdens amid price hikes in milk and electricity.
Karnataka’s fiscal challenges are compounded by structural issues. The state’s budget for 2024–25, pegged at ₹3.71 lakh crore, prioritizes welfare but struggles with implementation due to bureaucratic delays, inadequate project planning, and capacity constraints at the local level. For instance, centrally sponsored schemes often require state governments to match funds or meet compliance requirements, which can delay disbursal and execution. In agriculture, Karnataka’s 1.2 crore farmers depend on timely subsidies and infrastructure support, yet unspent funds have slowed initiatives like irrigation projects and crop insurance payouts. Similarly, urban projects under schemes like the Smart Cities Mission have faced delays, with Bengaluru’s infrastructure strained by rapid urbanization and recent flooding in 2024.
The political fallout has been intense. Joshi, a four-term MP and former Karnataka BJP president, has positioned the unspent funds as evidence of Congress’s incompetence, urging Siddaramaiah to acknowledge mismanagement rather than blaming the Centre. His remarks, echoed in a May 19, 2025, post on X, reflect the BJP’s strategy to portray the Congress as fiscally irresponsible ahead of future elections. The Congress, in turn, has accused the BJP-led Centre of withholding funds to undermine Karnataka’s development, citing delays in releasing drought relief funds in 2023–24. Opposition leaders like R. Ashok, Karnataka’s Leader of Opposition, have criticized the state’s handling of other issues, such as Waqf Board land disputes, to amplify perceptions of governance failures.
Public sentiment, as seen on X in May 2025, mirrors this divide. Some users supported Joshi’s critique, arguing that Karnataka’s failure to utilize funds hampers development and burdens taxpayers. Others defended the state, highlighting the Centre’s alleged bias in fund allocation and praising Siddaramaiah’s welfare initiatives. This polarized discourse reflects broader tensions in India’s federal structure, where state-Centre relations often shape development outcomes. Karnataka’s case is not unique; states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala have also raised concerns about fiscal federalism, but Karnataka’s high economic contribution—5.4% of India’s GDP—makes its fiscal disputes particularly significant.
The controversy also raises questions about accountability. Joshi has previously criticized Karnataka’s governance, notably in March 2025, when he accused the Congress of “appeasement politics” over a proposed 4% reservation for Muslims in public contracts. His consistent targeting of Siddaramaiah suggests a broader political strategy to weaken Congress’s hold on Karnataka, a state the BJP governed from 2019 to 2023. Meanwhile, the state’s fiscal dashboard, cited by Joshi, reveals inefficiencies: only 62% of the 2024–25 budget was spent by February, with key departments like agriculture and rural development lagging. Addressing these gaps requires stronger coordination between state and central agencies, streamlined project execution, and capacity-building at the grassroots level.
Looking ahead, Karnataka must address its fiscal challenges to leverage its economic potential. The state’s IT sector, contributing 25% of India’s software exports, and its growing space-tech ecosystem, with 40% of India’s space startups, demand efficient use of funds to sustain growth. Recommendations include prioritizing high-impact projects, enhancing transparency in fund utilization, and fostering state-Centre collaboration to unlock pending grants. For the Centre, ensuring timely fund releases and addressing state-specific needs through the Finance Commission can reduce friction. As Karnataka navigates this fiscal and political storm, its ability to balance welfare commitments with development goals will shape its trajectory and influence India’s broader federal dynamics.
Sponsored
FACTS Transcripts
Apply for a University document anywhere
https://www.factstranscript.com
Quick Transcripts for popular Universities, check your University name now and get started. We help you to get your transcript application online which is accepted for use of IRCC.
No DD, NO Paperwork. 100% Authentic, Reliable.
FACTS Transcripts Charges · Reviews · Assam Universities · Home · Know your University
