A few days ago, I received a phone call from former BJP Chief Minister Suresh Mehta, who resigned from the party in 2007 following differences with the then Chief Minister Narendra Modi. Now 88, though still active, he told me he had prepared an alternative budget proposal ahead of the Gujarat government's budget session.
I have known Mehta ever since I was assigned to Gandhinagar, the state capital, in 1997 to report on government affairs for The Times of India. A former lawyer who always sought to understand issues independently, he was quite frank about his closeness to A.B. Vajpayee. Though not part of the Sangh Parivar and broadly secular despite being in the BJP, he followed the party line and refrained from criticizing the Sangh Parivar.
Mehta told me, "After analyzing past budgets for several months, I have prepared an alternative budget proposal and submitted it to Chief Minister Bhupendra Patel. I did this because I believe that if the state government does not make necessary structural changes in the new budget for 2025-26, people's welfare will suffer. I sought an appointment to discuss my proposal but received no response. Hence, I have decided to address the media and release the document."
When I asked Mehta whether he had taken help from an economist, he said he had not, which surprised me. Though he understands budget nuances well—having served as Chief Minister for nearly a year in 1995-96, followed by holding the powerful Industries portfolio from 1998 to 2002—he told the media, at a press conference on February 17, that he got the idea for an alternative budget from Mahesh Pandya, an environmentalist.
Releasing the 28-page document, Mehta told the media that the Gujarat government has been dividing the budget for the Environment, Forest, and Climate Change Department into three parts. In the outgoing financial year 2024-25, environmental protection received an allocation of just about ₹40 crore out of the total ₹3 lakh crore budget. On the other hand, climate change received ₹1,200 crore.
"Under the climate change category, the state government provides subsidies to industries setting up so-called green energy units, including solar and wind energy, and new technologies that claim to minimize pollution caused by coal-based power production. Does the government believe that farmers do not suffer due to climate change?" he asked.
.jpeg)
Mehta suggested that this approach is similar to how the state government handles health, education, and child care. "The per-child allocation in 2011-12 was ₹2. For the outgoing financial year, it was ₹8. However, this ₹8 per child allocation conceals a crucial fact: it hides expenses for malnutrition," he said.
"In fact," he continued, "this amount also includes funding for building school classrooms and child care centers. Meanwhile, there have been moves to cut funds for children's morning breakfast programs." He claimed that "nearly 86% of child welfare funds are diverted towards capital expenditure."
Mehta noted, "There has been neglect of social sector spending on health and education in favor of infrastructure development. Huge subsidies are offered to industries in the name of development. Flyovers are considered more important than people's welfare. As a result, debts have risen sharply. In the early 2000s, the state's debt was ₹11,000 crore. By the next financial year, it is expected to reach ₹5 lakh crore."
Comments