Published Sep 29, 2026 | 2:35 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 29, 2026 | 3:22 PM
Data from PRS Legislative Research pegs the estimated cost of five guarantee schemes at Rs 51,286 crore for the upcoming 2026-27 financial year.
Synopsis: The Karnataka Municipal Administration Minister’s remarks to protesting persons with disabilities, linking the five guarantee schemes to constraints on development spending, are but the latest in a series of such statements. PRS, citing a CAG audit, said that higher allocations towards the schemes did reduce infrastructure spending. But then wasn’t this the Congress’ own choice?
Once, the five guarantees—Gruha Lakshmi, Gruha Jyothi, Shakti, Anna Bhagya and Yuva Nidhi—were seen as the Congress’ ultimate weapon to win the 2023 Assembly elections in Karnataka. But now, are they turning into a millstone around the neck of the Congress government?
The question has begun to be asked as minister after minister, and MLA after MLA, blame these guarantees for making life harder for the government.
On September 26, Karnataka Municipal Administration Minister HC Balakrishna said the state government is facing financial stress from the guarantee programmes, telling persons with disabilities protesting in Ramanagara that meeting their demands would have been easier without the guarantees.
Balakrishna made the remarks while receiving a petition from persons with disabilities who had been protesting outside the Deputy Commissioner’s office in Ramanagara. He reportedly assured them that their demands would be placed before the Cabinet.
“We too know what kind of lives people are living. But you are seeing today’s situation. Ours is a certain kind of situation. Whether we wanted it or not, we have given the guarantees,” Balakrishna said.
Pointing to competing pressures on the government, he said farmers seek relief when crops fail, while beneficiaries protest if the guarantee schemes are not provided.
“We are caught in this problem and are struggling. We feel that if we didn’t have the guarantees, all this would not have been so much of a problem for us. We could have done all this easily,” he said.
Balakrishna pointed out that the government had to accommodate different expenditure commitments within its allocated resources.
“We have to run the government, don’t we? Within the system, everything has to be done within this budget, within its limits. It is not that there is an intention that it should not be done,” he said.
Balakrishna’s remarks were not new. There have been a series of statements within the Congress government highlighting the difficulties in balancing the five guarantees alongside demands for development programmes.
Following Balakrishna’s remarks, Deputy Chief Minister G Parameshwara admitted on Monday, “We knew the guarantees would put pressure on the financial situation”, but maintained that they would continue.
Urban Development Minister Yathindra Siddaramaiah too chimed in: “It is true that the guarantees are an economic burden. Even if it is a financial burden, we will manage it.”
The laments began at the beginning.
In July 2023, months after the Congress government came to power, then Deputy CM DK Shivakumar said the government had to set aside around Rs 40,000 crore for the guarantees and could not provide funds for development that year, as reported by South First.
“We have had to set aside Rs 40,000 crore this year (for the five guarantees). This year, we can’t provide development. Even in irrigation and public works, we can’t give funds for development. But expectations are high. We have asked MLAs to hold on. We will explain this to them at the meeting,” Shivakumar said.
He went on to blame the previous BJP government for the state’s financial situation and said Congress MLAs had been asked to wait for development projects.
A year later, in July 2024, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s economic adviser and Congress MLA Basavaraj Rayareddi spoke about the difficulty of securing money for development while financing the guarantees, according to a PTI report.
Speaking after the launch of work on a lake project in his constituency, Rayareddi said his position as the CM’s economic adviser had helped secure funds for the project.
“The CM (Siddaramaiah) has made me his economic advisor, and as I interact with him daily, this money has come—for the lake project—or else it wouldn’t have come… impossible. This is the only work that is happening in the entire state, because guarantees will finish things… Rs 60,000-Rs 65,000 crore we have to spend for the guarantees. I know how difficult it is, internal finance,” Rayareddi said.
It’s another matter that Shivakumar subsequently pushed back against suggestions that the government faced difficulty financing its commitments, saying there were “no difficulties” and that the government was streamlining its finances while continuing the guarantees.
All it took was another five months for the next complaint about the burden to surface.
In January 2025, Congress MLA Raghavendra Hitnal reiterated the connection between guarantee expenditure and the pace of development projects.
“Several projects have been formulated for the village (Kunikeri). But the works are moving at a sluggish pace due to the implementation of five guarantee schemes by the state government,” Hitnal said, according to a report by Deccan Herald.
He added: “Rs 54,000 crore is being spent on the guarantees. The diversion of funds has certainly hindered development works.”
Hitnal also acknowledged that the schemes were benefiting poorer households.
Then, in November 2025, Housing Minister B Zameer Ahmed Khan also linked expenditure on the guarantee schemes to difficulties in securing funds for legislators, according to India Today.
“For the five guarantees, it’s about Rs 55,000 to Rs 60,000 crore. Because of that, getting MLA funds has become difficult,” Khan said at an event in Vijayanagar district.
Data from PRS Legislative Research pegs the estimated cost of five guarantee schemes at Rs 51,286 crore for the upcoming 2026-27 financial year, accounting for 12% of Karnataka’s total expenditure (excluding debt payment).
The PRS, citing a CAG audit, said higher allocation for these schemes in 2023-24 reduced spending on infrastructure by Rs 5,229 crore compared to the previous year.
The numbers then add some ballast to the argument being made by the leaders. But then again, welfare is a political plank that the Congress chose to ride on. Whether they should be pointing fingers at it in this manner remains a moot question.
Also Read:
When a language fights to avoid being eaten: The Tulu lesson for India
(Edited by R Rajesh Kumar.)
