Vijayawada: The state govt's massive allocation for the rural employment guarantee scheme (VG G Ram G) surprised experts, as the finance minister did not refer to the Centre's share in the total component. The minister, during his budget presentation, announced an outlay of ₹8,365 crore under the Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB-G RAM G), aimed at boosting rural infrastructure, generating large-scale employment, and strengthening sustainable livelihoods.
"The state budget shows an allocation of ₹8,365 crore for the new VB-G RAM G scheme. This number is surprising. It is not clear whether this amount is only the state's share or whether it also includes the Centre's contribution. From the way the budget is presented, it appears to be a state allocation. If that is correct, the state could claim about ₹12,500 crore from the Centre, which would mean total spending of around ₹20,000 crore in a year. This seems unrealistic because AP never spent more than ₹10,000 crore on MGNREGA in any year, even during COVID. In normal years, spending was usually between ₹8,000 and ₹9,000 crore," said Libtech India Senior Researcher Budha Chakradhar.
PM Highlights Union Budget, Rahul Gandhi-Amit Shah Clash, India-Pak T20 Showdown And More
He further said that if the amount indicated in the budget is the total share of both the state and Centre, it should be clearly mentioned, as the new scheme mandates a 40 percent share from the state.
In the outcome budget document, the state govt mentioned that ₹3,760 crore was earmarked for infrastructure and asset creation works, while ₹4,605 crore was allocated towards the wage component of the mission. However, there is no clarity about how much is the state's share in both components. AP was drawing almost 10 percent of the total Centre's spending on the previous rural employment guarantee scheme (NREGS), thanks to the lowest contribution of 10 percent from the state's quota for the past 2 decades. However, the scheme is expected to hit a big hurdle if there is no clarity with regard to the funds to be spared from the state's exchequer.