As the Maharashtra state elections loom, Mallikarjun Kharge, President of the Indian National Congress, has urged his party’s Maharashtra unit to exercise caution in their campaign promises. He advised them to avoid making commitments that could strain the state’s budget, citing the importance of responsible governance amid increasing voter demands. Kharge’s cautionary note reflects the Congress’s evolving strategy to win public support without risking the state’s fiscal stability. With Maharashtra’s state elections set for November 20, Kharge’s timely guidance signals a departure from some past Congress practices of ambitious welfare promises that may challenge budget allocations. Political analysts view Kharge’s stance as informed by recent experiences in Karnataka, his home state, where Congress formed the government but has struggled to implement costly welfare schemes. The Indian National Congress, part of the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) coalition, is contesting 88 out of 288 seats in Maharashtra. As Congress works to solidify its position as a major MVA partner, Kharge’s caution serves as a safeguard against overpromising. Pollsters predict a closely contested election, with the MVA likely to have an edge over the ruling coalition, known as the Mahayuthi, led by the BJP. In the Mahayuthi alliance, BJP contests 148 seats and aims to improve its previous tally of 105 seats. Political observers, however, caution that a severe underperformance by BJP, dropping as low as 60–70 seats, could diminish their return to power. But with strong numbers from allies like the Shinde faction of Shiv Sena, a BJP-led victory remains within reach if their coalition can clear the halfway mark of 144 seats.
For Congress, Kharge’s warning is a bid to avoid fiscal pitfalls experienced in recent Congress-led states like Himachal Pradesh and Karnataka. These states have struggled to meet the costs of various welfare promises that helped Congress secure electoral victories. In Himachal Pradesh, for instance, the government, grappling with financial woes, has even contemplated taxing household utilities, including toilets, to generate revenue. Meanwhile, Karnataka’s government, led by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, faces mounting criticism over corruption allegations and an increasingly strained budget. Among the Congress’s campaign pledges in Karnataka were several ambitious welfare programs, including the “Mahalakshmi Scheme,” which promised monthly financial aid to women in low-income households. This program alone has placed heavy demands on Karnataka’s budget, sparking rumors of its potential cancellation due to funding shortfalls. Similarly, Telangana, where Congress recently wrested control from the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS), faces fiscal strain under party leader Revanth Reddy’s administration. Videos of disappointed women demanding their promised benefits in Telangana have gone viral, underscoring the challenges Congress faces in fulfilling financial commitments across states with tight budgets. Amid these difficulties, the Congress party has often criticized the central government for allegedly withholding funds, while Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman has dismissed such claims, emphasizing that states must take responsibility for budget overreaches tied to electoral promises. By urging his Maharashtra unit to limit campaign promises, Kharge aims to shield the party from similar conflicts and protect the state’s financial integrity. At 81, Kharge’s leadership reflects a pragmatic approach, distinguishing him from the party’s recent populist tilt. By prioritizing fiscal responsibility, he is aligning Congress’s strategy with sustainable governance principles. His warning to Maharashtra’s Congress unit is not only a preventive measure but also an assertion of his leadership, distancing the party from reckless promises that may damage both its credibility and the state’s budget stability. As Maharashtra voters prepare to head to the polls, Kharge’s prudent approach could signal a broader shift within Congress toward balancing public expectations with the fiscal realities of governance.
