The Congress on Thursday asserted that the economic situation in the country would have been considerably better had the Narendra Modi government sustained the high growth trajectory like the Manmohan Singh government and addressed the vital concerns about inequality in the last 10 years.

The other Opposition parties too slammed the interim budget for the lack of major announcements to tackle inflation and generate growth and employment.

While Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge recalled the unfulfilled promises of the Modi government in its two terms, former finance minister P. Chidambaram said: “The fundamental flaw in the NDA’s approach to the economy and governance is that it is biased in favour of the rich. It is a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich. The government is either ignorant or callous to the fact that the top 10 per cent owns 60 per cent of the nation’s wealth and earns 57 per cent of the national income and that income inequality has widened significantly in the last 10 years.”

Pointing out that household savings were at a 50-year-low, Kharge said: “Why is 5 per cent to 18 per cent GST imposed on essential goods? Why are the prices of flour, pulses, rice, milk and vegetables increasing day by day? Finance minister (Nirmala Sitharaman) claims that the income of the common people has increased. This is a LIE. The truth is that wages in rural India have decreased in the last 5 years. The finance minister did not even mention MGNREGA in the entire budget speech. Because during the time of UPA, work was available for 100 days, now it is reduced to only 48 days in a year.”

Expressing doubts about the government’s claims and numbers, Chidambaram said: “This outcome (growing inequality) is because of the lower growth rate during the 10-year period as against the UPA period (2004-2014). In the last year of UPA, 2013-14, we left a GDP growth rate of 6.4 per cent and an average growth rate of 7.5 per cent. In the NDA period, the average growth rate has been less than 6 per cent.”

Pointing to the betrayal of every section of society, Chidambaram said: “The finance minister spoke about youth but she did not speak about unemployment. The unemployment rate among youth between the age of 15-29 years is 10 per cent. Among graduates under the age of 25 years, the unemployment rate is 42.3 per cent.”

He added: “The finance minister spoke about women. The topmost concerns of women are the rising crime against women and widespread unpaid employment. NCRB data shows that crimes against women rose by 4 per cent in 2022 compared to 2021. Labour Force Participation Rate among urban women is 24 per cent (against 73.8 per cent for men). The finance minister spoke about farmers. She did not reveal the number of suicides among farmers. The numbers in 2020, 2021 and 2022 are 10,600, 10,881 and 11,290, respectively. The wrath of the farmers was seen by the whole world when they protested against the three unjust farm laws passed without consulting them.”

Insisting that a happy farmer is an oxymoron nowadays, he said: “The finance minister did not even acknowledge the causes for the plight of the farmers: rising input costs, insufficient and uncertain MSP, biased import and export policies, and crop insurance that is either absent or denied....”

Former Uttar Pradesh chief minister and Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav termed it a “farewell budget” before the Lok Sabha polls this year.

The CPM pointed out that the revised estimates of the 2023-24 budget painted a stark picture of the economy under Modi’s watch.

The party’s politburo said in a statement: “Though the revenue receipts in 2023-24 exceeded the budget estimates and grew by 13.3 per cent compared to the previous year, Central Government expenditures have been squeezed below budget estimates in order to reduce the fiscal deficit. These expenditures have grown by only 7 per cent, less than even the nominal growth of GDP, which is officially expected to be 8.9 per cent. This shortfall in expenditure has taken place despite the establishment expenditure of the Government being higher than budgeted. The axe has, therefore, fallen on expenditures on welfare schemes as well as on capital expenditure.”