Tripura’s 2025-26 budget has sparked intense political debate, with opposition leader Jitendra Chaudhary branding it “anti-people and directionless.” He criticized the state government for failing to address unemployment, corruption, and inflation, which continue to burden the people. The budget, presented in the state assembly, aimed to highlight development initiatives, but Chaudhary dismissed them as empty promises that do not reflect the reality on the ground.
Chaudhary accused the ruling party of prioritizing grand announcements over concrete action. He claimed that while the budget outlined various welfare schemes, there was no clarity on how the government would fund them. He also pointed out that several projects announced in previous budgets had not been implemented, raising doubts about the administration’s ability to deliver on its commitments.
The opposition leader took particular issue with the government’s handling of job creation. He alleged that the budget failed to introduce any significant measures to tackle unemployment, which remains one of the biggest concerns for Tripura’s youth. He argued that without new industries or investments, job opportunities would remain scarce, and the state would continue to witness migration in search of employment.
Corruption, another key issue highlighted by Chaudhary, dominated his critique of the budget. He claimed that the government had done little to curb corruption in various departments and accused officials of misusing public funds. He questioned the transparency of financial allocations and called for stricter measures to ensure accountability.
Inflation and rising costs of essential goods also found a place in his criticism. Chaudhary argued that the budget did not propose any effective steps to control price hikes, leaving ordinary citizens struggling to manage their daily expenses. He demanded that the government introduce subsidies or other relief measures to ease the financial burden on families.
Farmers, according to the opposition leader, were among the worst affected by the budget’s shortcomings. He asserted that the agricultural sector had been neglected, with no significant provisions to support small and marginal farmers. He accused the government of failing to provide adequate irrigation facilities, financial aid, or a fair price mechanism for their produce, pushing many into distress.
Healthcare and education, two crucial sectors, also failed to receive the attention they deserved, Chaudhary claimed. He pointed out that government hospitals continued to suffer from staff shortages, lack of essential medicines, and inadequate infrastructure. Schools and colleges, he argued, remained underfunded, with little effort made to improve the quality of education. He warned that unless the government invested more in these areas, the state’s long-term development would suffer.
Chaudhary further criticized the budget for lacking a clear vision for urban and rural development. He claimed that several towns and villages still lacked basic amenities such as proper roads, sanitation, and electricity. While the budget mentioned infrastructure projects, he questioned whether they would be executed efficiently or remain on paper like previous promises.
The opposition leader also expressed concerns over the government’s debt burden. He alleged that the state was increasingly relying on loans to fund projects, which could lead to a financial crisis in the future. He warned that reckless borrowing without a proper repayment strategy could weaken Tripura’s economy.
Despite the strong criticism, the ruling party defended the budget, calling it a balanced and growth-oriented plan. Government officials argued that their policies focused on long-term development and that the opposition was merely engaging in political rhetoric. They assured that employment, infrastructure, and welfare initiatives would be implemented effectively.
Chaudhary, however, remained unconvinced. He demanded a complete revision of the budget, urging the government to focus on real issues affecting the people. He called for public discussions to ensure that citizen concerns were addressed before the final implementation.
As the debate over the budget continues, both sides remain firm in their positions. The opposition vows to keep questioning the government’s policies, while the ruling party insists that its vision will bring prosperity to the state. With Tripura’s people watching closely, the coming months will determine whether the promises in the budget translate into tangible benefits.
