Is Tamil Nadu Bearing the Financial Load for Central Schemes?

Synopsis
Is Tamil Nadu unfairly shouldering the financial burden for schemes advertised as Central? Official documents reveal a stark imbalance in funding responsibilities between the state and the Union government across major welfare and infrastructure programs.
Key Takeaways
- Tamil Nadu funds more than the Union government in major welfare schemes.
- NSAP's financial support from the state is significantly higher.
- Actual funding ratios often differ from nominal agreements.
- State contributions ensure beneficiaries receive adequate support.
- There is a need to reassess funding structures for equity.
Chennai, June 14 (NationPress) Even though these programs are branded as Central schemes, the government of Tamil Nadu is shouldering a much larger share of funding compared to the Union government in at least six key welfare and infrastructure initiatives, as per official state documents.
The schemes involved include three from the National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP) -- the Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme (IGNOAPS), Indira Gandhi National Widow Pension Scheme (IGNWPS), and Indira Gandhi National Disability Pension Scheme (IGNDPS) -- alongside the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY-Rural), Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana (PMMSY), and the Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM).
The NSAP was initiated in 1995 as a fully Central-funded program, following a state-run pension scheme that had started in Tamil Nadu in January 1962.
From 1974 to 1984, the state broadened its support to cover individuals with disabilities, widows, agricultural laborers, and abandoned women.
These initiatives were later included in the national scheme in 2007.
Under the IGNOAPS and IGNWPS, the Centre contributes a modest monthly amount of Rs 200 or Rs 300 for beneficiaries under 80 years, and Rs 500 for those aged 80 and above. The Tamil Nadu government supplements this by providing an additional Rs 1,000, Rs 900, or Rs 700, depending on the beneficiary category, ensuring the total payout reaches Rs 1,200.
For IGNDPS, beneficiaries receive Rs 1,500, with only Rs 300 or Rs 500 covered by the Centre; the remainder is funded by the state.
Additionally, Tamil Nadu offers support for persons with disabilities through a separate scheme, providing Rs 1,500 to each beneficiary. In the case of PMAY-Rural, the nominal cost-sharing ratio is set at 60:40 (Centre: State) in plain regions.
However, Tamil Nadu's contribution is substantially higher. The overall unit cost for a house in the state is Rs 2,83,900, which includes RCC roofing and components from MGNREGS and Swachh Bharat (Rural). The Centre contributes Rs 1,11,100, while the state covers Rs 1,72,800, resulting in a split of 39:61.
Under the PMMSY, despite the prescribed cost-sharing formula allocating 60 percent to the Centre and 40 percent to the State, actual figures reveal that Tamil Nadu ends up bearing 73 percent of the costs, with only 27 percent from the Centre.
Even within the Jal Jeevan Mission, which mandates a 50:50 cost-sharing structure, Tamil Nadu contributes more, at 55 percent, compared to the Centre's 45 percent. These statistics underscore a consistent pattern where Tamil Nadu assumes a disproportionately higher financial responsibility for schemes that are marketed and intended to be centrally sponsored.