Funding – Seer Questions Community Centre Grant Distribution in Karnataka
Funding – A fresh political controversy has emerged in Karnataka after a prominent religious leader raised concerns over the distribution of government funds meant for community centres. The allegations are centred on claims that a large share of financial assistance released during the final phase of former Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s earlier tenure was directed toward organisations associated with a particular community. The issue has sparked a debate on whether the allocation reflected the principles of social justice often advocated by the veteran leader.
Seer Raises Questions Over Fund Allocation
Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Pranavananda Swamiji, who heads the Forum of Heads of the Most Backward Class Maths, alleged that grants sanctioned for backward communities were distributed unevenly. According to him, a Finance Department order authorised the release of Rs 75 crore to 171 organisations and institutions across the state.
The seer stated that while the funds were intended for various backward communities, a significant portion allegedly benefited institutions connected to the Kuruba community, to which Siddaramaiah belongs. He questioned whether such an allocation was consistent with the ideals of equality and inclusive welfare frequently associated with the former Chief Minister’s public stance.
Concerns Over Representation of Backward Communities
Pranavananda Swamiji argued that Karnataka’s backward classes category consists of a wide range of communities and not a single group. He pointed out that communities such as Ediga, Kumbara, Vishwakarma, Shivasimpi, Pinjara and several others are also part of the backward classes framework.
According to his claims, nearly 60 to 70 percent of the released funds were directed toward organisations linked to one community, while comparatively smaller allocations went to groups such as Uppara, Madivala and others. He stressed that his objection was not against supporting any specific community but against what he described as an imbalance in the overall distribution process.
Details of Beneficiary Institutions
The seer further alleged that only a limited number of institutions representing certain communities received assistance. He claimed that grants were sanctioned to eight Madivala community centres, two Yadava institutions and one centre each belonging to the Helava and Savita communities.
In contrast, he alleged that 89 organisations associated with the Kuruba community received financial support under the same allocation. These figures, he argued, raised questions about whether all eligible communities had been treated fairly.
Questions Raised About Regional Distribution
Another point of concern highlighted by the seer involved the geographical distribution of grants. He claimed that several community centres located in T. Narasipura taluk, a region associated with Siddaramaiah, were among the beneficiaries.
He also alleged that the Rakesh Siddaramaiah Trust in Gadag was sanctioned Rs 50 lakh. The trust is named after Rakesh Siddaramaiah, the elder son of Siddaramaiah, who passed away in 2016 following complications related to acute pancreatitis while receiving treatment in Belgium.
Allegations Linked to Final Days of Previous Tenure
Pranavananda Swamiji stated that officials informed him the funding decision was approved shortly before Siddaramaiah demitted office during his earlier tenure as Chief Minister. He claimed that out of Rs 138 crore earmarked for backward class welfare, approximately Rs 78 crore was released in a single day, with a substantial share allegedly reaching institutions linked to one community.
Government Responds to the Claims
Responding to the allegations, Karnataka Home Minister Priyank Kharge rejected suggestions that the government intended to favour any particular community. Addressing the media in Bengaluru, he said the administration remains committed to ensuring fair treatment for all sections of society.
Kharge acknowledged that funding patterns may vary from time to time but maintained that the government would review any concerns brought to its attention. He said corrective measures would be considered if any imbalance in allocations was identified, adding that the objective of the government is to deliver equitable support across communities