The Opposition was in full gear on Tuesday, as the debate on Union Budget began in both Houses of Parliament. Outside the House, opposition leaders led by Sonia Gandhi, Mallikarjun Kharge, Rahul Gandhi, Akhilesh Yadav and other alliance leaders, raised slogans alleging that the budget was “discriminatory against non-BJP-ruled states” and “it violated the spirit of federalism”. They objected to the special assistance given to Bihar and Andhra Pradesh, ruled by NDA allies, ignoring the demands of other states. Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge alleged that the budget was prepared with a view to “save Modi government”. He said, even BJP-ruled states were ignored in the Budget, and this was against the federal structure envisaged in the Constitution. As Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman rose to intervene, the entire Opposition staged a walkout. Sitharaman said, not naming a state in the Budget does not mean that government schemes and other financial assistance were not being given to the states. She pointed out that the Union Cabinet has already approved Rs 76,000 crore for Vadhavan deep sea transhipment port in Palghar, Maharashtra. She alleged that it was a deliberate attempt by the opposition to convey the impression to the people that nothing has been given to other states, and all assistance have been given to only two states. Sitharaman challenged the Congress to show past budget speeches of Congress Finance Ministers and prove that all their ministers named every state of the country in each of their budget speeches. “It is an outrageous allegation which is not acceptable”, she said. Sitharaman pointed out that for the last 10 years, the Trinamool government in West Bengal was not implementing several centrally-sponsored schemes and yet the party was alleging discrimination. Trinamool party’s stand was effectively projected in Lok Sabha when Abhishek Banerjee, Mamata’s nephew, spoke for 55 minutes amidst constant interruptions. He alleged that the “Budget does not project the slogan Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas. Instead it projects the slogan, Jo Hamare Saath, Hum Uske Saath”. This Budget, Banerjee said, “has been prepared by two persons tto satisfy two states.” There was pandemonium when Banerjee made certain remarks about BJP MP Saumitra Khan’s wife Sujata Mondal, who had contested on TMC ticket and lost. Banerjee was engaged in a verbal duel with Speaker Om Birla on this issue. There was another pandemonium when SP MP Dharmendra Yadav made personal remarks against BJP MP Satish Gautam. While RLP MP from Rajasthan Hanuman Beniwal alleged that his state was ignored in the Budget, Aam Aadmi Party leaders alleged that Delhi and Punjab were ignored. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said it was regrettable that the Opposition was spreading confusion about the Budget. Rijiju said, massive allocations have been made for infrastructure development, housing for poor, welfare of scheduled tribes, farmers and jobs and internships for youth, and all these schemes are going to benefit all the states. He said, it was not possible for any finance minister to name all the states in the budget speech. In Tuesday’s debate, Abhishek Banerjee spoke well and he had strong arguments to support his statements. His arguments had substance and the ruling party had no cogent answer to that. Akhilesh Yadav’s focus was on caste equations in UP, and he allowed members from all castes to speak. Kharge’s speech was less focussed on Budget, and more on scoring political brownie points. Kharge harped on the theme that states where BJP lost, were ignored in the Budget. Normally, a Budget is not analysed on the basis of which state is named by the Finance Minister in the budget speech, and which states have been left out. It is true that Sitharaman did focus on Bihar and AP in her speech and made people of both these states happy. Had she not done that, Congress leaders could have instigated Nitish Kumar and N. Chandrababu Naidu and said that their states were being ignored. Their objective would have been to try a wedge in the ruling alliance. This plan was nipped in the bud.