Kerala joins PM SHRI to secure withheld funds
Share
In a significant policy reversal, the Kerala government has formally inked on to the PM SHRI (Pradhan Mantri Schools for Rising India) scheme, describing the move as a strategic step to unlock withheld central finances and continue bolstering state-run seminaries. Speaking in Thiruvananthapuram, Education Minister V. Sivankutty emphasized that the decision doesn’t signify the state’s acceptance of the National Education Policy 2020 or its complete alignment with all central directives—rather, he framed it as a specialized necessity to guard critical finances for children. According to the minister, the state had been denied access to substantial quantities under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) and affiliated education-entitlement programs because Kerala had heretofore refused to join PM SHRI. He cited withheld totalities of Rs 188.58 crore for 2023-24, Rs 513.54 crore for 2024-25, and Rs 456.01 crore from earlier times—totalling around Rs 1,158.13 crore. With the decision to subscribe, the minister said the state would now become eligible for the pending finances plus fresh allocations, amounting to some Rs 1,477.13 crore, of which Rs 971.01 crore has formerly been approved at the Centre. These remitted finances, he added, were pivotal for nearly 40 lakh scholars in government seminaries in Kerala—including about 5.61 lakh scholars from SC/ST communities and 1.11 lakh differently abled children—whose access to free uniforms, handbooks, allowances for girls, pre-primary education, schoolteacher training, and other support services had been under strain. The minister stressed that withholding similar support “undermines public education and deprives children of their due finances.” Sivankutty made clear that while the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) under PM SHRI has been inked, the state government retains full autonomy over its class and educational policy. He stressed that Kerala is committed to its heritage of temporal, scientific, and popular values, pointing out that state handbooks still include chapters neglected by the public model syllabus. “Subscribing to the PM SHRI agreement won’t lead to any concession in Kerala’s educational principles,” he asserted. On the question of academy imprinting under PM SHRI, which some critics had raised as an emblematic concession—the minister described the demand to carry the scheme’s marker as purely specialized and akin to naming conventions in other central programs. The move comes after prolonged debate and internal disunion within the ruling Left Democratic Front (LDF) coalition. For months, the state government had held back from joining PM SHRI, citing ideological enterprises, including the implicit duty of NEP features and what they described as “central hindrance.” The Communist Party of India (CPI), a crucial coalition mate, was especially vocal in its opposition, calling NEP a vehicle for “commercialization and communalization” of education and expostulating to academy renaming or imprinting under the scheme. Despite these expostulations, the CPM-led government approved participation, arguing that departmental opinions to pierce central schemes are aligned with the broader policy of maximizing finances for Kerala. LDF convenor T P Ramakrishnan clarified that while the frontal retains its ideological opposition to the rudiments of PM SHRI and NEP, individual departments are at liberty to join central schemes in keeping with the state’s interest and fiscal realities. He conceded that the state has been oppressively impacted by the Centre’s withholding of finances and that participation in PM SHRI is harmonious with the end of securing every rupee due to Kerala. In the months prior, Kerala officers had hovered legal action, including approaches to the Supreme Court of India, over the denial of central education finances. The state maintains that several schemes under SSA and other central-state cooperation programs were starved of support on account of not subscribing to the MOUs. While Kerala had earlier claimed it was formerly meeting the structure and quality marks of PM SHRI via its own system, the government acknowledges that the decision to formally join did result in forgone fiscal support. The decision marks a realistic shift in the state’s approach; despite ideological discomfort, the government decided not to allow scholars to bear the consequences of backing stand-offs. The education minister noted that other departments—including health, advanced education, and husbandry—had formerly accepted central schemes and finances without altering their core programs, setting a precedent for the education department to follow. Judges say the occasion reflects the growing pressure in Indian federalism and the politics of central-state backing. While countries like Kerala have vehemently defended their autonomy on education and class, the fiscal armature decreasingly binds them to central schemes and directives. The Kerala case underlines how non-participation in flagship programs may result in withheld finances and strategic recalibration. For now, the Kerala government has walked a fine line between ideological thickness and practical governance. In joining PM SHRI, the state retains its commitment to its education policy but opens the door to pierce finances that had remained locked. The coming months will reveal how the upgrades, schoolteacher training, structure development, and special backing programs unfold under this new arrangement—and whether the state can maintain its class integrity while using central support. As Kerala moves ahead with the MoU, officers anticipate the release of central finances to stabilize program delivery, enable timely payment of schoolteacher hires, and cover essential support services for vulnerable scholars. The question now turns to perpetration—how effectively the renewed alignment translates into measurable advancements for scholars—and whether the state manages to keep its assertion of educational autonomy intact. In the midst of these dynamics, the children of Kerala may eventually admit the benefit of delayed finances, but the political and policy reverberations of the decision will echo beyond. The move offers a window into how states balance ideological posture with financial pragmatism and how central scheme participation has become a reliable element of education governance.
