The first budget of the V D Satheesan government is a serious attempt at economic course correction. At the same time, it is also a reminder that governing Kerala is far more difficult than criticizing those who do. For a decade, the United Democratic Front (UDF) sat in opposition and attacked the Left Democratic Front (LDF) for everything from fiscal management to policy choices and governance priorities. Listening to its leaders, one would have thought Kerala's problems stemmed primarily from incompetence and that a change of government would unlock a fundamentally different approach. But barely a month into office, reality has arrived.

The budget presented by the new government is not revolutionary, nor is it ideological or even particularly partisan. Instead, it is a practical acknowledgment of the same constraints that every Kerala government eventually encounters.

Debt is high, revenue is limited, and welfare commitments are non-negotiable. Economic growth cannot be postponed indefinitely. In that sense, one can say that the budget represents the triumph of governance over rhetoric.

Also Read: Kerala's treasury finally runs out of excuses

The most striking feature of the budget is that it finally attempts to answer a question that Kerala's political class has spent years avoiding. Where will future growth come from? The emphasis on ports, logistics, tourism, maritime development, startups and MSMEs suggests that the government understands that the old model has reached its limits.

Remittances remain vital, consumption remains important, welfare remains essential, but none of them can generate the scale of employment required for the future. The focus on the maritime economy is particularly welcome.

Kerala has one of the longest coastlines in the country and yet has never fully leveraged its strategic advantage. For decades, successive governments have spoken of the state's maritime potential. Few have attempted to place it at the centre of an economic vision. The same can be said of the emphasis on investment and enterprise.

For far too long, sections of Kerala's political establishment behaved as though investment was something morally suspect. The new government appears willing to acknowledge an uncomfortable truth. Without private investment, there will be no meaningful expansion of employment opportunities.

Also Read: History may not be as kind to Rahul Gandhi as his admirers imagine

The budget also deserves credit for confronting the state's financial position honestly. Political arguments over who created the problem will continue. But what cannot be disputed is that Kerala's fiscal space is shrinking. Salaries, pensions and interest payments consume a major share of government revenue.

Any administration that pretends otherwise is either dishonest or delusional. Yet, for all its strengths, the budget also exposes the extraordinary gap between what political parties say in opposition and what they do in government.

The PM SHRI issue is perhaps the clearest example. The same leaders who spent years warning of threats to educational autonomy now argue that agreements signed by previous governments must be honoured. As a matter of governance, they are absolutely right.

Governments cannot function if every incoming administration cancels its predecessor's commitments. But that only raises an obvious question. If the scheme was acceptable enough to continue in government, why was it unacceptable enough to oppose so vehemently in opposition? The answer, of course, is that opposition politics rewards outrage while governance demands pragmatism.

The controversy surrounding liquor policy is even more difficult to explain away. The government's decision to reduce the tax burden on lower-alcohol beverages may have economic logic. There is a reasonable argument that encouraging consumers to shift away from stronger liquor could reduce harm while increasing revenue. But this is the same political formation that spent years presenting itself as the moral alternative whenever questions relating to alcohol policy arose.

It is impossible to ignore the contradiction. One cannot spend years condemning a particular approach and then expect applause for adopting a variation of it simply because one now occupies the treasury benches.

Also Read: Operation Toofan: Protecting Kerala’s future from drug menace

The budget's approach to welfare is more convincing. Rather than attempting a reckless rollback of social commitments, the government has recognised that Kerala's welfare architecture is one of the state's greatest strengths. The challenge is not whether welfare should continue. The challenge is whether the state can generate enough economic activity to sustain it.

In healthcare, however, the budget feels more cautious than transformative. Kerala is ageing faster than most Indian states. The future burden of cancer, dementia, palliative care and chronic disease is already visible. The state requires a fundamental reimagining of healthcare delivery for an ageing population. While the budget contains important commitments, it does not yet amount to the kind of structural response that the coming decades will demand.

Education presents a similar picture. The government appears to understand that literacy and enrolment are no longer Kerala's primary challenges. Employability, research, innovation and talent retention are the new battlegrounds. The direction is correct, but whether the execution matches the ambition remains to be seen.

Environmental policy is another area where the budget could have shown greater urgency. Kerala does not have the luxury of treating climate resilience as a secondary concern. Floods, landslides and coastal erosion are no longer exceptional events, but recurring realities. Economic growth that ignores ecological vulnerability will eventually prove self-defeating.

Still, it would be unfair to reduce this budget to its contradictions. The larger story is that the Satheesan government has effectively abandoned many of the simplistic assumptions that often dominate opposition politics. It has accepted the need for investment and the need for difficult fiscal choices. It has accepted the need to honour at least some of the decisions made by previous governments. Most importantly, it has accepted that governing requires compromises that campaign speeches rarely acknowledge. That is not necessarily a criticism, and, in fact, it may even be a sign of maturity.

The real challenge begins now. Budgets do not create jobs and announcements do not attract investment, nor do vision documents generate growth. Kerala has produced enough policy papers over the years to fill entire libraries. What it has struggled with is execution.

For all the arguments over PM SHRI schools, liquor taxation and political consistency, the ultimate verdict on this budget will rest on a much simpler question. Five years from now, will more young people find meaningful employment in Kerala than they do today? If the answer is yes, most of the present controversies will be forgotten. If the answer is no, no amount of political messaging will save this government from the same criticism it once directed at its predecessors. That is the burden of power. It is also the difference between opposition and government.

The author is a National Award winner for Best Narration and an independent political analyst. Views expressed are personal.