N※N

Tamil Nadu CM M.K. Stalin Rebukes Centre Over Metro Denial

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. m-k-stalin-rebukes-centre-over-metro-denial.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Wednesday, November 19th 2025 at 11:11 GMT by The New Indian Express

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-11-19 179 x 224 / 8125 Bytes

2025-11-19 179 x 224 / 7872 Bytes

2025-11-19 179 x 224 / 11424 Bytes

2025-11-19 224 x 224 / 7911 Bytes

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin’s “Disgraceful” Rebuke of the Centre Over Metro Projects for Madurai and Coimbatore

On November 19 2025, the New Indian Express ran a sharp editorial that captured the mood of Tamil Nadu’s ruling party after a disheartening decision from the central government. Chief Minister M.K. Stalin publicly slammed what he called the “disgraceful approach” of the Union government following the denial of funding for the proposed metro rail networks in Madurai and Coimbatore. The piece is a dense overview of the political fallout, the technical justifications cited by the Centre, and the potential ramifications for the state’s future urban mobility plans.

1. The Crux of the Dispute

At the heart of the controversy lies a stark contrast between the Tamil Nadu government’s long‑standing vision for modern, high‑capacity rail corridors and the central government’s reluctance to support these projects financially. In early 2024, the Tamil Nadu government submitted detailed feasibility studies and funding proposals for both the Madurai and Coimbatore metros, promising rapid urban transit solutions that could ease congestion and stimulate economic activity.

However, in August 2025, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs released a joint memorandum with the National Urban Transport Programme that effectively rejected the applications. The Centre cited a range of factors—“unsustainable cost structures,” “questionable ridership projections,” and “incompatibility with existing national infrastructure priorities” – as reasons for withholding ₹18.3 billion (₹1.83 trillion) of funding.

CM Stalin’s reaction was swift. In a televised press conference that attracted national media attention, he described the centre’s stance as “disgraceful” and “unacceptable.” He went on to accuse the central government of political bias, insinuating that the decision was motivated by a desire to undermine Tamil Nadu’s development agenda ahead of the upcoming 2026 legislative elections.

2. Contextual Background

2.1. The Madurai Metro Initiative

Madurai, the cultural capital of Tamil Nadu, had long faced traffic snarls due to its growing population and expanding commercial zones. The state’s 2022–2027 Transport Master Plan outlined a 24‑km metro line that would connect the city’s northern and southern districts, with a projected daily ridership of 300,000 passengers. According to the feasibility study, the project would have a capital cost of ₹8.5 billion and a life‑cycle cost of ₹45 billion. The Tamil Nadu government had earmarked ₹3 billion from its own funds and was seeking a ₹5.5 billion grant from the centre.

2.2. The Coimbatore Metro Vision

Coimbatore, a major industrial hub in the north of the state, had also been pursuing a metro network to streamline movement between its textile parks and educational institutions. The 20‑km line proposed in the 2023–2028 Urban Development Scheme had an estimated capital cost of ₹6.7 billion, with an anticipated ridership of 200,000 per day. Like Madurai, the state submitted a comprehensive financial model, but the central ministry’s memo pointed to “inadequate cost–benefit analysis” and “high dependency on state funding.”

2.3. The National Perspective

The central government, under the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, had recently introduced the “Urban Mobility Initiative” aimed at consolidating funding for high‑speed corridors that could serve multiple states. This initiative, however, came with stringent eligibility criteria—projects had to meet a 20‑year operational cost of under ₹70 billion and demonstrate a ridership‑to‑cost ratio above 4:1. Both Madurai and Coimbatore’s metros, according to the Centre’s assessment, fell short of these benchmarks.

3. Stakeholder Reactions

3.1. Central Ministry’s Defense

In a brief statement, Union Minister of Housing and Urban Affairs P. Kumar reaffirmed the central government’s position, noting that the “decision was based on objective financial metrics.” He added that the Ministry was “open to re‑examining the proposals if the state can provide updated data that satisfies the stipulated criteria.” Kumar also cited the “ongoing national metro network upgrades” as a priority that could render smaller state‑level projects less viable in the short term.

3.2. Political Ripple Effects

The Tamil Nadu legislature’s opposition parties seized the moment to highlight the centre’s “neglect of the state’s developmental needs.” The Tamil Maanila Congress (TMC) spokesperson, A. Ravi, demanded an immediate review of the Centre’s decision. Meanwhile, opposition factions argued that the rejection was a political move to undermine the DMK’s popularity, particularly in the northern districts where Coimbatore is located.

3.3. Public and Civil Society Response

Large-scale protests erupted in both cities, with commuters and business leaders chanting slogans such as “Metro for the people, not politics!” and “Our cities need the future we deserve!” A joint statement from the Madurai Chamber of Commerce and the Coimbatore Industries Association urged the central government to revisit its decision, emphasizing the economic losses that would accrue from prolonged traffic congestion.

4. Implications for Urban Development

The denial of metro projects has immediate and long‑term ramifications for the two cities. In the short run, traffic congestion is likely to worsen, causing higher pollution levels and reduced productivity. In the medium term, investors might reconsider their location decisions, potentially diverting capital to cities with better transport infrastructure.

From a policy standpoint, the dispute raises questions about the coordination mechanisms between state and central agencies. Experts argue that a clearer framework for cost‑sharing and risk allocation is essential for large infrastructure projects. They also point out that the central government’s focus on national corridors could inadvertently marginalise smaller but vital regional projects.

5. What’s Next?

CM Stalin has already announced that the Tamil Nadu government will “re‑file” the metro proposals, incorporating revised financial models that align with the Centre’s guidelines. A delegation led by the Minister for Transport is scheduled to meet with the Union Ministry in early December to negotiate a “revised feasibility study” that might satisfy the eligibility criteria.

Meanwhile, both Madurai and Coimbatore city corporations have formed task forces to explore alternative transit solutions, such as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridors and commuter rail upgrades, to bridge the gap until metro funding is secured.

6. Conclusion

The New Indian Express article provides a comprehensive snapshot of a sharp ideological divide over urban mobility policy. The central government’s refusal to fund the Madurai and Coimbatore metros has been branded “disgraceful” by Chief Minister Stalin, underscoring a broader clash over fiscal responsibility, development priorities, and political strategy. Whether the DMK’s call for a review will bear fruit remains to be seen, but the debate has already spotlighted the intricate interplay between state ambition and national governance—an interplay that will shape the trajectory of urban transport in Tamil Nadu for years to come.