New Delhi, Oct 15 — Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on Wednesday strongly criticised Samajwadi Party leader Akhilesh Yadav over his remarks on the banking sector, accusing him and his party of selective concern after having supported the previous United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government that, she said, left public sector banks in a precarious condition.
In a post on X, Sitharaman directly addressed Yadav, noting that his party had backed the UPA from 2004 onwards.
“Given the dire state in which the UPA left the banks, it is surprising to hear you speak about them today, especially considering that you did not even question your alliance partners back then,” she wrote.
The Finance Minister alleged that the very allies now part of the opposition INDIA bloc had damaged public sector banks through “phone banking” and “crony capitalism.”
She specifically pointed to IDBI Bank, stating that during the UPA tenure—supported by Yadav’s party—the bank had extended loans to individuals from whom the government is still struggling to recover both principal and interest.
Sitharaman contrasted this with the performance of the banking system under the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
She asserted that the NDA administration has revitalised the entire banking sector, including IDBI Bank, through transparent policies and capital infusion.
Questioning the timing of the opposition’s concern, she asked why sympathy for the banks was being expressed only after they had been restored to a stronger position.
“It is remarkable—now that the banks are in a strong position, why are you feigning such sympathy? Why these crocodile tears?” Sitharaman said.
The remarks come amid ongoing political exchanges between the government and opposition on economic issues, including the health of public sector banks and recovery of stressed assets.
Sitharaman’s statement supports the ruling coalition’s claim of having stabilised and strengthened the banking system after years of accumulated non-performing assets and governance challenges attributed to the previous regime.
By framing the criticism as selective and opportunistic, the Finance Minister sought to shift the narrative onto the opposition’s past political choices and their implications for the financial sector.