Change for the worse: On MGNREGA to VB-G RAM G

The Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin), or VB-G RAM G Bill, tabled in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), deserves to be rejected for more than one reason. What is sought to be changed is not only the nomenclature but also the fundamental character of the existing Scheme (MGNREGS). This marks yet another attempt by the BJP-led government at the Centre to reduce the size of the development space to States. The only plausible reason for the name change is the fact that the BJP’s ideological master, the RSS, had strong differences with Gandhi. The use of Gandhi’s name in the 20-year-old scheme signifies the link to his Gram Swaraj concept that gives importance to democratic decentralisation. But the new Bill, by making the Union government virtually the sole decision maker in the proposed law, will not make any positive contribution in this direction. Supporters of the government point out that the increase in the days of work to 125 in a year is a major benefit for people in rural India. But, the data, on employment given to households under the MGNREGS, reveal that it was only during 2020-21, the COVID-19 pandemic year, that 9.5% (nearly 7.2 million) of households actually worked for 100 days. Over the last two years, only around 7% of families could get the full quota.

By calling the VB-G RAM G “a centrally sponsored scheme”, the Union government has done away with the special status that the MGNREGS had enjoyed, wherein it had been absorbing the entire cost of wages payment for unskilled manual labour. In the proposed scheme, the fund-sharing pattern between the Centre and States generally would be 60:40. A benefit of the existing scheme was that rural wages have gone up sharply. The finances of States are not in a robust condition and there are apprehensions about the likely impact of the restructuring of the GST. Besides, when direct cash transfer schemes are increasingly being viewed as a political game changer, it is an open secret that not many States will be keen on participating in the fresh scheme. More importantly, the soul of the current law — a bottom up demand-based scheme — has been taken away. What has been proposed is a supply-driven framework wherein allocations will be capped, as decided by the Union government. Also, States will have to bear any excess expenditure, which is a new feature. Tamil Nadu and Kerala have opposed the Bill citing an undermining of States’ interests. A feature of the Bill, which is meant to ensure that work does not clash with farm work during sowing/harvesting, may be included explicitly in the MGNREGS, after consultations with States. Howsoever passionately Minister for Rural Development Shivraj Singh Chouhan may say that the new law is in line with Gandhi’s sentiments, good governance, which is the goal of the idea of Ram Rajya, does not become a reality without diffused grassroots democracy — a condition neither sought to be promoted nor nourished by the proposed legislation.

Overall Analysis

The editorial strongly criticises the proposed Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill, arguing that it fundamentally weakens the spirit and structure of MGNREGA rather than improving it. The author makes it clear from the outset that the problem is not merely a change of name, but a transformation of the scheme’s core philosophy.

The piece frames the move as part of a broader political trend in which the Centre seeks to centralise power at the expense of States. By linking MGNREGA to Gandhi’s idea of Gram Swaraj, the editorial underlines the symbolic and practical importance of decentralisation and local democracy. The replacement of Gandhi’s name is portrayed as ideologically motivated, and the new Bill is criticised for concentrating decision-making authority with the Union government.

The editorial then challenges the government’s claim that increasing workdays to 125 is a meaningful benefit. Using employment data, the author exposes a gap between policy promises and ground reality, pointing out that even under the existing scheme, very few households manage to get the full quota of work. This statistical reference strengthens the argument and lends credibility to the critique.

In the second half, the focus shifts to federal and financial concerns. By reclassifying the scheme as a centrally sponsored one with a 60:40 funding pattern, the Centre is accused of transferring financial burdens to States that are already under fiscal stress. The language becomes more cautionary, highlighting how rising rural wages and guaranteed funding under MGNREGA were among its biggest strengths, now put at risk.

The editorial’s strongest objection is to the loss of MGNREGA’s demand-driven nature. The proposed supply-driven model, with capped allocations and excess costs borne by States, is presented as a direct assault on grassroots empowerment. The opposition by States like Tamil Nadu and Kerala is cited to reinforce the argument that the Bill undermines cooperative federalism. The concluding lines reject the government’s invocation of Gandhi and Ram Rajya, asserting that true good governance cannot exist without decentralised democracy.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Nomenclature – the system or choice of names used for things.
2. Decentralisation – transfer of power and decision-making to lower levels of governance.
3. Plausible – appearing reasonable or believable.
4. Capped – limited or restricted to a fixed amount.
5. Undermining – weakening gradually or indirectly.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial concludes that the VB-G RAM G Bill represents a regression rather than reform, hollowing out the democratic and federal essence of MGNREGA. It warns that centralisation, reduced financial commitment, and the loss of a demand-driven framework will harm rural livelihoods and weaken grassroots democracy.

Tone: Critical, sceptical, and assertive — combining ideological critique with data-driven and constitutional concerns.