Public debate over welfare legislation is both necessary and healthy in a democracy, especially when laws shape livelihoods for millions of rural households. However, scrutiny must rest on what a law actually provides, not on assumptions drawn from past frameworks or fears of dilution. Much of the criticism surrounding the Viksit Bharat — Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, 2025 (VB-G RAM G) risks overlooking this distinction. A closer reading suggests that the new law represents not an abandonment of employment guarantee, but an attempt to correct long-standing implementation failures that weakened the earlier system.
The Legacy and Limits of MGNREGA
The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) played a stabilising role in rural India for nearly two decades. Its contribution during periods of distress, including the Covid-19 pandemic, is widely recognised. Yet, experience also revealed deep structural weaknesses. Wage payments were often delayed, unemployment allowance remained largely notional due to procedural hurdles, and access to work varied sharply across states. Administrative capacity differed widely, while leakages through fake job cards, inflated muster rolls, and poor-quality asset creation eroded credibility.
These were not peripheral flaws but systemic ones. Over time, they undermined trust among workers and reduced the programme’s effectiveness precisely in regions with the greatest need.
What the New Act Seeks to Fix
The VB-G RAM G Act focuses squarely on delivery reform. It replaces vulnerable legacy systems with verified worker registries, introduces statutory timelines for wage payments with automatic compensation for delays, removes dis-entitlement clauses that made unemployment allowance ineffective, and strengthens grievance redressal with clear accountability and timelines.
Crucially, the legal right to wage employment remains intact and justiciable. The statutory entitlement has, in fact, been expanded from 100 to 125 days. What has changed is the implementation architecture—shifting from a reactive model that often responded after distress had already set in, to a planned and enforceable framework designed to deliver work predictably.
Addressing Regional Inequalities
Concerns that poorer states such as Bihar and Uttar Pradesh were least served under the earlier framework are well founded. Low penetration in these states was a documented failure of MGNREGA. An unplanned demand–response model favoured states with stronger administrative capacity, leaving high-need regions behind despite higher poverty and migration.
The new framework seeks to correct this by anchoring employment generation in Viksit Gram Panchayat Plans. These plans integrate locally expressed demand with advance approval of works and assured funding. Normative allocations based on objective parameters aim to introduce greater transparency and fairness in distributing resources across states. Preserving the earlier architecture would likely have entrenched, not reduced, existing inequities.
Centre–State Cost Sharing and Federal Balance
Another criticism questions whether the expansion to 125 days is illusory because states now bear a greater share of costs. This overlooks both precedent and safeguards. The Centre–state cost-sharing pattern follows long-established norms for centrally sponsored schemes, while Northeastern and Himalayan states, along with Jammu and Kashmir, continue under a more favourable 90:10 arrangement.
More importantly, planning-based execution improves predictability of fund flows, reducing the ad-hoc disruptions that frequently affected implementation earlier. Expansion of entitlement combined with shared responsibility reflects cooperative federalism rather than dilution. Several nationally successful programmes—rural roads, housing, and drinking water—operate under similar arrangements.
Capacity, Not Just Fiscal Stress
Fiscally stressed states are often cited as potential casualties of the new framework. Yet, under the earlier regime, exclusion stemmed as much from weak planning and limited administrative capacity as from lack of funds. The new Act addresses this by enhancing administrative expenditure from 6% to 9%, enabling states to build field capacity commensurate with the programme’s ambition.
Advance planning, reduced discretion to deny work once plans are approved, and stronger transparency mechanisms aim to ensure that recorded demand translates into actual employment, particularly in historically underserved regions.
Demand-Driven Versus Planned Delivery
The distinction often drawn between a “demand-driven” old scheme and a “supply-driven” new one is overstated. The new framework does not suppress demand; it institutionalises it through planning, ensuring that demand is deliverable. A planned demand backed by assured resources is more empowering than an unfulfilled theoretical right.
The rights-based character of the employment guarantee is reinforced through expanded entitlements, enforceable wage timelines, automatic compensation for delays, and appealable grievance redressal. Rights matter most when they can be exercised without navigating administrative obstacles.
Safeguards and Economic Prudence
Concerns over the limited pause window must be seen in context. It is designed as a labour-market safeguard to avoid distortion during peak agricultural seasons and does not reduce the statutory entitlement of 125 days. The provision reflects calibrated economic prudence—protecting incomes without undermining productive agricultural employment.
What to Note for Prelims?
- VB-G RAM G expands statutory employment entitlement to 125 days.
- Wage payments are bound by statutory timelines with automatic compensation.
- Verified worker registries replace legacy job card systems.
- Administrative expenditure has been enhanced to strengthen capacity.
What to Note for Mains?
- Implementation failures of MGNREGA and the rationale for reform.
- Planned versus reactive welfare delivery models.
- Centre–state fiscal relations and cooperative federalism.
- Balancing rights-based welfare with administrative accountability.
