Public debate on welfare reform is both inevitable and desirable, especially when it concerns a flagship employment guarantee that has shaped rural livelihoods for over a decade. The proposed Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin), or VB-G RAM G, has triggered apprehensions that it may dilute hard-won worker rights. Such concerns merit serious attention. Yet, a close reading of the Bill suggests that the reform attempts not to weaken social protection, but to correct long-standing structural flaws in India’s rural employment framework.
What the new Bill actually guarantees
At its core, VB-G RAM G provides a statutory guarantee of 125 days of wage employment per rural household in a financial year—higher than earlier benchmarks. Crucially, it restores the unemployment allowance as a real safeguard by removing several disentitlement provisions that had, in practice, denied workers compensation when work was not provided within the stipulated time. This shifts the burden of accountability squarely onto the state, strengthening the enforceability of the right.
Addressing the limits of the earlier framework
The weakness of India’s rural employment system lay less in intent and more in implementation. Delays in work allocation, opaque processes and weak grievance redressal often reduced a legal entitlement to a paper promise. VB-G RAM G seeks to respond directly to these deficiencies by strengthening statutory obligations around transparency, social audits and time-bound grievance resolution. These are not add-ons, but central pillars intended to restore credibility to the employment guarantee.
Is the demand-driven nature being diluted?
One of the most persistent criticisms is that the reform undermines the demand-driven character of rural employment. However, Clause 5(1) places an explicit statutory obligation on the government to provide not less than 125 days of work to any rural household whose adult members are willing to undertake unskilled manual labour. By expanding guaranteed days and reinforcing unemployment allowance provisions, the Bill arguably strengthens, rather than weakens, the right to demand work. A right backed by enforceable accountability mechanisms is inherently more robust.
Employment versus asset creation: a false binary
Another concern is that the reform prioritises asset creation at the cost of employment. The Bill explicitly rejects this trade-off. While it guarantees livelihoods, it also links employment to the creation of durable and productive public assets. Schedule I identifies four broad domains—water security, core rural infrastructure, livelihood-related infrastructure and climate resilience works. This approach recognises that immediate income support and long-term productivity are complementary, not competing, objectives.
Local planning and the question of centralisation
Fears of excessive centralisation overlook the Bill’s emphasis on decentralised planning. Clauses 4(1) to 4(3) anchor all works in Viksit Gram Panchayat Plans prepared at the village level and approved by the gram sabha. While the creation of a Viksit Bharat National Rural Infrastructure Stack aims to reduce fragmentation and improve visibility, decision-making authority remains distributed across panchayats, programme officers and district administrations. The intent is coordination and coherence, not top-down control.
Balancing farm productivity and wage employment
The Bill also confronts a long-standing tension between rural employment schemes and agricultural labour availability. Clause 6 allows states to notify up to 60 days in a year covering peak sowing and harvesting periods during which scheme works will not be undertaken. The flexibility to issue such notifications at district, block or panchayat levels ensures that employment guarantees complement agricultural cycles rather than disrupt them.
Fiscal concerns and cooperative federalism
Concerns about fiscal tightening are addressed through a rules-based framework for state-wise allocations, determined by objective parameters. At the same time, states are treated as partners rather than mere implementing agencies. They retain the flexibility to design and operationalise their own schemes within the statutory minimum laid down by the Bill, reflecting the spirit of cooperative federalism.
Technology, transparency and exclusion risks
Technology-driven governance often raises fears of exclusion. VB-G RAM G attempts to pre-empt this by embedding safeguards. Provisions for biometric authentication, geo-tagging, real-time dashboards and public disclosures aim to curb leakages and ghost beneficiaries, while exception handling and strengthened social audits by gram sabhas preserve human oversight. Technology is positioned as an enabling tool for accountability, not a rigid gatekeeper.
What to note for Prelims?
- Statutory guarantee of 125 days of wage employment per rural household.
- Restoration of unemployment allowance by removing disentitlement provisions.
- Role of gram sabhas and Viksit Gram Panchayat Plans.
- Integration of employment with climate resilience and infrastructure creation.
What to note for Mains?
- How VB-G RAM G seeks to correct implementation gaps in rural employment schemes.
- Debate on demand-driven employment versus statutory guarantees.
- Balancing decentralisation with national coordination.
- Use of technology to enhance transparency without exclusion.
- Implications for cooperative federalism and rural resilience.
The choice before policymakers is not between reform and compassion. It is between retaining a static entitlement that often under-delivered and adopting a modern framework that aims to deliver employment with dignity, accountability and long-term resilience. VB-G RAM G, seen in this light, represents an attempt to renew—not retreat from—India’s commitment to rural social protection.
