The Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act (VB-G RAM G) has been projected as a more generous successor to the rural employment guarantee framework, promising 125 days of work instead of the earlier 100. Yet, behind the headline expansion lies a deeper concern: the dilution of the very idea of a legally enforceable “work guarantee”. For rural women, who have relied disproportionately on public employment as a safety net, this shift could have far-reaching consequences.
From guaranteed work to conditional access
The VB-G RAM G Act replaces the long-standing framework of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, which was built on the principle of demand-driven employment. Under MGNREGA, any rural household demanding work was legally entitled to receive it, failing which unemployment allowance became payable.
The new law, while promising more days on paper, introduces shrinking and conditional job availability. In practice, this risks converting a rights-based programme into a discretionary welfare scheme, potentially affecting over 26 crore workers who depended on the certainty of employment during periods of distress.
Why MGNREGA mattered uniquely for rural women
India’s persistently low female labour force participation rate (FLFPR) has long worried economists and policymakers. The recent uptick in FLFPR is largely explained by an increase in unpaid work on family farms or enterprises rather than a rise in paid, formal employment.
Against this backdrop, women’s participation in MGNREGA stands out. The share of women in total person-days rose from 48 per cent in 2008-09 to nearly 58 per cent in 2024-25 — an extraordinary achievement sustained across political regimes and even through the pandemic. This underscores MGNREGA’s role as one of the few large-scale public programmes that consistently generated paid work for women.
What made public works attractive to women
Several design features of MGNREGA helped overcome structural barriers faced by rural women:
- The social legitimacy of government work reduced stigma around women’s wage employment.
- Provision of crèches at worksites enabled mothers of young children to participate.
- Worksites located close to villages lowered travel time and costs, allowing women to balance paid work with domestic responsibilities.
- Statutory wage parity and direct wage payments reduced women’s financial dependence on male family members.
These elements together explain why MGNREGA functioned not merely as an employment scheme, but as a quiet instrument of gender empowerment.
Patriarchy, labour markets and exclusion risks
Rural labour markets remain deeply patriarchal. Women are often treated as a secondary workforce, expected to seek employment only when household incomes fall short. This perception explains why, in areas with excess labour supply, women are frequently the first to be excluded from MGNREGA worksites.
The weakening of guaranteed employment under VB-G RAM G is likely to reinforce these hierarchies. Reduced certainty of work lowers women’s bargaining power and makes them more vulnerable to exclusion when jobs are scarce.
Agricultural seasons and the loss of fallback options
Most rural women, especially from marginalised communities, are engaged as agricultural labourers. Guaranteed employment during lean or peak agricultural seasons under MGNREGA acted as a fallback option, preventing distress migration and exploitation.
If VB-G RAM G fails to ensure even 60 days of assured work during crucial agricultural periods, women may be pushed into informal, insecure jobs that offer no certainty of availability, location, or wage equality. This increases dependence on landowning caste-class groups, often under harsher and less dignified conditions.
Policy change without consultation
Public policies of this scale demand rigorous monitoring, evaluation, and stakeholder consultation. While MGNREGA had well-documented implementation flaws, it succeeded in creating demand-driven employment when markets failed.
The passage of the VB-G RAM G Act without consulting workers, unions, or grassroots practitioners raises concerns about policy design driven more by fiscal or administrative priorities than by lived realities. Instead of correcting implementation gaps, the reform risks undermining a programme that had delivered tangible gains for women’s economic participation.
What to note for Prelims?
- Key features of MGNREGA and its rights-based nature
- Changes introduced under VB-G RAM G Act
- Female Labour Force Participation Rate (FLFPR) trends
- Role of public works programmes in rural employment
What to note for Mains?
- Assess the gendered impact of replacing MGNREGA with VB-G RAM G
- Discuss how guaranteed employment influences women’s bargaining power in rural labour markets
- Examine the link between public employment programmes and women’s economic empowerment
- Critically evaluate the importance of stakeholder consultation in welfare policy reforms
