Context

• The Viksit Bharat-Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act (VB–G RAM G Act) has been presented as a major reform of rural employment policy.
• Supporters portray it as an expansion of employment guarantee provisions, while critics argue that it weakens the legal and moral foundations of rural job security established under MGNREGA.
• A closer examination of the Act and the arguments advanced in its favour reveals that the proposed changes dilute core principles, limit workers’ protections, and prioritise administrative control over social rights.

The Illusion of an Expanded Employment Guarantee

• A central claim is that the VB-GRAMG Act enhances rural employment security by increasing the number of guaranteed workdays from 100 to 125 per household.
• This claim, however, is undermined by the discretionary clause in Section 5(1), which restricts the applicability of the guarantee to areas notified by the Central government.
• Such discretion contradicts the idea of a universal and enforceable right to work.
• By contrast, MGNREGA establishes a non-negotiable entitlement to employment upon demand.
• The possibility that the guarantee may not apply uniformly defeats its purpose and converts a legal right into an administrative privilege.
• Moreover, extending workdays to 125 could have been achieved within the existing MGNREGA framework, as several States have already done. This change, therefore, does not justify replacing the earlier Act.

The Myth of Disentitlement Reform

• Another defence of the VB–G RAM G Act is the removal of a so-called disentitlement provision from MGNREGA.
• The original clause merely suspended unemployment allowance for individuals who refused work after applying.
• It was designed to deter frivolous applications and has never been used in any significant way.
• The removal of this redundant provision has no meaningful effect on workers’ access to employment or benefits.
• Presenting it as a major pro-worker reform exaggerates its importance and distracts from more substantive concerns.
• The protection of workers was neither enhanced nor diminished in practice by this change.

Normative Funding and the Abandonment of Demand-Driven Employment

• A more consequential shift under the VB–G RAM G Act is the move from demand-driven financing to normative funding.
• Fixed allocations determined by the Centre are promoted as a way to improve fiscal discipline and ensure fairness across States.
• However, a genuine employment guarantee cannot coexist with predetermined expenditure limits.
• In reality, normative allocations are likely to operate as budget caps, discouraging States from meeting actual employment demand.
• The claim that MGNREGA spending favours better-off States lacks empirical support, as no consistent correlation exists between employment levels and poverty
• Poorer States would be better served by higher wages, not by funding ceilings and cost-sharing arrangements.

Digital Technology and the Question of Corruption

• Proponents also argue that the VB–G RAM G Act will reduce corruption through greater reliance on digital technology.
• Yet MGNREGA already incorporates extensive systems for electronic payments, monitoring, and digitisation.
• These mechanisms have delivered mixed outcomes, often producing delays, exclusions, and technical failures.
• Such problems have sometimes weakened transparency and incentivised informal arrangements that undermine accountability.
• Rather than correcting these shortcomings, the new Act reinforces faith in technological solutions without addressing their documented limitations.
• Digital systems, when poorly implemented, can erode trust and harm participation. 

Repackaging Rather Than Reform

• Several provisions highlighted as innovations in the VB–G RAM G Act, such as strengthened audits and timely wage payments, closely resemble existing MGNREGA clauses.
• Presenting these features as novel obscures the continuity between the two Acts and suggests a strategy of policy rebranding rather than substantive improvement.
• The broader pattern points toward increased centralisation of authority, with diminished space for State initiative and community oversight.
• In this process, workers and their rights risk being subordinated to administrative convenience and political messaging.

Conclusion

• The VB–G RAM G Act does not convincingly strengthen India’s rural employment framework.
• By weakening the universality of the employment guarantee, imposing fiscal constraints incompatible with demand-based work provision, and overstating the benefits of digitisation, the Act departs from the foundational principles that made MGNREGA a landmark policy.
• Rather than replacing an established system, meaningful reform would require reinforcing existing guarantees, addressing wage inadequacies, and prioritising workers’ rights over symbolic restructuring.