'MGNREGA was about a guaranteed right to work.'
'The new law does not guarantee employment at all.'
'It removes everything that made MGNREGA a legal guarantee.'
The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, or MGNREGA, was enacted in 2005 in response to deep and long-standing rural distress, chronic unemployment, and agrarian insecurity across India.
It emerged from decades of struggle by rural workers' movements, economists and civil society organisations who demanded a legally enforceable right to work as protection against hunger, distress migration and exploitation.
Unlike earlier poverty alleviation programmes, MGNREGA was designed as a rights-based law, not a discretionary welfare scheme.
It placed a legal obligation on the state to provide up to 100 days of wage employment to every rural household that demanded work, within a fixed time limit.
If work was not provided, the law mandated payment of an unemployment allowance.
The central government carried the main financial responsibility, especially for wages, so that no state could deny work by citing lack of funds.
Over time, MGNREGA became one of the largest employment programmes in the world and a vital lifeline during droughts, economic slowdowns, and crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
Against this background, the government's decision to replace MGNREGA with a new framework called VB-G RAM G has raised serious concerns.
"The government should openly state that it prefers to spend on bullet trains and highways rather than on employment for the poor," Nikhil Dey, founder member, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan who was closely involved in drafting and shaping MGNREGA, tells Syed Firdaus Ashraf/Rediff.
"Renaming the scheme and announcing 125 days of work is only window dressing."
What is your take on the renaming of MGNREGA to VB-G RAM G?
The name change is irrelevant. What people need to understand is that the government has repealed MGNREGA itself.
The renaming is a smokescreen. Many believe that only the name has changed, but that is not true.
First, the government said it would rename MGNREGA as Pujya Bapu Rozgar Yojana Centre.
Finally, it settled on the name VB-G RAM G.
This is not the old law with a new name. It is a completely new law.
You mean the old MGNREGA has not been replaced, but a new law has been introduced. What is the difference?
MGNREGA was about a guaranteed right to work.
The new law does not guarantee employment at all.
It removes everything that made MGNREGA a legal guarantee.
MGNREGA was demand-based.
Work demand came from the ground, and the government was legally bound to provide work within a fixed time limit, per household.
Under VB-G RAM G, the system is entirely allocation-based.
Section 4(5) of the new Act states that the central government will decide the state-wise allocation each year, based on parameters it prescribes.
Under MGNREGA, budgets could be increased if demand rose.
Under G RAM G, this flexibility is gone.
In simple terms, G RAM G marks the end of the employment guarantee.
Further, the scheme is also no longer guaranteed across the entire country.
Section 5(1) allows the central government to decide which parts of a state the scheme will apply to.
It may be limited to certain blocks or districts.
This decision rests entirely with the central government.
This makes it clear that VB-G RAM G is not a national employment guarantee law.
Any other prominent change from MGNREGA?
Another major change is funding.
Under VB-G RAM G, funding is fixed at a 60:40 ratio.
The central government contributes 60 per cent, and the state government must contribute 40 per cent.
Under MGNREGA, 100 per cent of the labour cost was paid by the central government.
This ensured that no state could refuse work due to lack of funds.
Workers were guaranteed employment, and if work was not provided, they were entitled to an unemployment allowance paid by the central government.
For material costs, the ratio was 75 per cent central and 25 per cent state.
Most of the financial burden rested with the Centre.
Under the new system, many cash-strapped states may not be able or willing to provide their 40 per cent share.
If states do not pay their share, the central government will not release funds.
This could make G RAM G a non-starter in many places.
Earlier, people could work under MGNREGA at any time of the year.
Under G RAM G, two months are blocked due to agricultural operations.
But has the number of workdays not increased from 100 to 125?
You can announce 350 days of work on paper, but that means nothing if there is no money to pay wages.
The 125-day schedule will be decided by state governments, in areas selected by the central government.
Payments will still follow the 60:40 funding rule.
States must pay 40 per cent, which many may not be able to do.
It is misleading to present this as a major expansion.
In reality, over the last five years, MGNREGA workers have received only 50 to 55 days of work on average.
Many workers have also not been paid unemployment allowances, despite being legally entitled to them.
Does this mean 100 days of work under MGNREGA was never fully provided?
People were entitled to it.
Wherever workers fought for their rights, they received the money.
They won because they had a legal entitlement.
That entitlement has now been diluted and weakened.
People must understand that the promise of 125 days is not real.
Section 4(5) of the VB-G RAM G Bill clearly states that allocations will be fixed by the central government.
Section 4(6) says that any spending beyond this allocation must be paid entirely by the state government.
Section 5(1) states that guaranteed work applies only in rural areas notified by the central government.
If an area is not notified, people there have no right to work.
This reduces a universal legal guarantee to a scheme controlled by the Centre.
You spoke about demand for work. What if there is no demand?
There is plenty of demand and plenty of work.
Villagers have repeatedly shown their demand for work.
The government, however, wants to run the scheme in a supply-driven way.
When poor villagers ask for work, they are often denied.
You cannot say there is no demand when work requests are ignored.
Even the MGNREGA law required work to be provided within 15 days of demand.
What if there is no supply of work?
The law requires the government to create work.
That is the core principle of MGNREGA.
What if the central government does not have money?
Then the government should say so honestly.
It should openly state that it prefers to spend on bullet trains and highways rather than on employment for the poor.
Renaming the scheme and announcing 125 days of work is only window dressing.
State governments are giving cash transfers to women voters. How do you see this development?
They do it for votes.
This is happening across parties and states.
Schemes like Majhi Ladki Bahin Yojana, Lakhpati Didi and similar programmes are all cash transfers.
MGNREGA was different.
Only those willing to work for eight hours received wages.
It was self-selecting, and only the genuinely needy participated.
It also created lasting public assets such as rural roads, check dams, water harvesting structures, and land development works.
How much were workers paid?
They were paid minimum wages.
Payment was linked to output.
If a worker completed 70 per cent of the task, they were paid 70 per cent of the wage.
In Rajasthan, the wage is Rs 281 for eight hours.
The average payment worked out to around Rs 240.
Prime Minister Modi criticised MGNREGA in 2015. How do you see this move?
PM Modi has completed the job. He did what he said he would do.
He said MGNREGA would become a monument of failure (of the Congress party).
That is exactly what has been done.
Photographs curated by Manisha Kotian/Rediff
© 2026