The landscape of rural employment in India is on the cusp of a significant transformation. The Modi government is poised to introduce a landmark bill in the Lok Sabha that aims to replace the venerated Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA). The proposed legislation, titled “The Viksit Bharat—Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin): VB—G RAM G Bill, 2025,” signals a new direction for the nation’s most extensive job guarantee scheme. This move, set to usher in enhanced workdays and a revamped funding structure, has ignited discussions across political aisles and among rural development experts. Dive in to understand the profound implications of this impending shift for millions of rural households and the broader vision of Viksit Bharat @2047.
The Dawn of a New Era: Understanding the VB-G RAM G Bill, 2025
The Viksit Bharat G-RAM G Bill, 2025, is not merely a name change; it represents a comprehensive overhaul of the existing employment guarantee framework. At its core, the new legislation seeks to align rural development initiatives with the ambitious national vision of Viksit Bharat @2047. A key feature of this bill is the proposed increase in guaranteed wage employment from the current 100 days to 125 days in a financial year for adult members who volunteer for unskilled manual work. This enhancement aims to provide greater financial stability and opportunity, particularly for vulnerable populations dependent on such schemes. However, this expansion comes with several structural modifications that mark a departure from the previous model.
Reshaping Financial Responsibility: The Funding Shift
Perhaps the most contentious aspect of the VB-G RAM G Bill, 2025, is its redesigned funding pattern. Moving away from MNREGA’s model, where the Central Government bore 100% of the wage costs, the new bill proposes a Centrally Sponsored Scheme with shared financial liability. For North Eastern States, Himalayan States, and specific Union Territories like Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, and Jammu and Kashmir, the funding ratio will be 90:10 (Centre:State). However, for all other states and Union Territories with a legislature, the financial burden will shift significantly, with a 60:40 (Centre:State) split. Union Territories without a legislature will continue to receive full central support.
This change marks a substantial increase in financial responsibility for state governments, which previously had minimal contribution to wage expenses. Critics argue this represents “cost-shifting by stealth,” placing immense fiscal pressures on states already grappling with their budgets. Furthermore, the bill replaces MNREGA’s demand-driven labor budget with a “normative allocation” determined by the Centre for each state annually. Any expenditure exceeding this central allocation will now be the sole responsibility of the respective states, raising concerns about the scheme’s responsiveness to genuine labor demand.
Balancing Livelihoods and Agriculture: The Peak Season Dilemma
Another significant alteration proposed by the Viksit Bharat G-RAM G Bill, 2025, is the introduction of provisions allowing state governments to temporarily halt work under the scheme for a cumulative period of up to sixty days in a financial year. This suspension is specifically intended for peak agricultural seasons, aiming to ensure the availability of agricultural labor for private farms. While the intent might be to support the agricultural sector, this provision has drawn sharp criticism.
Experts and worker advocates view this as a potential dilution of worker rights and an imposition of “state-managed labour supply” rather than a genuine welfare measure. They argue that it strips workers of their choice and dignity, potentially forcing them into private agricultural work at potentially lower wages, undermining the minimum wage guarantee that MNREGA implicitly provided. This move also raises concerns about the well-being of vulnerable populations who might need alternative rural livelihoods during these periods and could be disproportionately affected. Additionally, critics point to the potential dilution of other crucial safeguards, such as the prohibition of contractors and the guarantee of work within five kilometers of a job seeker’s residence.
Voices of Concern: Criticisms and Political Debate
The proposed VB-G RAM G Bill, 2025, has predictably stirred a robust political debate across India. Opposition parties and civil society organizations have raised several critical concerns. A primary point of contention is the increased financial burden on states, with Communist Party of India (Marxist) MP John Brittas articulating that the shift from 100% central wage funding to a 60:40 or 90:10 split for different states is not a reform but a method of “cost-shifting.”
Beyond funding, the perceived dilution of worker protections and rights is a major worry. Critics argue that replacing MNREGA’s demand-driven approach with the Centre’s “pre-fixed normative allocations and ceilings” means that “when funds run out, rights run out,” making the legal entitlement to work precarious. Nikhil Dey of the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) emphasizes that these changes could weaken the minimum wage guarantee and open doors for the exploitation of agricultural labor. The controversial ban on work during peak agricultural seasons is seen as forcing labor into private farms, undermining worker autonomy. Concerns also extend to increased centralization of control over the scheme and the symbolic removal of “Mahatma Gandhi” from the bill’s name, which has triggered a strong political backlash. This national conversation reflects deep divisions on the future direction of employment guarantee and social security in rural India.
The Path Forward for Rural India
The introduction of the Viksit Bharat G-RAM G Bill, 2025, marks a pivotal moment for rural development in India. While the vision of Viksit Bharat @2047 is ambitious and the proposed increase in guaranteed workdays is a welcome step, the structural changes—particularly regarding funding and work restrictions—present a complex challenge. The shift from a demand-driven model to normative allocation and the increased financial responsibility on states are significant departures from the previous framework.
As this legislation navigates the Lok Sabha and potentially becomes law, its actual impact on rural livelihoods and worker protections will be closely watched. Amidst global developments and national aspirations, the debate surrounding the VB-G RAM G Bill underscores the ongoing commitment to economic empowerment, even as concerns about the balance between central control and state autonomy, and individual rights versus broader agricultural needs, persist. The evolution of India’s employment guarantee scheme continues to be a crucial aspect of its journey towards holistic national development
About the Author
