The evaluation of any government policy must be based not on emotions, political nostalgia, or symbolic slogans, but on its actual outcomes. The proposal to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) with the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Employment and Livelihood Mission (Rural) Act, 2025 — VBGIRAM-G has, as expected, generated opposition. Critics argue that the new law weakens rights, imposes an additional financial burden on states, centralizes power, and erases Mahatma Gandhi’s legacy. However, a serious examination reveals that these objections are rooted more in political assumptions than in the substantive design of the policy.
The charge that VBGIRAM-G dismantles a rights-based framework rests on a flawed premise—that legal entitlement by itself guarantees empowerment. Nearly two decades of experience with MGNREGA have exposed the limits of this belief. The fundamental questions remain unavoidable: how often, over the past twenty years, did MGNREGA provide work on time? How frequently were wages paid months after the work was completed? A right that is not delivered on time ceases to be a right and instead becomes a form of deception. A genuine right is one that is provided on time, at adequate scale, and on a continuous basis. Delayed wages represent a paper entitlement, not real justice.
It is precisely for this reason that chronic delays in wage payments, insufficient availability of work relative to demand, the creation of low-quality assets, and uneven implementation across states hollowed out the very legal entitlement that MGNREGA was meant to guarantee. An entitlement that cannot be fulfilled in a timely, adequate, and sustained manner does not function as a right in practical terms.
VBGIRAM-G does not retreat from the state’s responsibility to provide employment support. On the contrary, it reorganizes that responsibility by setting clear timelines, linking funding to measurable outcomes, and institutionalizing accountability. This represents not a dilution of commitment, but a necessary reform.
A deeper reading of the proposed law reveals a broader shift in India’s development thinking. MGNREGA was conceived during a period of acute rural distress as a relief mechanism. Treating crisis-driven employment as a permanent feature of the rural economy risks normalizing stagnation. VBGIRAM-G explicitly connects short-term employment to livelihood creation, skill development, and the construction of productive assets.
This transition—from counting days of work to building sustainable livelihoods—acknowledges a fundamental truth: dignity arises not merely from employment, but from income stability, productivity, and the capacity for upward mobility. A welfare system that refuses to evolve does not eliminate poverty; it entrenches dependency.
Concerns regarding an increased financial burden on states also fail to withstand closer scrutiny. Under the earlier framework, states frequently faced uncertainty due to delays in central releases, unplanned liabilities, and disputes over cost-sharing arrangements. VBGIRAM-G introduces clear fiscal roles, medium-term planning, and outcome-based funding. Predictability is the cornerstone of genuine fiscal federalism, enabling states to plan proactively rather than merely respond to crises.
Similarly, allegations of excessive centralization conflate national standard-setting with micromanagement. For a program of this scale, uniform standards of transparency, eligibility, and monitoring are essential. Local institutions continue to identify works, implement projects, and oversee delivery. What has changed is the emphasis on performance and accountability. History demonstrates that decentralization without oversight often benefits intermediaries rather than workers. VBGIRAM-G seeks to correct this structural flaw.
The most emotionally charged criticism concerns the removal of Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the legislation. This argument elevates symbolism above substance. Gandhi’s economic philosophy emphasized productive labor, self-reliance, decentralized development, and moral responsibility. Preserving a name while tolerating systemic inefficiencies does not honor his legacy. Programs focused on durable community assets, local enterprise, and livelihood stability are far closer to Gandhian principles than a system that treats subsistence labor as an end in itself.
Reforms inevitably provoke resistance, particularly when they challenge entrenched political narratives. Yet social policy cannot remain frozen in time. India’s demographic pressures, fiscal constraints, and development aspirations demand instruments that deliver measurable outcomes. VBGIRAM-G represents a deliberate shift in rural employment policy—from input-driven entitlement to outcome-oriented guarantee.
For policymakers, the real choice is not compassion versus efficiency, nor rights versus reform. The true choice lies between a welfare architecture that adapts to changing realities and one that remains anchored to outdated models whose limitations have long been exposed. VBGIRAM-G signals a developmental turn in public policy , seeking to convert public expenditure into sustainable rural capacity. The national debate should be guided not by political nostalgia, but by this developmental imperative.
(Prof. Sarchand Singh Khiala | 9781355522)