The recently introduced Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB-G RAM G) Bill, 2025, which replaces India’s longstanding rural employment guarantee program MGNREGA, has triggered fierce debate across political and policy circles. While the government touts an increase in guaranteed workdays from 100 to 125, critics argue the legislation fundamentally dismantles the rights-based architecture that has provided a safety net to millions of rural households for nearly two decades.
At the heart of the controversy lies a paradigm shift in how rural employment is conceptualized. MGNREGA operated as a demand-driven legal entitlement, meaning any rural household could request work and the government was legally obligated to provide it within 15 days or pay unemployment allowance. The new bill abandons this framework, granting the Union Government authority to designate which rural areas qualify for the scheme and capping expenditures through predetermined “normative allocations.” Critics argue this transforms a constitutional right into a budgetary handout, where workers can simply be turned away when demand exceeds supply. The Centre’s power to notify specific areas for coverage means work is no longer universally accessible across rural India, potentially excluding districts based on fiscal considerations rather than actual employment needs.
Perhaps the most contentious change involves cost-sharing between the central and state governments. While MGNREGA was funded almost entirely by the Centre for wage payments, the new legislation introduces a 60:40 funding split for most states. For resource-strapped states already grappling with fiscal deficits, this represents a significant burden. Punjab Finance Minister Harpal Singh Cheema warned that the state “simply cannot afford” the new financial obligations, estimating the shift could reduce actual workdays provided by 30-40%. Bihar’s Rural Development Department echoed similar concerns, noting that excess expenditure beyond central allocations must now be borne entirely by state treasuries, effectively creating a hard ceiling on employment generation regardless of actual demand on the ground.
The bill also introduces a mandatory 60-day pause during peak agricultural seasons, ostensibly to prevent the scheme from competing with farm labor demand. However, labor unions contend this provision ignores ground realities where many agricultural laborers don’t get consistent work even during harvest periods. Workers who depend on guaranteed days to fill employment gaps argue that removing this option for two months could push families deeper into debt. Additionally, the legislation restricts permissible work categories, focusing on “durable assets” as defined by the Centre. Projects involving school construction or certain community infrastructure may no longer qualify, limiting the developmental impact critics say MGNREGA achieved beyond mere employment generation.
The removal of Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the program has become a significant political flashpoint. Opposition parties characterize it as an “ideological erasure” of the UPA government’s flagship initiative, with Congress leader Jairam Ramesh calling it “petty politics that dishonors the Father of the Nation.” The ruling party maintains the renaming reflects a forward-looking vision aligned with India’s development goals by 2047. Beyond symbolism, critics point to systemic centralization, noting that the enhanced role for Union authorities in determining coverage areas, work types, and budgets diminishes the autonomy of Gram Sabhas, the village councils that previously held significant decision-making power under MGNREGA’s decentralized model.
The legislation also mandates expanded use of biometric authentication, geo-tagging, and digital monitoring systems. While intended to reduce leakages and improve transparency, rural activists warn these technologies frequently malfunction in areas with poor connectivity, potentially excluding vulnerable workers who cannot navigate technical barriers. The increased surveillance apparatus, critics argue, shifts the focus from providing employment to policing workers, creating additional hurdles for those the scheme is meant to serve.
Government proponents highlight the increase to 125 guaranteed workdays as evidence of enhanced commitment to rural employment. However, skeptics argue the structural changes render this promise largely illusory. Economist Jean Drèze, who has extensively studied rural employment programs, notes that guaranteeing more days on paper means little if there’s no legal entitlement, if budgets are capped in advance, and if states can’t afford their share. Early testimonies from workers in pilot districts suggest registration barriers have increased and work availability has become more sporadic compared to MGNREGA’s final years, lending credence to concerns that the 125-day promise may remain unfulfilled for most rural households.
As the bill moves through parliamentary scrutiny, state governments are demanding clarifications on funding mechanisms, while opposition parties have signaled intent to push for amendments restoring legal entitlements and expanding state flexibility. Rural labor organizations have announced plans for nationwide protests if the legislation passes without significant modifications. Meanwhile, the government maintains that the reforms will improve efficiency, reduce corruption, and better align employment generation with infrastructure development priorities. The outcome will determine not just the fate of a renamed program, but the very nature of India’s social contract with its rural poor, deciding whether employment remains a justiciable right or becomes a conditional benefit subject to budgetary discretion.
This article presents the criticisms and concerns raised by various stakeholders regarding the VB-G RAM G Bill. The government’s full defense of these provisions and implementation plans would provide important additional context for readers seeking a complete picture of this policy debate.