The VB–G RAM G Act: A Step Backward for Rural India?

While the government celebrates the passage of the Viksit Bharat - G RAM G Act, 2025, a deeper look reveals several critical issues that could make it a burden rather than a boon for the rural poor. By dismantling the established framework of MGNREGA, the new Act introduces fiscal and operational hurdles that may ultimately deprive workers of their livelihood.

Here are the primary concerns regarding the new bill and why "rebranding" might be a mask for reduced state accountability.

1. The Fiscal Burden: A Recipe for Implementation Failure

Under the previous MGNREGA framework, the Central Government bore 100% of the wage costs. The new Act shifts this to a 60:40 cost-sharing pattern between the Centre and States.

• The Issue: Many state governments are already struggling with fiscal deficits. Forcing states to pay 40% of the wages creates a massive financial burden.

• The Consequence: To save money, state governments may intentionally discourage workers from demanding work or delay the approval of projects, effectively killing the "guarantee" at the ground level.

2. The 125-Day "Increase" vs. Historical Flexibility

While the Act touts an increase to 125 days, it lacks the flexibility of the old system.

• Previous Strength: Under MGNREGA, the 100-day limit was often extended to 150 days in regions facing droughts or extreme climatic distress.

• New Rigidity: The new Act sets a rigid normative allocation. By capping it at 125 days and shifting to a "normative funding" model, the government may find it harder to respond to regional crises where people need more than just 125 days of support.

3. The Flawed "Agricultural Pause" Policy

The Act empowers States to notify a 60-day pause period during peak agricultural seasons to solve labor shortages for landlords.

• Regional Disparity: In fertile river basins where 2–3 crops are grown annually, MGNREGA was never the primary source of income. However, in rain-fed or arid regions, agriculture is often non-existent for half the year.

• Impact on the Poor: Forcing a 60-day work stoppage across a state ignores local realities. If a local crop fails due to weather, workers will now be legally barred from seeking government work during that "pause," leaving them with zero income.

4. Rebranding Over Substance: The Identity Crisis

A major criticism of the 2025 Act is the decision to completely replace a globally recognized name like MGNREGA.

• Institutional Memory: MGNREGA was a household name that rural workers understood and trusted.

• The Problem with Changing Names: Every new government tends to scrap old bills and pass new ones with different names rather than strengthening the existing ones. This creates confusion on the ground, requires massive spending on new stationery and digital platforms, and often dilutes the hard-earned legal precedents set under the old act.

5. Normative Funding: Diluting the "Right to Work"

The shift to State-wise normative allocations (Sections 4(5) and 22(4)) is perhaps the most dangerous change.

• The Old Way: MGNREGA was truly "demand-driven"—if a worker asked for work, the government was legally bound to provide it or pay an allowance, regardless of the budget.

• The New Way: By moving to a budget-based (normative) allocation, the program moves closer to being a "scheme" rather than a "right". Once the state's allocated budget is exhausted, workers may be told there is "no more money," effectively ending their statutory right to demand employment.

6. Comparison of Weakened Safeguards

Conclusion: A Glossy Bill with Hollow Guarantees?

The VB–G RAM G Act, 2025 seems to prioritize "Viksit Bharat" optics over the survival of the rural poor. By burdening states with costs and imposing a rigid agricultural pause, the government risks destroying the very lifeline that millions rely on. Strengthening the existing MGNREGA would have preserved its recognized identity while improving its flaws; instead, we have a new name that might lead to a less reliable guarantee.