Senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh has sharply criticised the Union government’s decision to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) with a new rural employment scheme, calling the original law transformative and its substitute flawed. His remarks came on the 20th anniversary of MGNREGA’s launch, which was first implemented at Badnapalli village in Anantapur district of Andhra Pradesh.
Ramesh noted that over two decades, MGNREGA provided around 180 crore days of work to rural households, particularly benefiting women and marginalised communities. He said the programme also created an estimated 10 crore community assets, helped reduce distress migration, and strengthened the bargaining power of rural workers seeking better wages. The scheme’s direct benefit transfer system ensured wages were credited directly to beneficiaries’ bank or post office accounts. He also pointed out that individual small and marginal farmers were able to develop irrigation facilities on their land thanks to the programme.
MGNREGA, Ramesh emphasised, was not merely an administrative promise but a demand-based legal guarantee rooted in Article 41 of the Constitution. Under the law, any rural citizen willing to undertake unskilled manual work could demand employment, and the state was obliged to provide it. Projects under the programme were decided by local gram panchayats, and state governments were incentivised to provide work since they were required to fund only a share of the cost. Social audits and high-level financial oversight were integral to the functioning of the law.
However, Ramesh argued that the new law introduced by the Union government, known as the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, 2025 (VB-G RAM G), dilutes the rights-based nature of MGNREGA. He criticised its greater centralisation of decision-making, noting that work will be allocated by the central government in selected districts and based on budget allocations rather than on explicit demand from rural workers. This shift, he said, could reduce the bargaining power of workers and limit their ability to negotiate for higher wages or seek work during peak agricultural periods.
Ramesh also raised concerns about the financial implications of the replacement law for states. Under the original MGNREGA framework, state governments bore a relatively small portion of the programme’s cost. In contrast, the new law alters the funding pattern, requiring greater financial contribution from states at a time when many are already under fiscal stress. This, he suggested, could impede the effective implementation of rural employment programmes.
Opposition parties have criticised the new legislation for weakening rural labour rights, increasing centralisation, and shifting financial responsibilities to states. They argue that these changes undermine the statutory guarantee of employment that was central to MGNREGA. While the new law increases the number of guaranteed days of employment on paper, critics say the shift in structure and control may reduce access to work in practice.
Supporters of MGNREGA have underscored its impact on rural livelihoods. They point out that the programme boosted rural incomes, empowered women, and strengthened local governance structures through gram panchayats. Many civil society groups and workers’ organisations have also expressed concerns that replacing MGNREGA without broader consultation risks reversing gains made over the past 20 years.
In his remarks, Ramesh reiterated the importance of preserving the spirit of MGNREGA, arguing that rural employment guarantees remain crucial for sustainable development and poverty alleviation. His critique reflects a wider debate on the future of rural workplace rights and government priorities in shaping employment policy in India
