The VB‑G RAM G Act, 2025, which replaces MGNREGA and raises the rural jobs guarantee from 100 to 125 days, has now become law after receiving the President’s assent, drawing both government praise and sharp opposition criticism.
The Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin), or VB‑G RAM G Act, represents the most sweeping redesign of India’s flagship rural employment guarantee since its inception in 2005.
It legally assures up to 125 days of paid work per rural household each year, a 25 per cent increase on the 100‑day entitlement under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).
Beyond additional workdays, the law reworks how the Centre and states share costs, moving away from the earlier model where the Union government bore almost the entire wage bill.
Under the new framework, North‑Eastern and Himalayan states will receive a 90:10 Centre–state funding split, most other states will follow a 60:40 pattern, and Union Territories without legislatures will be fully funded by the Centre.
The Rural Development Ministry has pitched the Act as a “decisive reform” that transforms rural employment from a distress‑driven safety net into a development‑oriented programme aligned with the “Viksit Bharat 2047” vision.
Officials say the focus will now be on durable assets, livelihood‑linked projects and resilience to climate shocks rather than scattered, low‑impact works.
Digital Push, New Priorities And Government’s Defence
A core plank of the VB‑G RAM G framework is the heavy reliance on technology, monitoring and standardised planning templates at the village level.
The government has indicated that works will be guided by a “National Rural Infrastructure Stack”, prioritising water security, rural connectivity, livelihood assets and infrastructure that can cushion communities from extreme weather events.
In practical terms, this means gram panchayat plans will be increasingly shaped through digital tools such as geotagging, spatial planning, real‑time dashboards and biometric‑based attendance systems.
Social audits, which were already part of MGNREGA’s design, are expected to be strengthened and integrated with these platforms for greater transparency and to reduce leakages.
Senior government leaders have defended the removal of Mahatma Gandhi’s name and the renaming of the law, arguing that the new design is “a step ahead of MGNREGA” in both ambition and accountability.
They insist that allegations of weakening social protection are “misleading”, pointing to the increase in guaranteed workdays, the promise of better‑quality assets and the explicit goal of integrating employment with long‑term livelihood security.
At the same time, the Centre has framed the changes in terms of cooperative federalism, saying the revised cost‑sharing formula is meant to give states a deeper stake in planning and implementing works that reflect local priorities.
Officials contend that state participation in funding will encourage more responsible project selection and improve monitoring on the ground.
Opposition Critique, Workers’ Fears And Policy Backdrop
The passage of the Bill through Parliament was far from consensual, with opposition MPs staging protests, walkouts and slogan‑shouting over what they described as a rushed, under‑scrutinised overhaul of a lifeline scheme for rural India.
Several parties criticised the decision to drop Gandhi’s name as an attempt to erase the moral legacy attached to the jobs guarantee law, which had come to symbolise state responsibility towards the rural poor.
Opposition leaders and labour groups have flagged worries that narrowing the list of permissible works and increasing the financial burden on fiscally stressed states could, in practice, reduce the availability of work in poorer districts and regions.
They argue that states already struggling with delayed central releases may now hesitate to open works aggressively if they must shoulder a larger share of costs, undermining the very idea of a demand‑driven legal guarantee.
Activists also fear that the heavier digital footprint may exclude those with limited access to technology, biometric failures or weak connectivity, particularly women, older workers and marginalised communities.
They point to the unresolved challenges under MGNREGA-such as wage delays, under‑reporting of demand, and inadequate compensation for delayed payments-as reminders that systems‑level fixes must be accompanied by responsive grievance redressal and community oversight.
Policy commentators note that MGNREGA, enacted in 2005 and renamed Mahatma Gandhi NREGA in 2009, had both transformed rural welfare and faced chronic implementation gaps.
The VB‑G RAM G Act, they argue, will be judged not by its promises on paper, but by whether it can retain the rights‑based spirit of a guarantee while delivering more timely wages, better‑quality assets and genuine participation of gram sabhas in planning.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The Logical Indian believes that any reform touching the lives and livelihoods of crores of rural workers must be grounded in dignity, dialogue and the principle of leaving no one behind.
While an enhanced guarantee of 125 days and a stronger focus on climate‑resilient, livelihood‑oriented assets can be positive, these gains will ring hollow if digital systems, funding constraints or top‑down planning end up excluding those who need support the most.
A just transition from MGNREGA to VB‑G RAM G demands honest conversations between the Centre, states, gram sabhas and workers’ collectives, with transparency, social audits and grievance redressal treated as non‑negotiable pillars rather than bureaucratic formalities.
To nurture peace, harmony and genuine rural empowerment, the rollout must be empathetic, consultative and responsive to local realities, especially of women, Dalits, Adivasis and migrant workers who have long depended on public employment.
