VB-G RAM G: The Indian government’s proposal to replace the long-running rural employment guarantee framework with a new legislative model has triggered widespread political debate. What makes the situation notable is that resistance is not limited to opposition parties alone; even an important ally within the ruling coalition has voiced unease. The proposed Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill, 2025 aims to restructure how rural employment support is designed, funded, and implemented across states, raising serious questions about fiscal responsibility, federal balance, and policy intent.
For nearly two decades, the rural employment guarantee programme has acted as a social safety net for millions of households. It was structured as a demand-driven mechanism, ensuring that rural families could seek unskilled employment when needed. The scheme also played a stabilising role during economic slowdowns, natural calamities, and migration pressures. Over time, it became deeply embedded in India’s rural economy and political discourse.
The proposed legislation seeks to repeal the existing legal framework and introduce a new structure with revised objectives and operational principles. While the government describes this as a reform aimed at efficiency and accountability, critics argue that the changes significantly alter the original spirit of guaranteed employment.
One of the earliest flashpoints in the debate has been the removal of Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the scheme’s title. Opposition leaders across parties have questioned the rationale behind dropping a globally respected figure associated with grassroots empowerment and moral authority. For critics, the name change is not merely symbolic but reflective of a broader ideological shift.
Several parliamentarians have argued that the original naming was intended to reinforce the ethical and inclusive foundations of rural development policy. According to them, altering this identity risks disconnecting the programme from its historical and moral roots.
Beyond the naming issue, the more substantive concerns relate to how the scheme will function under the new law. The proposed bill introduces a revised cost-sharing formula between the central government and the states. Under the earlier arrangement, the financial burden was largely shouldered by the Centre, particularly for wage payments.
The new framework proposes a higher financial contribution from states, shifting the balance of responsibility. This change comes at a time when many state governments are already facing fiscal pressure due to welfare commitments, debt servicing, and revenue constraints.
Another major departure lies in the operational philosophy of the scheme. The existing system allowed households to demand work, compelling local administrations to respond. In contrast, the new model proposes a supply-driven approach where employment opportunities would be limited to areas and periods notified by the Centre.
Critics warn that this could reduce flexibility and weaken the scheme’s ability to respond to local employment distress. Fixed budget allocations may also limit the capacity of states to scale up employment during periods of acute rural hardship, such as droughts or economic downturns.
The proposed legislation also introduces a temporary pause in employment during peak agricultural seasons. While the government argues that this will ensure adequate labour availability for farming and prevent wage inflation, opponents fear it could deprive landless workers of income during critical months.
Additionally, the introduction of capped budgets marks a departure from the earlier open-ended funding model. Analysts suggest this could undermine the core assurance of employment by making it contingent on financial ceilings rather than actual demand.
The most politically sensitive aspect of the debate has emerged from within the ruling coalition itself. The Telugu Desam Party, a key ally with significant parliamentary strength, has expressed reservations about the revised funding pattern. Leaders from the party have reportedly highlighted the strain this could place on state finances, particularly in regions already facing economic challenges.
According to sources, the party believes that the revised structure makes the programme resemble a routine centrally sponsored scheme rather than a rights-based employment guarantee. There are also indications that the ally may push for the bill to be examined by a parliamentary standing committee.
The ruling party has defended the proposal by asserting that the employment guarantee is being strengthened rather than diluted. The increase in the number of assured workdays has been highlighted as evidence of commitment to rural livelihoods. Officials argue that the legal reset is necessary to address inefficiencies and structural weaknesses in the old system.
However, opposition parties remain unconvinced. They argue that transferring greater financial responsibility to states could allow the Centre to exercise discretionary control over allocations, potentially disadvantaging states governed by rival parties. Such concerns have intensified calls for broader consultation and legislative scrutiny.
With objections emerging from both opposition benches and allied partners, the future of the VB-G RAM G Bill remains uncertain. The debate reflects deeper tensions around fiscal federalism, welfare governance, and the role of the Centre versus states in social protection programmes.
As discussions continue, the government may face pressure to revise key provisions or subject the draft legislation to detailed parliamentary review. The outcome will likely have long-term implications for rural employment policy and centre-state relations in India.
