MGNREGA and VB-GRAMG: Beyond the Intent — Why the Change Matters

When I think about rural employment guarantee programmes in India, I’m reminded of the way my own curiosity always pushed me to ask why and not just what. MGNREGA was one of those landmark policies that promised something simple yet profound: a statutory guarantee of wage employment for rural households. It wasn’t just a development programme. It was a rights-based framework that, on paper, said to a rural worker: “You deserve work if you ask for it.” That logic isn’t elegant; it’s fundamental. But the story since 2005 has been more complicated than the law itself.

MGNREGA’s intent and challenges

Under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, rural households whose adult members volunteered for unskilled labour were legally entitled to at least 100 days of wage employment every year. The scheme deliberately made the demand for work the trigger. Workers didn’t need to qualify or petition. The law obliged provision.

But real-world implementation showed significant structural inequality. States like Bihar, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh, which together accounted for nearly half the country’s rural poor, utilised only about 20 % of the available MGNREGA funds, despite their large rural populations. This wasn’t about demand alone; it reflected deeper issues with capacity, administrative support, and resource flow that left some of India’s poorest workers underserved.

At the same time, corruption and leakage were persistent problems. Official audits and media reports documented cases where funds were siphoned off, materials were inflated on paper, and workers sometimes received less than what was due. These issues didn’t negate the scheme’s impact, but they did blunt its effectiveness where the need was greatest.

VB-GRAMG: A rebrand or a reform?

Enter the Viksit Bharat-Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) or VB-GRAMG the 2025 Act that replaces MGNREGA. On paper, the changes seem encouraging:

• The statutory employment guarantee expands from 100 to 125 days per household annually.
• The programme is aligned with broader infrastructure and rural livelihood goals under the Viksit Bharat 2047 vision.
• There’s a push toward “modernised governance” and technology-driven planning.

But the nature of that “guarantee” has shifted. Where MGNREGA was rights-based and demand-driven with workers legally able to demand work and compel the state to provide it, VB-GRAMG replaces that with normative allocations and budget caps. States will receive fixed financial envelopes, and work will be provided within those limits; beyond that, the liability shifts to the state government.

In practical terms, this means a rural worker under VB-GRAMG can no longer demand work in the way MGNREGA allowed. Work is provided if funds and planning allow. In turning a right into a discretionary benefit, VB-GRAMG treats rural job seekers more like beneficiaries of a programme than entitled citizens. Critics argue this is a fundamental shift, one that dilutes the very spirit of what made MGNREGA transformative.

Is VB-GRAMG more than branding?

There’s also a political dimension. Renaming and reframing a landmark programme risks the perception that this is less about correcting core issues and more about reshaping a narrative. Some leaders and analysts have called the move politically motivated, seeing it as an effort to appeal to specific voter groups rather than address structural flaws like funding disparities, implementation inefficiencies, and the right-to-work backbone.

At the heart of both programmes lies the same intent: secure rural livelihoods and guard against distress migration. But the effectiveness of either depends on whether the system truly supports rural workers where they are most in need. If allocations remain imbalanced, if funding remains unpredictable, and if the right to demand work is replaced by a budget-capped benefit, then the promise could fall short again.

I’m fascinated by frameworks that reward clarity over assumptions and rural employment policy is no different. Here, too, the question isn’t whether we want rural livelihoods secured, it’s how that security is ensured. The answer will define not just rural income, but the confidence of millions who rely on work to survive.