The recent replacement of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) with the Viksit Bharat — Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB–G RAM G) Act has ignited widespread protests across India. Laborers are expressing their concerns over halted work and unpaid wages under the new legislation.
Changes Under VB–G RAM G Act
The VB–G RAM G Act, established on December 16, 2022, underwent rapid parliamentary approval and received presidential assent by December 21. It notably proposes 125 days of work for rural households that wish to engage in unskilled manual labor, an increase from the previous guarantee of 100 days under MGNREGA. However, critics highlight that this new promise lacks a solid legal framework for guarantees.
Impact on Rural Employment
- Protests began in Muzaffarpur, Bihar, on January 2, 2023, with participants demanding immediate restoration of MGNREGA.
- Laborers like Mandeshri Devi, who rely on these programs, report work shortages despite being entitled to more than 30 days a year.
- Similar issues are arising in Uttar Pradesh, where laborers report slowdowns and halted work due to reworking of MGNREGA protocols.
Protest organizers, including Sanjay Sahni from MNREGA Watch, state that local officials have indicated a six-month wait for new VB–G RAM G directives, exacerbating the anxiety among rural laborers. Many, including women and marginalized communities, stand to suffer disproportionately without robust employment guarantees.
Concerns About Centralization
Experts are increasingly concerned about the new act’s centralization of authority and its implications for state-level financial responsibilities. The act mandates a funding split of 60:40 between the central and state governments, significantly shifting the burden onto the states.
- Northeastern states and Union Territories have even stricter financial burdens, with the central government responsible for only 90% of expenses.
- This centralization threatens to diminish local decision-making and the adaptability of employment programs to regional needs.
Critiques from Experts
Economists and activists criticize the approach taken by the central government. They argue that the introduction of the new act was not subject to adequate public discourse or consultation. Nikhil Dey from the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan emphasizes that repealing the rights-based framework of MGNREGA could dismantle decades of progress in securing employment rights.
Potential Economic Repercussions
Calculations made by activists indicate that the financial demands of implementing the new act could overburden states. For instance, in Karnataka, extending 125 days of work to households could cost upwards of ₹200 billion, potentially leading to cutbacks in other essential services like health and education.
The Way Forward
As protests continue to mount, political parties and civil society seek to reinstate MGNREGA, underscoring its historical significance and effectiveness in crisis management. The strong demand for reinstatement highlights the need for a legislative framework that reassures laborers across rural India of their right to employment.
In conclusion, the rural employment law overhaul reveals complexities that need addressing. Stakeholders must engage in meaningful dialogue to avert deepening rural distress and ensure that India’s commitment to employment guarantees remains robust and valid.
