Nirwa Mehta
Public policy must be judged by outcomes, not sentiment, nostalgia or political symbolism. The replacement of MGNREGA with the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rojgar and Ajeevika Mission Gramin Act, 2025 has triggered predictable protests. Critics argue that the new law weakens rights, burdens states, centralises power and erases Mahatma Gandhi’s legacy. These objections, however, reveal more about political positioning than about the actual policy design.
The central claim that VB GRAM G dismantles a rights based framework rests on a flawed assumption that legal entitlement automatically translates into empowerment. Two decades of experience with MGNREGA demonstrate the limits of this belief. Chronic wage delays, unmet demand, poor quality asset creation and uneven implementation steadily hollowed out what was meant to be a justiciable right. A right that cannot be delivered on time, at scale and with consistency ceases to function as a right in practice. VB GRAM G does not withdraw the State’s obligation to provide employment support. It restructures that obligation by enforcing timelines, linking funding to outcomes and institutionalising accountability. This is not dilution. It is correction.
More fundamentally, the new Act reflects a necessary shift in India’s development thinking. MGNREGA was designed as a relief mechanism in a period of acute rural distress. Treating distress employment as a permanent feature of the rural economy risks normalising stagnation. VB GRAM G explicitly links short term employment with livelihood creation, skilling and productive asset formation. The shift from counting days of work to building sustainable ajeevika recognises a basic truth. Dignity flows not merely from employment but from income stability, productivity and upward mobility. A welfare system that refuses to evolve risks entrenching dependency rather than eliminating poverty.
Concerns about increased fiscal burden on states also collapse under scrutiny. Under the earlier framework, states routinely faced uncertainty due to delayed
Central releases, unplanned liabilities and retrospective cost sharing disputes. VB GRAM G introduces clearer fiscal roles, medium term planning and outcome linked funding. Predictability is the foundation of real fiscal federalism.
States gain the ability to plan rather than firefight. That strengthens administrative autonomy instead of weakening it.
Similarly, allegations of excessive centralisation confuse national standard setting with micromanagement. In a programme of this scale, uniform benchmarks for transparency, eligibility and monitoring are essential. Local institutions continue to identify works, execute projects and supervise delivery. What has changed is the insistence on performance and accountability. Decentralisation without oversight has historically benefited intermediaries more than workers. VB GRAM G attempts to correct that structural flaw
The most emotive criticism concerns the removal of Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the legislation. This argument substitutes symbolism for substance.
Gandhi’s economic philosophy emphasised productive labour, self reliance, decentralised growth and moral responsibility. Preserving his name while tolerating systemic inefficiency does not honour that legacy. A programme focused on durable community assets, local enterprise and livelihood sustainability aligns far more closely with Gandhian principles than one that treats subsistence work as an end in itself.
Reform inevitably provokes resistance, especially when it disrupts entrenched political narratives. But social policy cannot remain frozen in time. India’s demographic pressures, fiscal constraints and development ambitions demandinstruments that deliver measurable results. VB GRAM G represents a deliberate attempt to move rural employment policy from an input driven entitlement to an outcome-oriented guarantee. The transition will require vigilance, course correction and disciplined implementation. But resisting reform altogether would be the greater failure.
The real choice before policymakers is not between compassion and efficiency, or between rights and reform. It is between a welfare architecture that adapts to changing realities and one that clings to legacy frameworks long after their limits are exposed. VB GRAM G signals an evolution in thinking. It seeks to convert public expenditure into durable rural prosperity. That ambition, not political nostalgia, should define the national debate.
About author: Nirwa Mehta is a political analyst and columnist who writes on public policy, governance and national security. Her work focuses on power structures, state behaviour and the long-term consequences of policy choices in India and beyond.