MGNREGA: Is India's Landmark Rural Jobs Guarantee Scheme Under Threat from G RAM G?

For nearly two decades, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) has been the ultimate safety net for rural India. It was born out of a simple, powerful promise: if you live in a village and are willing to do manual labor, the government is legally bound to give you 100 days of work. It has built roads, dug wells, and kept millions of families from falling into extreme poverty during droughts or pandemics. But this December, a major shift has happened. Parliament has passed a new law called the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin), popularly known as the G RAM G Act. While the government says this is an upgrade, critics are calling it an existential threat.

​

The Big Promise: 125 Days Instead of 100

​At first glance, the G RAM G Act looks like a win for workers. The headline feature is that it increases the legal guarantee of work from 100 days to 125 days per year. On paper, this means more money in the pockets of rural households. The Rural Development Minister has argued that this move is about "dignity and abundance," ensuring that the poor have even more security than they did under the old law.

​The government also claims that G RAM G will be more efficient. It increases the budget for administrative costs from 6 percent to 9 percent. This extra money is meant to pay for better staff, digital monitoring, and modern tools to ensure that work happens on time and corruption is rooted out. For a villager waiting for their wages, the promise of "weekly payments" and stronger "delay compensation" sounds like a dream come true.

​The Funding Shift: A Heavy Burden for States

​However, when you look past the 125-day headline, the math becomes more complicated. Under the old MGNREGA, the Central Government paid 100 percent of the wages. This meant that even the poorest states could offer work without worrying about their own bank accounts. G RAM G changes this. It is now a "Centrally Sponsored Scheme" where the costs are shared.

​For most states, the formula is now 60:40. This means the state government must pay 40 percent of the bill. Critics argue that poorer states like Bihar, Odisha, or Jharkhand might not have the extra cash. If a state cannot afford its 40 percent share, it might stop offering work altogether. This could create a "postcode lottery" where your right to work depends on how rich your state government is, rather than your actual need.

​From Demand Driven to Supply Driven

​Perhaps the most controversial change is how the scheme is funded at the national level. MGNREGA was "demand-driven." If a million people asked for work, the government was legally required to find the money to pay them. There was no fixed ceiling on the budget.

​G RAM G moves toward a "normative allocation" or a "supply-driven" model. The Central Government will now determine a fixed budget for each state every year. If the demand for work exceeds that budget, the state must pay for the extra work entirely on its own. Activists warn that this effectively ends the "right to work." Instead of the law serving the people's needs, the people will now have to fit into the government's pre-set budget.

​The 60 Day Blackout Period

​A new and unique feature of G RAM G is the mandatory 60-day "no-work" period during peak agricultural seasons. The government says this is to help farmers. During sowing and harvesting, it is often hard for farmers to find laborers because everyone is busy with the government job scheme. By pausing the scheme for two months, the government hopes to ensure that agricultural work gets done.

​But there is a flip side. For landless laborers who do not have work on farms, or for women who rely on the scheme for their own independent income, these 60 days could be a period of zero earnings. By legally barring work during these months, the Act takes away the flexibility that allowed the poorest to survive the leanest times of the year.

​Asset Creation vs. Social Safety

​The government’s vision for G RAM G is tied to "Viksit Bharat 2047." They want the labor to result in high-quality infrastructure—durable roads, climate-resilient water tanks, and long-term assets. This sounds logical, but critics fear it shifts the focus away from the "right to work" toward "construction projects."

​Under MGNREGA, the primary goal was to provide a job to anyone who was hungry. If the focus shifts too much toward "productive assets," supervisors might start looking for more skilled workers or machines to get the job done faster, leaving behind the elderly, the disabled, or the unskilled workers who need the support the most.

​The Removal of the Gandhi Name

​Beyond the technicalities, there is a deep political and symbolic battle. By repealing the 2005 Act and removing Mahatma Gandhi's name from the scheme, the government has sparked a firestorm in Parliament. The Opposition calls it a "fascist ideological act" and an attempt to erase the legacy of the UPA era. They argue that MGNREGA was not just a scheme; it was a global landmark in social welfare.

​The government dismisses this as "misinformation," stating that a name change does not change the intent to help the poor. They argue that the new name reflects a modern, forward-looking India. However, for many, the "Mahatma" in MGNREGA stood for a certain philosophy of rural empowerment that they feel is being replaced by a top-down, tech-heavy approach.

​A Shield or a Sword?

​Is G RAM G a threat or an evolution? The answer likely lies in how it is implemented in the coming months. If the digital monitoring stops corruption and the 125 days of work actually materialize, it could be a success. But if the 40 percent cost-sharing leads to states cutting back on work, the safety net that millions rely on could begin to fray.

​For the person in a remote village in Chhattisgarh or Rajasthan, the name of the scheme matters less than the arrival of the "SMS" saying their wages have been credited. As India moves toward its 2047 goals, the challenge will be to ensure that the drive for "Viksit Bharat" (Developed India) does not leave behind the very people who built its foundations with their bare hands.