The Hindu Editorial Analysis
27 January 2026
Playing hide and seek on employment guarantee
(Source – The Hindu, International Edition, Page no.-8 )
Topic: GS Paper – GS 2 & GS 3 : Governance, Welfare Schemes, Employment, Social Justice, Rural Development
Context
The recently enacted Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act (VB-G RAM G Act) has triggered intense debate. While the Central government and its supporters claim that it strengthens India’s employment guarantee framework, critics argue that it quietly dilutes the foundational principles of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), 2005. At the heart of the controversy lies the question of whether the new law genuinely expands employment guarantees or merely repackages them while weakening core entitlements.
Core Issue
The central concern is whether the VB-G RAM G Act preserves the spirit of employment guarantee or undermines it through discretion, budget caps, and dilution of demand-driven funding.
The debate is not about administrative reform alone but about the constitutional and moral commitment of the State to guarantee work as a right.
Guarantee Without a Guarantee
The Union government claims that the VB-G RAM G Act provides the same employment guarantee as MGNREGA, with an enhanced entitlement of 125 days per rural household per year instead of 100 days. However, this claim overlooks a crucial provision.
- Section 5(1) of the new Act makes employment guarantee conditional on Central government notification.
- This discretionary “switch-off” clause defeats the very purpose of a legal guarantee.
- A guarantee that applies only when notified is indistinguishable from an administrative scheme.
Importantly, the extension to 125 days could have been achieved under MGNREGA itself without replacing the Act. Several States already provide 125 days under the existing law, making the justification for a new Act weak.
The ‘Disentitlement’ Argument
Supporters of the VB-G RAM G Act claim that it removes earlier “disentitlement” provisions that allegedly denied workers their dues. This argument lacks substance.
- Under MGNREGA, a provision existed to deter frivolous work applications, where turning down a genuine work offer could temporarily disqualify a person from unemployment allowance.
- This clause was never used in practice and caused no real harm.
- The so-called disentitlement provision does not even exist in the new Act, rendering claims of reform misleading.
The narrative of protecting workers from arbitrary exclusion appears exaggerated and unsupported by evidence.
Normative Funding: A Quiet Abandonment
A more serious concern arises from the shift to “normative funding”.
- MGNREGA is fundamentally demand-driven, ensuring that funds follow workers’ demand for employment.
- The VB-G RAM G Act implicitly abandons this principle by assuming that States should not exceed centrally determined “normative allocations”.
- This converts budget norms into de facto expenditure caps, undermining the legal right to work.
Proponents argue that normative funding ensures equity across States. However:
- There is no statistical correlation between MGNREGA employment levels and State poverty rates.
- Both poorer and relatively better-off States show high employment demand, while some poor States show low demand due to weak implementation.
Budget caps and cost-sharing do not address structural inequalities; raising wage rates in poorer States would be far more effective.
Transparency and Technology: Old Claims, Old Tools
Another justification for the new Act is improved transparency through digital technologies.
- Provisions for social audits, transparency, and accountability already exist under MGNREGA.
- Digital tools have been widely used under MGNREGA, often with mixed results.
In practice:
- Technological glitches have delayed wage payments.
- Workers’ rights have been weakened when Aadhaar-based systems and digital platforms fail.
- Corruption has not disappeared; in some cases, digital systems have facilitated new forms of exclusion.
The VB-G RAM G Act reproduces these provisions without addressing known failures, reflecting blind faith in technology rather than learning from experience.
The Political Subtext
Beyond legal and administrative arguments, the editorial points to a political motivation.
- Replacing MGNREGA allows the Union government to centralise control.
- It enables credit-claiming by repackaging an established rights-based programme.
- The approach mirrors earlier practices where flagship welfare initiatives were rebranded under new names without substantive reform.
Employment guarantee, however, is not a branding exercise but a constitutional obligation rooted in dignity, livelihood, and social protection.
Conclusion
There is little substance in the case for replacing MGNREGA with the VB-G RAM G Act. While the language of reform and efficiency is invoked, the new law weakens the essential pillars of employment guarantee by:
- Introducing discretion where rights should prevail,
- Replacing demand-driven funding with budget caps,
- Recycling old provisions without correcting known flaws.
Employment guarantee remains one of India’s most powerful tools for rural security and social justice. Diluting it under the guise of reform risks undermining a hard-won entitlement. True reform lies not in renaming laws, but in strengthening wages, ensuring timely payments, and respecting the right to work as a legal guarantee, not an administrative favour.