End of ‘right to work’? Critics warn VBGRAM-G dilutes employment guarantee framework

The Union government’s proposed overhaul of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) has triggered sharp criticism from opposition leaders and rights activists, who argue that the new legislation fundamentally alters — and weakens — the idea of a legally enforceable right to work.

The Centre is set to table a Bill that repeals the 2005 MGNREGA and replaces it with the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission Gramin (VBGRAM-G). While the government has highlighted an increase in guaranteed employment days from 100 to 125, critics say the headline change masks deeper structural shifts that undermine the very foundation of the rural employment safety net.

“End of the employment guarantee”

Nikhil Dey, founder member of the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) and the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, described the Bill as effectively dismantling the right-based framework that defined MGNREGA.

“The most basic issue is that it marks the end of the right to work as an employment guarantee,” Dey said. “MGNREGA functioned because it was a nationally and centrally funded scheme that provided a universal entitlement to any rural citizen willing to do manual work at minimum wages. That architecture has been replaced.”

According to Dey, the proposed funding structure — which requires most states to bear 40% of total costs, including labour — strikes at the core of the scheme. Under MGNREGA, the Centre funded 100% of unskilled labour costs, a feature that ensured nationwide acceptance and uniform implementation.

“For most states, even the labour component will now need state funding,” he said. “There is no reason states may want to do this, and the ultimate sufferer will be the worker.”

Shift in fiscal responsibility

Under the new framework, all states except the North-Eastern and Himalayan states and Jammu and Kashmir will move to a 60:40 Centre–state funding ratio. Governments in the exempted regions will bear 10% of the cost.

Critics argue that this shift introduces fiscal uncertainty into a programme designed to be demand-driven, particularly during periods of economic distress. Dey warned that when states struggle to mobilise their share of funds, employment generation itself could shrink, regardless of the higher number of guaranteed days.

“During every economic downturn, workers turn to this scheme for alternative employment,” he said. “If states are unable or unwilling to put up the money, there will be no real guarantee left.”

Also Read | MGNREGA vs VB-G RAM G Bill 2025: What are the key differences in India's new rural employment law

Opposition flags federal and fiscal risks

Congress spokesperson Sujata Paul also questioned the timing and intent of the proposed changes, noting that they come ahead of the next Finance Commission’s recommendations.

“Pushing 40% of the burden onto states — especially poorer ones — is bound to create problems,” Paul said. “If the Centre truly wanted to strengthen the guarantee, it should have increased central allocations, not shifted costs.”

Paul also criticised the decision to rename the scheme, calling it a politically symbolic move rather than a policy correction. “Every rupee spent on renaming is a rupee not spent on fixing core issues like delayed wage payments,” she said, adding that the MGNREGA brand carried deep recognition and trust among rural workers.

Beyond the headline numbers

While the government has emphasised the increase in assured workdays, critics argue that the effectiveness of any guarantee depends on funding certainty and administrative flexibility. The Bill also proposes a move away from demand-based budgeting to fixed central allocations for states, a change that opposition leaders say could further weaken responsiveness during crises.

For critics, the concern is not just about funding ratios or nomenclature, but about a broader policy shift. “This is not a reform of MGNREGA,” Dey said. “It is a repeal of the right to work and its replacement with a scheme that offers no enforceable guarantees.”

As the Bill is readied for introduction in Parliament, the proposed transformation of India’s flagship rural employment programme is set to become a flashpoint — pitting the government’s vision of restructuring against warnings that the social and economic safety net for rural workers is being fundamentally redrawn.

Also Read | Non-IT sectors lead India’s hiring rebound in 2025, AI roles surge, says Naukri's Pawan Goyal

Watch accompanying video for entire discussion.