The name itself mirrors official blandness; it’s the abbreviated form that leaps out of the page.
Rarely is the acronym for a parliamentary bill welded to the full name with a colon rather than a bracket — thereby making it a part of the name itself. As though to make sure everyone wrote it in the approved manner.
Even more rarely do spaces appear within an acronym.
For instance, the Union rural development ministry’s website refers to the legislation behind its flagship job programme as “Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA)”.
But the Act’s proposed replacement carries the moniker — in the bill document handed to MPs by the ministry — of “VIKSIT BHARAT—GUARANTEE FOR ROZGAR AND AJEEVIKA MISSION (GRAMIN): VB—G RAM G BILL 2025”. That should forestall anyone from abbreviating it as VBGRAMG Bill.
The bill, likely to be tabled this week, includes proposals to reduce the Centre’s burden of funding for the UPA-introduced rural job scheme, suspend the projects for 60 days during peak agricultural seasons, and have workers mark their attendance digitally. (See chart)
Political parties and social activists said the bill had sounded the death knell for the two-decade-old, UPA-introduced, job programme.
While the bill entitles a rural family to 125 days’ work a year, up from the current 100 days, some of its other provisions appear to reduce the possibility of more work being done under the programme.
The big change is in the funding pattern. The Centre now pays the entire wage bill under the programme and 75 per cent of the cost of materials, which been capped at 40 per cent of total expenses. This means the states have to foot just 10 per cent of the total bill — or less.
However, the proposed legislation says that non-hill states must meet 40 per cent of the wage bill and 40 per cent of the material cost.
Further, the bill appears to fix, once and for all, the central funds each state would receive in a financial year, in contrast to the flexibility allowed by the current law that makes room for additional funding in response to higher work demand.
“The Central Government shall determine the State-wise normative allocation for each financial year, based on objective parameters as may be prescribed by the Central Government,” the bill says.
“Any expenditure incurred by a State in excess of its normative allocation, shall be borne by the State Government in such manner and procedure as may be prescribed by the Central Government.”
It further says: “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or rules made thereunder, and to facilitate adequate availability of agricultural labour during peak agricultural seasons, no work shall be commenced or executed under this Act, during such peak seasons as may be notified.”
Experts Nikhil Dey and Chakradhar Buddha said the bill virtually marked the end of unskilled rural workers’ legal right to employment.
“The MGNREGA was running because the central government shouldered the entire wage bill and there was no limit on expenses because it was a demand-driven programme,” said Dey, from the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, which works in Rajasthan for proper implementation of the rural job scheme.
“If the states are forced to bear 40 per cent of the costs and also any extra amount spent beyond the sum approved by the Centre, the job scheme will not work. The guarantee for 125 days’ work to every rural family will remain on paper.”
Dey said that if the Centre stopped the funding after the approved amount was exhausted, the states would be unlikely to continue with the projects further — or would confine them to certain parts of their territory.
“We will be back to the days of the Jawahar Rozgar Yojana, under which the Union government allocated certain funds for job programmes and, once the money was exhausted, the scheme stopped,” Dey said.
“The MGNREGA was enacted to ensure that the rural job programme did not suffer for a lack of funds.”
Buddha, a senior researcher with LibTech India, a private research body focused on social-sector schemes, said the bill used the word “guarantee” 92 times but did not contain the provisions necessary to make the guarantee real. He said the proposed increase in the permissible workdays was a cosmetic measure.
The NREGA Sangharsh Morcha, a civil society group, alleged that the bill had been drawn up without consulting workers or workers’ groups.
Trinamool Congress MP Derek O’Brien said the government’s plan to rename the MGNREGA was an insult to Mahatma Gandhi.
“Removing Mahatma Gandhi’s name. This is an insult to Gandhiji. But then are you surprised!” he posted on X.
“These are the same people who hero worshipped the man who killed Mahatma Gandhi. They want to insult Gandhiji. We will never allow this to happen.”
Congress leader Jairam Ramesh tweeted that the entire Opposition was demanding that the Higher Education Commission Bill and the Atomic Energy Bill, both introduced in theLok Sabha, and the job scheme bill be referred to standingcommittees.
The CPM politburo issued a statement demanding the immediate withdrawal of the VB—G RAM G Bill.
“The government’s claim of increasing guaranteed employment from 100 to 125 days is merely cosmetic. In reality, the bill opens the door to the exclusion of large sections of rural households in the name of rationalisation of job cards,” it said.
“The provision allowing governments to suspend employment for up to 60 days during peak agricultural seasons will deny work to rural households when it is most needed and make them dependent on landlords. Mandating digital attendance at the workplace is bound to cause immense difficulties to workers, like loss of work, and denial of their rights.”
The bill emphasises projects related to water security, core rural infrastructure, livelihood-related infrastructure and the mitigation of extreme weather events.