Policy changes in rural employment scheme and the politics of nomenclature

By N.S. Venkataraman* 

The Government of India has introduced a revised rural employment programme by fine-tuning the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), which has been in operation for nearly two decades. The MGNREGA scheme guarantees 100 days of employment annually to rural households and has primarily benefited populations in rural areas.

The revised programme has been named VB-G RAM–G (Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission – Gramin). The government has stated that the revised scheme incorporates several structural changes, including an increase in guaranteed employment from 100 to 125 days, modifications in the financing pattern, provisions to strengthen unemployment allowances, and penalties for delays in wage payments. Given the extent of these changes, the government has argued that a new name is required to distinguish the revised programme from the existing MGNREGA framework.

As has been witnessed in recent years, the introduction of the revised scheme has drawn criticism from opposition political parties. During the introduction of the Bill in Parliament, protests by opposition members reportedly disrupted proceedings. As a result, detailed discussion on the merits and limitations of the revised scheme could not take place. This, in turn, limited the opportunity for parliamentary debate and for the public to hear differing viewpoints on the proposed changes.

The government has justified the need for a revised scheme by pointing to certain shortcomings in the existing MGNREGA framework. These include allegations of irregularities in implementation, such as inflated beneficiary data, concerns over the productivity and quality of assets created, and the absence of a clear focus on the nature and outcomes of employment provided. It has also been argued that the availability of labour for agricultural work has declined in some regions, with workers preferring employment under MGNREGA due to relatively less strenuous work and lower levels of supervision. These assessments have formed part of the rationale for restructuring the programme.

According to official statements, the revised scheme places greater emphasis on water security, core rural infrastructure, livelihood-related assets, and mitigation of extreme weather impacts, areas considered critical for long-term rural development.

Criticism of the revised scheme has largely centred on two issues: the removal of Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the title and the revised financing pattern. Under the new arrangement, the central government would fund up to 60 per cent of the scheme, with the remaining 40 per cent to be borne by state governments, whereas the earlier MGNREGA framework was fully funded by the Centre.

Mahatma Gandhi is widely regarded not only as a leader of India’s freedom struggle but also as a social reformer who emphasised ethical conduct in both public and private life. He advocated principles such as prohibition, integrity in governance, and social discipline. Critics point out that several of these ideals are not fully reflected in present-day governance and social practices, with prohibition implemented only in a few states and concerns about corruption continuing to be raised.

At the same time, Gandhi’s birth and death anniversaries are officially observed through ceremonial events such as garlanding statues and holding prayer meetings. Some observers argue that this reflects symbolic recognition rather than consistent adherence to his principles in policymaking and administration.

In this context, supporters of the revised scheme contend that retaining or removing Mahatma Gandhi’s name from a specific programme should not, by itself, be seen as a measure of respect or disregard. They note that numerous institutions, public spaces, and memorials across the country already bear his name, and that a change in nomenclature for one scheme does not diminish his legacy.

From this perspective, the larger issue is the extent to which public policy and political discourse reflect the ethical values and social priorities associated with Mahatma Gandhi, rather than an exclusive focus on symbolic representation. Advocates of this view argue that political debate on social and economic issues would benefit from greater depth, restraint, and engagement with substantive policy questions, rather than rhetoric aimed primarily at public mobilisation.

Observers have cautioned that declining standards of political debate can have broader implications for democratic culture and governance. Ensuring informed discussion, accountability, and respect for differing viewpoints remains an important challenge for India’s political institutions.

---

*Trustee, Nandini Voice for the Deprived, Chennai