The Bill titled Viksit Bharat Employment and Livelihood Guarantee Mission (Rural), presented in the Lok Sabha as a replacement for the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), warrants serious scrutiny. It is not a mere change in nomenclature; it represents a fundamental shift in the nature and design of the existing employment guarantee framework. More importantly, it reflects a broader tendency of the BJP-led Union government to centralise authority at the expense of states.
The stated objective of renaming the scheme is to align it with the vision of a “developed India” by 2047. However, the decision to remove Mahatma Gandhi’s name raises questions about intent. For nearly two decades, the association with Gandhi symbolised the scheme’s linkage to his idea of Gram Swaraj, which emphasised decentralisation, participatory democracy, and local self-governance. The proposed Bill moves in the opposite direction by concentrating decision-making powers with the Union government.
Supporters of the new scheme argue that increasing the guaranteed employment from 100 to 125 days will benefit rural households. Yet, official employment data under MGNREGA suggests that even the existing entitlement has rarely been fully realised. In 2020–21, the peak year of the COVID-19 crisis, only about 9.5 per cent of households received the full 100 days of work. Over the past two years, this figure has fallen to around 7 per cent. Without addressing the structural and financial constraints that limited employment under MGNREGA, merely increasing the number of guaranteed days risks remaining a nominal promise.
A significant shift under the proposed framework is its classification as a centrally sponsored scheme. Under MGNREGA, the Union government bore the full cost of unskilled wages. The new Bill proposes a general funding pattern of 60:40 between the Centre and the states. This change comes at a time when many states are under fiscal stress, exacerbated by changes in the GST regime and reduced fiscal autonomy. One of the notable outcomes of MGNREGA has been the increase in rural wage levels; weakening the financial architecture of the scheme may undermine this achievement. It is also uncertain how many states will be willing to participate enthusiastically in a programme that shifts additional financial burdens onto them.
More fundamentally, the demand-driven and rights-based character of MGNREGA has been diluted. The existing law allows rural households to demand work, with the state obligated to provide it. The proposed scheme is supply-driven, with expenditure ceilings fixed by the Union government. Any expenditure beyond these limits would have to be borne by states, introducing a new constraint that undermines the principle of employment as a legal entitlement. Tamil Nadu and Kerala have already expressed opposition to the Bill, arguing that it weakens federal principles and state interests.
When MGNREGA was enacted in 2005 by the Congress-led government, it was framed as a legal right to work, guaranteeing at least 100 days of employment to adult members of rural households. The scheme faced allegations of corruption in its early years, a matter that remains open to debate. After coming to power, the present Prime Minister described MGNREGA as a “living monument of Congress failure,” while also stating that it would not be dismantled. Over the past eleven years, the scheme has continued, largely because no welfare-oriented state can afford to dispense with such a basic social protection mechanism.
The current controversy arises not from an evaluation of MGNREGA’s performance, but from the government’s decision to rename and restructure it. The scheme has been proposed to be renamed the “Pujya Bapu Rural Employment Scheme,” also referred to as the “G-Ramji Bill.” Along with the change in name, substantive alterations have been introduced, which merit independent debate. However, the immediate question concerns the rationale behind removing Mahatma Gandhi’s name from a major public welfare programme.
The official explanation suggests that the change is necessary to fulfil the vision of a developed India by the centenary of independence. It is also argued that replacing “Mahatma Gandhi” with “Pujya Bapu,” a term associated with both Gandhi and the idea of Ram Rajya, should not be objectionable. Yet, the issue is not semantic. It is political.
Over the past decade, the practice of renaming schemes, institutions, and public spaces has become increasingly common. While governments across eras have engaged in this practice, it has gained renewed prominence in recent years. Renaming, however, does not automatically translate into reform. Changing Rajpath to Kartavya Path does not by itself alter institutional culture or public consciousness. Mindsets change through substantive policy shifts, not symbolic gestures.
If MGNREGA had flaws, those flaws were not a consequence of Gandhi’s name being associated with it. Similarly, invoking Lord Ram or the idea of Ram Rajya does not automatically ensure better governance. Gandhi’s conception of Ram Rajya rested on decentralisation, moral authority, and grassroots democracy. Policies that centralise power while invoking this ideal risk reducing it to a political slogan.
The proposed Bill also claims that employment under the scheme will be structured so as not to clash with agricultural activities during sowing and harvesting seasons. This is a reasonable objective, but it could have been incorporated through amendments to MGNREGA itself after consultation with states, rather than through a complete overhaul.
Despite assurances from the Union Rural Development Minister that the new law reflects Gandhi’s spirit, the core principle of Ram Rajya—good governance rooted in decentralised democracy—cannot be realised without empowering local institutions and states. The proposed framework does not advance this vision.
Ultimately, the government must address a simple question: why was it necessary to remove Mahatma Gandhi’s name from a national employment guarantee programme? Gandhi did not belong to any political party; he belonged to the nation and to humanity at large. Altering a scheme that bears his name should not give the impression of political expediency.
True transformation lies not in symbolic renaming, but in strengthening institutions and upholding the values they are meant to represent. Development driven by the politics of renaming is unlikely to lead to meaningful progress.
Comments