With the Ram Janmabhoomi Rath Yatra, the BJP’s political strength began to grow. From then on, it started projecting itself as a “party with a difference.” Gradually, the party’s electoral success graph kept rising. However, many thinkers and writers did not find this particularly worrying at the time, as they saw little difference between the BJP and the ruling Congress.
The BJP’s real face began to emerge when it became the principal party of the NDA led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee. It first came to power for two brief tenures—13 days and then 13 months—and subsequently governed for nearly six years with Vajpayee as Prime Minister. During this period, many of these writers began to understand that the BJP was indeed a “different kind” of party, as even then the process of undermining democratic values and norms had begun.
During the first term of the UPA government, several schemes were implemented that were based on the concept of “rights.” These included the right to information, health, food, and education. This was perhaps the finest phase of Indian democracy, when the rights of ordinary and poor citizens were given prominence. Strong pressure from social movements ensured that the government not only fulfilled its constitutional duties and launched rights-based schemes, but also worked toward empowering marginalized sections.
In the third term of the Narendra Modi government, the central agenda of communal politics has become starkly clear. Nationalism is being constructed around Hindu identity, and power is increasingly being centralized in the hands of the Union government. This has weakened the concept of a federal state. It is worth recalling that Article 1 of our Constitution states, “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” In place of rights-based schemes, programs are being introduced that carry the stench of authoritarianism, in which governance is reduced to distributing freebies to the public. These schemes contain provisions that go against the spirit of decentralization.
It is commonly believed that the BJP–RSS are only against Muslims. The truth is that they are also opposed to marginalized and working classes—Dalits, workers, Adivasis, and especially women. We have seen how stubbornly the “farm laws,” which farmers opposed, were imposed. Nearly 600 farmers lost their lives before these laws were finally repealed. More recently, we have witnessed the implementation of new labour codes that have taken away rights won by workers after long struggles. And now we are seeing the same happening to agricultural labourers, as the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGA) is being replaced by VB–G-RAM-G.
The central government has moved to scrap MGNREGA and introduce the Viksit Bharat–Rozgar evam Aajeevika Guarantee Mission (Gramin) Bill, 2025 (VB–G RAM G). Through a clever mix of English and Hindi/Urdu words in its name, it has been ensured that the abbreviation includes the word “Ram.” Lord Ram is a key component of the BJP’s identity politics, around which its divisive politics has been constructed.
Among the main provisions of the new scheme is an increase in the number of employment days from 100 to 125. At first glance, this appears to be an improvement over MGNREGA’s 100 days. However, MGNREGA is demand-based. According to the MGNREGA Sangharsh Morcha, “MGNREGA provided people with a legal right that was demand-based and universal—meaning that any person living in a rural area and willing to do unskilled manual work was guaranteed employment.” In contrast, Section 5(1) of the VB–G RAM G Bill states that “the State government shall guarantee 125 days of employment to every household in those rural areas of the State as notified by the Central government, whose members are willing to do unskilled manual work.”
A close reading reveals the reality. The Central government will notify the areas where this Act will apply. This ends the scheme’s universal character, as it limits coverage to areas notified by the Centre. Section 4(5) of the VB–G RAM G Bill provides that “the Central government shall allocate funds to States for each financial year on the basis of objective criteria determined by it.” Section 4(6) further states that “any expenditure incurred by the State government in excess of the amount allocated to it shall be borne by the State government in such manner and through such process as may be determined by the Central government.”
Thus, the very objective of MGNREGA has been completely undermined in the new scheme. In place of MGNREGA’s demand-based functioning, a supply-based system is being introduced. Under the G-RAM-G scheme, demand can be met only up to the limits of a pre-determined budget.
Under MGNREGA, 90 percent of the funding was provided by the Central government. Under G-RAM-G, in most States the Centre will provide only up to 60 percent, while the remaining 40 percent will have to be arranged by the States, many of which are already facing severe financial stress. Due to lack of funds, States may not even register the employment demands of many citizens. Earlier, Gram Sabhas prepared work plans at the local level. In contrast, G-RAM-G completely reverses this approach. Sub-clause 6(4) of Schedule I of the Act states that “in accordance with the provisions of the Viksit Bharat National Infrastructure, the State, district, and Panchayati Raj institutions shall prioritize infrastructure projects, standardize the design of work plans, and ensure the complete availability of all basic services at the Gram Panchayat, block, and district levels through public investment.” This constitutes a serious assault on the concept of Panchayati Raj, which was created and implemented to advance democratic transformation.
Section 6(2) of the VB–G RAM G Bill states that “State governments shall notify, before the beginning of each financial year, a total period of 60 days of the preceding year, which shall be the busiest period for sowing and harvesting of crops, during which work under this Act shall remain suspended.” This is entirely contrary to the provisions of MGNREGA.
The removal of Gandhi’s name is another significant aspect of the new scheme, in which the name of Ram has been inserted through linguistic jugglery. This is the handiwork of Hindu nationalist ideology, which spread hatred in society and, as Sardar Patel noted, led to the loss of the Father of the Nation. Gandhi is a global figure who cannot be ignored. Hence, he has been confined merely to the role of a messenger for the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan. By removing his name from this employment scheme, the BJP is sending a political signal that it does not follow Gandhi’s ideology.
This change, in many ways, reflects the BJP’s agenda. It is distant from Gandhian thought, opposed to federalism and the concept of rights, and shows little concern for marginalized people.
---
The author taught at IIT Bombay and is the President of the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
Comments