A group of scientists, academics, civil society organisations and field practitioners from India and abroad has issued an open letter urging the Union government to reconsider the repeal of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) and to withdraw the newly enacted Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, 2025. The letter, dated December 27, 2025, comes days after the VB–G RAM G Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on December 16 and subsequently approved by both Houses of Parliament, formally replacing the two-decade-old employment guarantee law.
The signatories argue that the new Act is based on an incomplete and flawed diagnosis of the problems facing MGNREGA and that its proposed solutions risk dismantling the rights-based, participatory framework that has underpinned rural employment and local democracy since 2005. Rather than repealing MGNREGA, they call for rigorous ground-level research and wide-ranging consultations to address implementation gaps and strengthen the programme in line with its original spirit of empowerment, inclusion and accountability.
In the letter, the authors challenge the government’s assertion that the demand-driven design of MGNREGA has become outdated in the context of diversified rural livelihoods and increased digital integration. The new Act proposes a shift to a normative allocation model, using geospatial technologies and artificial intelligence to determine where funds will be deployed, for what purposes and in what quantities. The signatories contend that such technologies, while potentially useful as decision-support tools, cannot capture the complex social, ecological and institutional realities of rural landscapes. They argue that seasonal labour practices, customary rights, local histories of land and water management, and community priorities are forms of situated knowledge that cannot be adequately represented through remote sensing or algorithms. Replacing demand-driven allocations with centralised, technology-led norms, they warn, risks misallocation of resources, inefficiency and inequity.
The letter emphasises that MGNREGA’s demand-driven nature is inseparable from its rights-based mandate, enabling the rural poor, marginalised groups and minorities to assert their entitlements and participate meaningfully in local governance. According to the signatories, this framework has historically strengthened social accountability, reduced elite capture and fostered collective decision-making at the village level. A normative, centrally determined system, they argue, would erode these democratic spaces and shift the burden onto poor households to justify their needs, rather than placing communities at the centre of planning.
On the issue of misappropriation and leakages, which the government cites as a major justification for the new law, the signatories caution against viewing corruption primarily as a failure of monitoring or authentication. While acknowledging the need to address misuse, they argue that many irregularities stem from deeper structural barriers that prevent genuine community participation. These include complex guidelines that communities struggle to navigate, lack of upfront capital for material payments, low wage rates, delayed payments and rigid digital attendance systems that disproportionately exclude women by reducing flexibility. The letter notes that in areas where marginalised communities have received adequate support to articulate their demands, implement works and conduct social audits, MGNREGA has been transformative and leakages have been minimal. Strengthening participation and transparency, rather than imposing additional layers of biometric and digital controls, is presented as the more effective and equitable solution.
The letter also disputes the claim that MGNREGA distorts rural labour markets by competing with agriculture during peak sowing and harvesting seasons. The new Act allows for up to 60 days each year when employment will not be provided, a provision the signatories strongly oppose. They point out that MGNREGA wage rates are often 40 to 50 per cent lower than prevailing agricultural wages, making it irrational for workers to substitute farm labour with MGNREGA work during peak periods. Instead, MGNREGA functions as a fallback option when agricultural employment is unavailable or insecure. Seasonal labour shortages, they argue, are better explained by migration and the casualisation of farm work, not by the employment guarantee scheme. The signatories also note that farmers’ organisations have supported MGNREGA and do not endorse the proposed blackout period.
Beyond these concerns, the letter raises serious objections to the fiscal and federal implications of the new Act. Under MGNREGA, the Centre bore 90 per cent of the cost, with states contributing 10 per cent. The VB–G RAM G Act alters this to a 60:40 ratio for most states and stipulates that any expenditure beyond normative allocations must be borne by state governments. The signatories warn that this could lead to political favouritism, discourage states from responding to work demand due to fiscal constraints, and exacerbate unemployment and distress migration. They further argue that provisions granting the Union government discretionary powers to decide the nature, location and scale of public works, as well as to prescribe state-wise normative allocations based on centrally determined parameters, undermine the principles of decentralisation and local autonomy that were central to MGNREGA.
The promise of 125 days of employment per household under the new Act is also questioned, with the letter noting that even under the existing framework, average employment has remained around 50 days per household per year. With a reduced central funding commitment and greater financial responsibility placed on states, the signatories describe the higher employment guarantee as misleading and unrealistic.
Concluding their appeal, the authors state that the new Act threatens to undo nearly two decades of hard-won gains in rural empowerment, equity and participatory governance. They urge the government to pause implementation, engage in meaningful dialogue with civil society and practitioners, and build a grounded understanding of where and why MGNREGA has succeeded. Only through such an approach, they argue, can rural employment policy genuinely address unemployment, strengthen resilience and uphold democratic values.
Here is the revised final paragraph, expanded to include the number of signatories and a few prominent names, written in a cautious, journalistic manner:
The open letter has been endorsed by 346 signatories, including well-known economists, social scientists, ecologists, grassroots practitioners and former government advisers associated with rural employment and decentralised development. Among the signatories are Jean Drèze, development economist and one of the principal architects of MGNREGA; Reetika Khera, economist and long-time researcher on public welfare programmes; Nikhil Dey, social activist associated with the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan; along with academics from leading Indian and international universities, senior members of civil society organisations, and field workers with long experience of implementing MGNREGA on the ground. The full list of signatories is provided in the attached document, and the authors have kept the letter open for further endorsements.
Comments