In a press release issued on 10 February, the government described the VB-GRAM G Act, 2025 as more “women-friendly” than MGNREGA. This claim must be examined through the lens of food security. For rural women, an employment guarantee is not a routine welfare measure; it is often the foundation of household survival. The central question is whether the new law genuinely strengthens women’s ability to feed their families or merely expands entitlements on paper.
Most of the provisions presented as “women-centric” are not new. The one-third mandatory participation of women already existed under MGNREGA, and in practice women’s participation consistently exceeded 50 percent. This was not symbolic. It demonstrated that MGNREGA functioned as a critical pillar of food security for rural households. When agricultural employment declined or seasonal migration was not feasible, these wages enabled women to purchase grain, pulses, oil and other essentials. The new Act does not clarify how it will strengthen this role beyond extending the guarantee from 100 to 125 days.
Crèche facilities at worksites were also part of the earlier law. The problem was never the absence of a provision, but the failure of implementation. In many areas, crèches were either not established or existed only on paper. Women were compelled to bring young children to unsafe worksites, leave them in the care of slightly older siblings, or withdraw from work altogether. The consequences were immediate: reduced income, poorer nutrition and adverse effects on children’s health. The new Act does not outline concrete mechanisms to address this persistent failure.
Similarly, prioritising assets for women-headed households and supporting self-help group infrastructure were already permissible. While such measures may contribute to long-term livelihood security, immediate food security depends on regular and timely wage payments. For families struggling to secure their next meal, promises of asset creation offer little reassurance when wages are delayed.
The most serious concern remains delays in wage payments. For rural women, these earnings are not supplementary income; they are a lifeline. They are used to compensate when Public Distribution System rations fall short, to bridge the gap until the next harvest, or to avoid high-interest debt. When payments are delayed for weeks or months, families reduce food intake, cut back on protein and iron-rich foods, or borrow at exploitative rates.
Aadhaar-based payment systems, biometric authentication failures, bank account errors, technical glitches and financial disputes between the Centre and states have all contributed to these delays. Women without mobile phones or digital literacy are often forced to make repeated trips to banks or service centres, losing both time and wages in the process. The burden is not merely economic; it is also a matter of dignity.
Although the VB-GRAM G Act promises “time-bound payments,” it does not mandate automatic compensation for delays or establish a transparent accountability framework. Timely wages are not an administrative detail; they are a prerequisite for food security. A delayed payment can mean the difference between three meals and two.
Unemployment allowance, already a legal entitlement under MGNREGA, was rarely enforced in practice. Unless such allowances are automatic, mandatory and accompanied by interest for delays, stronger wording alone will not protect families from hunger. The failure to provide either work or compensation translates directly into food insecurity.
Digitalisation has further excluded many women. Biometric mismatches, connectivity gaps and banking complications have created additional barriers. In the name of transparency, technological systems have often made access to entitlements more cumbersome, weakening accountability rather than strengthening it.
The expansion from 100 to 125 days therefore raises a fundamental question: is this a substantive guarantee or a symbolic one? Food security cannot be ensured by increasing the number of days on paper alone. It depends on actual availability of work, timely wage payments and accessible systems. Promises that do not translate into income do not fill empty plates.
The situation is compounded by the large-scale cancellation of ration cards. Income thresholds and criteria such as ownership of a four-wheeler are being used to disqualify families despite rising living costs. In urban areas, an annual income of ₹1 lakh or even ₹1.2 lakh is insufficient to sustain a household. Many vehicles are purchased on loans for livelihood purposes. Cancelling ration cards under such conditions deepens food insecurity rather than addressing it.
If the government is serious about empowering women, it must recognise employment guarantees as a central pillar of food security. This requires worksites close to habitation, timely and automatic payments, enforceable unemployment allowances, simple and inclusive payment systems, and adequate budgetary support.
Empowerment does not flow from announcements. It emerges when no woman is forced to rely on debt, humiliation or hunger to feed her family. Until that assurance becomes a lived reality, claims of development will remain confined to paper while hunger persists on the ground.
---
*Right to Food Campaign
Comments