Workers’ organisations, trade unions and grassroots activists have sharply criticised the proposed Village-Based Guaranteed Rural Employment and Asset Generation Mission (VBGRAMG), alleging that it dismantles the rights-based framework of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) and replaces it with a centralized, underfunded and technology-driven system that threatens rural livelihoods.
Addressing a press conference, representatives of the NREGA Sangharsh Morcha, the All India Agricultural Workers’ Union (AIAWU), workers’ collectives and labour unions argued that the draft VBGRAMG Rules continue what they described as the “opaque erasure” of MGNREGA and introduce new barriers to accessing employment.
According to the organisations, MGNREGA emerged from years of popular struggle and established a legal right to work for rural households. They contended that the new framework weakens this guarantee by replacing a demand-driven programme with a system based on fixed allocations and greater central control.
Nikhil Dey of the NREGA Sangharsh Morcha said the first demand of workers’ organisations is the complete rollback of VBGRAMG and restoration of MGNREGA. He argued that the new legislation weakens federalism by imposing centrally determined allocations on states and requiring state governments to contribute 40 percent of programme funding after many state budgets have already been finalized.
AIAWU General Secretary B. Venkat announced that workers’ organisations would launch nationwide protests from July 1 demanding repeal of the new framework. He said a series of actions, including engagement with political representatives and pressure campaigns targeting both central and state governments, would continue until the legislation is withdrawn. Venkat asserted that the move disproportionately affects women workers as well as Dalit and Adivasi communities, who constitute a significant share of MGNREGA beneficiaries.
Concerns Over Digital Technologies
A major focus of the criticism was the continued reliance on digital attendance and authentication systems.
Kamla Devi, a worker associated with the Rajasthan Asangathith Mazdoor Union, said digital attendance requirements have created severe hardships for labourers, particularly women. She claimed that attendance systems often fail to capture workers’ images and that many worksites are located in forested areas without adequate mobile connectivity, preventing workers from marking attendance.
Jagannath, a worker from Sitapur district in Uttar Pradesh, alleged that workers often spend several hours attempting to register attendance online. He said many labourers abandon work because facial-recognition systems fail to authenticate them, while geotagging requirements and mobile-based applications remain difficult to use in areas with weak network coverage.
Pinky, a worker and mate from Rajasthan, highlighted delays in payments to mates and alleged that digital attendance systems frequently malfunction, placing frontline supervisors under pressure and exposing them to accusations of deliberate exclusion.
Madhulika, Joint Secretary of the Rajasthan Asangathith Mazdoor Union, said a study conducted by the organisation found numerous problems with electronic Know Your Customer (e-KYC) requirements. According to her, workers reported difficulties being recognised by facial-recognition systems following minor changes in appearance, while software updates occasionally resulted in worksites disappearing from digital records. She argued that technological interventions intended to curb irregularities have instead created fresh barriers for workers.
Venkat further alleged that some workers have been forced to travel long distances to obtain internet connectivity for attendance registration, resulting in accidents and, in some cases, fatalities.
The organisations noted that NREGA workers have, over the past three years, repeatedly raised concerns regarding the National Mobile Monitoring System (NMMS), citing app failures, connectivity issues, biometric authentication errors, software updates and wage denials despite attendance at worksites. They argued that instead of addressing these concerns, the draft VBGRAMG Rules institutionalise many of the same technologies.
Dey also criticised provisions requiring the issuance of new job cards linked to e-KYC procedures, claiming that such requirements have already caused widespread exclusion in several states.
Questions Over the 125-Day Employment Guarantee
The Centre has promoted VBGRAMG as an improved rural employment programme that would increase the guaranteed employment entitlement from 100 to 125 days per household. However, the organisations argued that government allocations do not support this claim.
Presenting an analysis of proposed interim allocations, activists said the funds earmarked for states would be insufficient even to maintain current levels of employment generation, let alone provide an expanded guarantee.
According to the analysis, the projected number of persondays that could be generated per active job card falls significantly below the promised 125 days in every major state. The figures presented included:
- Andhra Pradesh: 42.35 persondays per active job card
- Chhattisgarh: 39.07 persondays
- Bihar: 30.94 persondays
- Karnataka: 26.44 persondays
- Madhya Pradesh: 25.66 persondays
- Uttar Pradesh: 27.50 persondays
- Maharashtra: 14.40 persondays
- Haryana: 13.78 persondays
The organisations argued that these figures indicate a substantial mismatch between the programme’s stated objectives and the financial resources proposed for its implementation.
Funding Gap Highlighted
The groups also pointed to what they described as a massive funding shortfall between the allocations required to provide 125 days of employment and the amounts currently proposed.
According to their estimates, additional funds required to meet the promised guarantee would include:
- Andhra Pradesh: ₹9,901 crore
- Bihar: ₹15,939 crore
- Karnataka: ₹17,481 crore
- Uttar Pradesh: ₹27,987 crore
- Madhya Pradesh: ₹20,037 crore
- Maharashtra: ₹31,013 crore
- Rajasthan: ₹22,549 crore
- Tamil Nadu: ₹27,212 crore
The organisations contended that unless these funding gaps are addressed, the promise of a 125-day guarantee would remain largely symbolic.
Gulzar Singh Goriya of AIAWU described the proposed transition as an attack on rural workers and marginalized communities. He argued that the centralized design of the new legislation weakens the federal structure and adversely affects those most dependent on public employment programmes.
Employment Trends Already Declining
The groups further claimed that employment generation has already begun to decline during the transition period.
Comparing persondays generated between January and May 2026 with the corresponding period in 2025, they reported significant reductions across several states, including Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Jharkhand.
According to the organisations, the trend suggests that rural employment opportunities are shrinking even before full implementation of the proposed framework.
Concerns Over Wage Provisions
Another issue raised by workers’ representatives was the absence of explicit wage guarantees in the draft rules.
They noted that the draft VBGRAMG Rules do not specify the wage rate payable to workers or guarantee payment of statutory minimum wages. The omission, they argued, is particularly significant at a time when workers in several states have mobilised for higher wages and improved working conditions.
The organisations said that if the objective of VBGRAMG is to strengthen workers’ rights, the government should clearly guarantee statutory minimum wages within the rules themselves.
Key Demands
The organisations concluded by reiterating their demands to the Central Government:
- Repeal VBGRAMG and restore a strengthened MGNREGA framework.
- Guarantee payment of statutory minimum wages to all workers.
- Remove NMMS, facial-recognition and biometric authentication requirements.
- Strengthen transparency, grievance redress mechanisms and social audits to prevent corruption while protecting workers’ access to employment.
The groups maintained that a rights-based employment guarantee cannot be replaced by a programme that lacks adequate funding and imposes technological barriers on some of the country’s most vulnerable workers.
Comments
Post a Comment
NOTE: Hateful, abusive comments won't be published. -- Editor