From MGNREGA to VGRAMG: A Change of Name, Not of Direction

The government’s decision to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) with the Viksit Bharat–GRAMG (VGRAMG) framework has been projected as a decisive reform of India’s rural employment policy. Yet, beyond two headline features,an increase in the number of guaranteed workdays and a provision to pause employment during peak agricultural seasons the proposed legislation offers little in terms of substantive change. This inevitably raises a fundamental question: is this reform intended to improve rural livelihoods, or merely to move away from the legacy embedded in the scheme’s name?

MGNREGA, enacted in 2005 after extensive parliamentary debate, was not merely another welfare programme. It was consciously framed as a rights-based law , rooted in the Gandhian idea of dignity of labour and the moral obligation of the state to protect the most vulnerable. Its importance lay not just in providing wage employment, but in guaranteeing work as a legal entitlement during periods of distress. Over nearly two decades, the scheme proved its relevance during drought years, agrarian stress and the economic upheaval of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite its shortcomings, its core framework endured precisely because it performed a stabilising function in rural India.

Seen against this backdrop, VGRAMG appears more like a rebranding exercise than a policy reinvention . Increasing the number of workdays, though politically appealing, does not address long-standing issues such as delayed wage payments, weak grievance redressal, inconsistent asset quality and administrative inefficiencies. Likewise, the agricultural pause provision, intended to align employment with farming cycles, risks undermining income certainty for households that depend on predictable wage support.

More consequential is the proposed shift in the Centre–State financial arrangement . Under MGNREGA, the Central government bore the full cost of unskilled wages, ensuring a uniform safety net across states regardless of fiscal capacity. The move towards a shared Centre-State budget model alters this balance significantly. For fiscally constrained states, co-financing wages could translate into fewer workdays, slower approvals and uneven implementation.

This raises a practical concern: will all states, particularly those governed by non-NDA parties, implement the scheme with equal commitment? Experience suggests that when centrally designed schemes impose higher financial liabilities without adequate flexibility, state governments tend to limit exposure. In such circumstances, employment guarantees risk becoming contingent not on rural distress, but on fiscal headroom and political alignment undermining the universality that gave MGNREGA its strength.

Equally troubling is what the new legislation leaves unaddressed. Rural India’s challenges extend well beyond short-term employment guarantees. Access to safe drinking water, sustainable water management, sanitation, healthcare, education and durable rural infrastructure remain persistent deficits. These require sustained public investment, institutional reform and integrated planning. Changing the name of an employment scheme, particularly one associated with Gandhian principles of social justice does little to advance these broader development goals.

If the vision of a “Viksit Bharat” is to be taken seriously, reform should have focused on outcomes rather than optics. Strengthening wage delivery systems, improving asset quality, integrating employment with water security and long-term livelihoods, and reinforcing cooperative federalism would have constituted a meaningful departure from the past. Instead, the present proposal risks conveying the impression that the symbolic removal of Gandhi’s name matters more than the lived realities of rural workers .

Legislative reform carries weight only when it translates into tangible improvement on the ground. Rural India does not require a renamed guarantee; it requires reliable water access, resilient livelihoods, strong public services and a federal framework that enables delivery rather than complicates it . Any reform that falls short of this risks becoming continuity disguised as change and symbolism mistaken for progress.