Demands to Repeal VB-G RAM G

Syllabus: GS2/Governance

Context

• Demanding the repeal of the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Aajeevika Mission – Gramin (VB-G RAM G) Act, activists and workers’ organisations announced protests from July 1.

About  VB-G RAM G

• It replaced the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (MGNREGA).
  • This marks a shift from a “demand-driven framework” to a “supply-driven scheme”.
• Enhanced Livelihood Guarantee: The Act enhances the statutory wage employment guarantee to 125 from 100 days per rural household in every financial year, for adults who volunteer to undertake unskilled manual work.
• Centrally Sponsored Scheme: It is a Centrally Sponsored Scheme with a sharing pattern of 90:10 for North-Eastern and Himalayan States/UT and 60:40 for all other States.
• Securing peak agricultural seasons: Under the Act states are empowered to notify in advance, a period aggregating to 60 days in a financial year covering peak sowing and harvesting during which works under the Act will not be undertaken, facilitating sufficient farm labour at critical times. 
• Normative Allocation to States based: States are required to ensure transparent and need-based intra-state distribution of funds across districts and Gram Panchayats, taking into account the category of Panchayats and local developmental needs. 
• Unemployment allowance: If eligible applicants are not provided work within the stipulated period, State Governments will be obliged to pay unemployment allowance. 
• VGPP based planning: Planning will be undertaken through Viksit Gram Panchayat Plans, prepared by Gram Panchayats and integrated with national spatial planning systems. 
• Institutional Oversight: The Central Gramin Rozgar Guarantee Council and the State Gramin Rozgar Guarantee Councils shall be constituted for review, monitoring and effective implementation of the provisions of the legislation in their respective areas. 

Concerns Raised by Workers

• Financial Concerns: An analysis of the government’s data showed the promised 125 days of employment under the proposed scheme was neither financially backed nor administratively feasible.
  • No major state would be able to generate even half of the promised 125 days of employment per active job card.
• Silent on Wage Rates: Rules are silent on wage rates and not guaranteeing statutory minimum wages.
• Technological Failures: The activists opposed the continued use of facial recognition and biometric authentication, alleging that technological failures had repeatedly resulted in loss of wages and workdays for workers.
• Shift from demand-driven to supply-driven allocation: Earlier approach in MGNREGA was Bottom-up, demand-based estimation by states.
  • The act introduces Top-down “normative” allocation, with parameters decided unilaterally by the Centre.
• Excessive burden on States: Unlike MGNREGA, where the Centre bears 100% wage cost and 75% of material cost, the VB-G RAM G Bill mandates a 60:40 Centre–State funding pattern, many states may struggle to mobilise their 40% share.
  • It increases the risk of uneven implementation across states, reinforcing regional disparities.

Conclusion

• To cater to the changing aspirations, stronger convergence is required to establish an integrated, Whole-of-Government rural development framework covering several complementary Government schemes. 
• As national development advances, rural development programs require periodical revision to remain aligned with emerging needs and further aspirations. 

Source: TH