From Entitlement to Outcomes: The Case for Replacing MGNREGA with VBGRAAM-G

New Delhi: Public policy should be evaluated by its outcomes, not by sentiment, nostalgia, or political symbolism. The proposed replacement of MGNREGA with the Viksit Bharat Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission Gramin Act, 2025 (VBGRAAM-G) has met with predictable resistance. Critics argue that the new law weakens rights, burdens states, centralizes power, and erases Mahatma Gandhi's legacy. However, these objections reveal more about political positioning than about policy design.

What are the arguments against VBGRAAM-G?

The central claim that VBGRAAM-G dismantles the rights-based framework rests on the flawed assumption that legal entitlement automatically translates into empowerment. Two decades of experience with MGNREGA have exposed the limitations of this belief. Persistent wage delays, unmet demand, poor quality asset creation, and uneven implementation have hollowed out the equitable entitlement that was meant to be delivered in a timely, large-scale, and sustained manner. A right that cannot be delivered on time, at scale, and consistently is, in practical terms, no longer a right. VBGRAAM-G does not retract the state's responsibility to provide employment assistance. It restructures that responsibility by enforcing timelines, linking funding to outcomes, and institutionalizing accountability. This is not a weakening, but an improvement.

More fundamentally, the new act reflects a necessary shift in India's development thinking. MGNREGA was designed as a relief mechanism during a period of acute rural distress. Treating crisis employment as a permanent feature of the rural economy normalizes stagnation. VBGRAAM-G explicitly links short-term employment to livelihood creation, skill development, and productive asset building. The shift from counting workdays to building sustainable livelihoods recognizes a fundamental truth. Dignity comes not merely from employment, but from income stability, productivity, and the capacity to rise. A welfare system that refuses to evolve reinforces dependence rather than eradicating poverty.

Do the accusations against VBGRAM-G hold water?

Concerns about increased fiscal burdens on states collapse under scrutiny. Under the old framework, states faced uncertainty due to delays in central releases, unplanned liabilities, and retrospective cost-sharing disputes. VBGRAM-G introduces clear fiscal roles, medium-term planning, and results-based funding. Predictability is the foundation of true fiscal federalism. States gain the capacity to plan, not merely react. This strengthens administrative autonomy, rather than weakening it.

Similarly, accusations of excessive centralization confuse national standard-setting with micromanagement. Uniform standards for transparency, eligibility, and monitoring are essential in a program of this scale. Local bodies continue to identify works, execute projects, and monitor delivery. What has changed is the emphasis on performance and accountability. Decentralization without monitoring has historically benefited intermediaries more than laborers. VBGRAM-G attempts to correct that structural flaw.

Is removing Gandhi's name justified?

The most passionate criticism concerns the removal of Mahatma Gandhi's name from the legislation. This argument substitutes symbolism for substance. Gandhi's economic philosophy emphasized productive labor, self-reliance, decentralized development, and ethical responsibility. Tolerating systemic inefficiency while retaining his name does not honor that legacy. A program focused on sustainable community assets, local enterprise, and livelihood stability aligns far more closely with Gandhian principles than one that treats subsistence work as an end in itself.

Reform inevitably generates resistance, especially when it disrupts established political narratives. But social policy cannot remain frozen in time. India's demographic pressures, fiscal constraints, and development ambitions demand instruments that deliver measurable results. VBGRAM-G is a deliberate attempt to shift rural employment policy from input-driven entitlements to outcome-oriented guarantees. The transition will require caution, refinement, and disciplined implementation. But outright resistance to the reform would be a major failure.

The real choice before policymakers is not between compassion and efficiency, or entitlements and reform. It is between a welfare structure that adapts to changing realities and one that clings to outdated frameworks whose limitations have long been exposed. VBGRAM-G signals an evolution in thinking. It attempts to translate public expenditure into sustainable rural prosperity. That ambition, not political nostalgia, should define the national debate.

About the author: Nirva Mehta is a political analyst and columnist who writes on public policy, governance, and national security. Her work focuses on power structures, state behavior, and the long-term consequences of policy choices in India and beyond.

Author: Nirva Mehta