Mahatma Gandhi famously observed that “the soul of India lives in its villages”. His vision was clear: India’s true progress depends on the development and self-reliance of its rural communities. Inspired by this philosophy, the UPA government enacted the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) in 2005, guaranteeing rural households up to 100 days of wage employment within their own villages.
The rural employment programme has long been regarded as one of the world’s largest and most successful social security initiatives. It has received widespread international recognition, with the World Bank describing it as the world’s largest public works programme, while the United Nations has praised it as a model worthy of emulation by developing nations. Several countries, including Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka, have adopted similar employment guarantee programmes inspired by India’s experience.
Now, the BJP-led Union government has introduced a restructured version of the scheme under the name VBG Ram G (Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Aajeevika Mission), which comes into effect from July 1.
While the revised programme promises 125 days of employment instead of 100, a closer examination of its operational guidelines raises serious concerns about whether it will actually strengthen rural employment or inadvertently exclude many deserving beneficiaries.
The greatest strength of MGNREGA was that it was not merely a welfare scheme but a legal entitlement. Every eligible rural household had the right to demand employment. The new programme, however, introduces several technology-driven requirements that may prove difficult for the very communities the scheme intends to support.
The most vulnerable groups, including landless labourers, tribal communities, forest dwellers, and daily wage earners from drought-prone region, have traditionally depended on MGNREGA for livelihood security. Unfortunately, many of these sections may now face significant barriers in accessing employment.
The mandatory e-KYC verification process has already resulted in the exclusion of several migrant workers, while many incomplete or outdated job cards are reportedly becoming invalid. Consequently, numerous eligible families risk losing access to guaranteed employment.
One of the most contentious provisions is the compulsory facial authentication-based attendance through the National Mobile Monitoring System (NMMS) application. Workers are expected to authenticate their attendance twice every working day, using facial recognition technology.
This requirement poses practical challenges, particularly in remote tribal and forest regions where internet connectivity remains poor or non-existent. Tribal communities in areas such as HD Kote and Hunsur in Karnataka, as well as residents of Hanur and Male Mahadeshwara Hills, may find it impossible to register attendance despite being present at work.
Facial authentication itself presents another concern. Workers engaged in physically demanding labour often experience changes in appearance due to prolonged exposure to sunlight, injuries, illness, or ageing. Medical conditions affecting the face or eyes could also interfere with biometric verification. If authentication fails, genuine workers may be denied attendance, wages, and ultimately their statutory right to employment.
The revised guidelines also reportedly restrict employment under the scheme for nearly 60 days during peak agricultural seasons. While this may encourage participation in agricultural activities, it creates hardship for landless households and families with little or no access to farm employment. Elderly workers and many women, who often depend on employment guarantee works because agricultural labour is either unavailable or unsuitable, may be disproportionately affected.
Equally concerning is the reported change in the wage payment mechanism. Under MGNREGA, wages were credited directly to workers’ bank accounts soon after attendance was approved by local authorities such as the Panchayat Development Officer and the Gram Panchayat President. Under the revised framework, payments are expected to pass through the treasury system, making the process considerably more complex. Workers may have to complete additional documentation and navigate bureaucratic procedures simply to receive wages they have already earned.
The financial structure of the programme has also reportedly undergone significant changes. Earlier, the Centre bore approximately 90 per cent of the expenditure while states contributed the remaining 10 per cent. The revised sharing ratio of 60:40 is expected to place a substantially higher financial burden on state governments, particularly those already facing fiscal constraints.
Moreover, delays in the Union government’s share could compel states to make advance payments from their own resources, placing further pressure on state finances and affecting the timely execution of rural development works. Several state governments. including Karnataka, Telangana, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar, have reportedly expressed reservations about these changes.
Beyond employment, MGNREGA played a transformative role in promoting gender equality by ensuring equal wages for women and enhancing their financial independence. The scheme’s simple and accessible framework enabled millions of unskilled rural workers to receive wages without unnecessary procedural hurdles.
The revised programme, however, appears to make technology the gateway to access employment rather than a tool for improving governance. While digital systems undoubtedly enhance transparency and reduce leakages, they must not become obstacles that deny poor citizens their rightful access to work and wages. Technology should facilitate welfare, not replace human judgment or exclude those who lack digital access. Any reform must balance efficiency with inclusiveness.
Programmes designed for the welfare of the poor should empower beneficiaries, not burden them with procedural complexities. If the objective of the VBG Ram G initiative is truly to strengthen rural livelihoods, its implementation guidelines must be simplified to ensure that every eligible rural worker can access employment without undue hardship.
Correcting shortcomings in an existing system should not create new barriers. Policymakers must remain responsive, periodically review implementation challenges, and introduce necessary modifications to ensure that no deserving beneficiary is left behind. Ultimately, the success of any rural employment programme should not be measured by technological sophistication alone, but by its ability to provide timely work, fair wages, and livelihood security to India’s most vulnerable citizens.