A fresh controversy has been triggered by a new Bill that seeks to replace the fairly successful, two-decades-old rural jobs scheme. First, the Viksit Bharat-Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill proposes to extend to 125 the number of days of work guaranteed every year, from 100 under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. Second, it alters the funding pattern from a full central payout to 60:40 sharing between the Centre and most states; the ratio for the northeastern and northern hill states is 90:10.
MGNREGA was enacted in 2005 as an answer to crushing rural poverty. It aimed to boost rural incomes and create durable infrastructure like water bodies and roads. It was a revolutionary move that made rural employment a right. It’s odd of the current government to tinker with the success story when rural jobs are hard to come by. The scheme serves not only as a safety net during droughts and other crises; it also empowers rural communities because the funding is demand-driven, with the planning left to local bodies like panchayats. Neither can it be explained by the NDA government’s penchant for renaming old schemes. Why drop Mahatma Gandhi’s association with a rural jobs scheme?
The G-Ram-G Bill’s proposal to increase the days of employment is a gain. But under the existing scheme, work is to be provided for “not less than 100 days”, leaving it to the states to raise the cap when necessary. The more consequential new feature is about sharing the financial burden of the ₹86,000-crore scheme with the states. At the proposed ratio, cash-strapped states will have to bear about ₹50,000 crore of the projected cost next year. Another setback is the scheme’s suspension for 60 days every year during peak agricultural seasons. This weakens job guarantee as a right and takes demand flexibility away from job seekers. The current scheme is far from perfect—for one, it insists on providing only unskilled work. There is also as much as ₹9,746.39 crore due at present in wages, material payments, and administrative costs. However, these can be set right by improving the old law. Why throw out the baby with the bathwater?