Will G-Ram-G serve the poor better than MGNREGA

Farmers dying by suicide, migration from rural to urban areas, jobless growth in the 1990s and stagnation and decline in agricultural productivity were the distress signals which led to enactment of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) in 2005.

The Rajasthan chapter of People’s Union for Civil Liberties, India’s largest human rights organisation, filed a Public Interest litigation on similar issues in mid-2001. The petition put forward that the right to life, a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, has been recognised inclusive of the right to live with dignity, including the right to food.

MGNREGA is based on the experiences of many previously designed and implemented rural development employment-oriented schemes and wage employment programmes in the past five years plans.

The draft of the legislation was largely based on the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act, 1977, undoubtedly, one of the most progressive and purposive legislations to guarantee work and wages to the rural work force, in particular, the poor farmers and landless labourers.

Poverty is a state of deprivation. In absolute terms, it reflects the inability of an individual to satisfy certain basic minimum needs for a sustained, healthy and reasonably productive living. This inability has a social, cultural, political and a physiological dimension. This scheme helped in achieving three SDG goals — poverty eradication, environment protection and woman empowerment.

The government always has machinery; it only needs the will and vision to identify the problem and act accordingly. Does the repealing of MGNREGA to VB-G-RAM-G and joining it wrongly with the Livelihood Mission, give us a better tool to serve the deprived lot? G-RAM-G is not a better scheme as it further imposes cuts on taking up work during 60 days of harvesting period. Are the persons employed in MGNREG scheme land owners?

Section4(5) of VB-G RAM G makes the scheme fund allocation-based, making it dependent on Delhi. Section 4(6) states that any rural employment scheme designed, must follow the norms laid by G-Ram-G, otherwise no funds will be sanctioned by the Centre.

Section 5(1) bars universal applicability of the G-RAM-G scheme in the country. The area of operation shall be notified by the Central government. Section 22(2) authors fiscal strangulation of states by introducing 60:40 funding ratio.

VB G-RAM-G kills the spirit and structure of a beautiful piece of legislation commended worldwide. It is an example of strong centralisation of the process masqueraded in the shape of a Bill like all propaganda and fake narratives of the government.

Does it imply labour control disguised as labour employment? All India rural female Labour Force Participation Rate increased from 24.6% in 2017-18 to 47.6% in year 2023-24, thanks to MGNRE scheme. MGNREGA’s death has killed the hope to survive in difficult days.