The Viksit Bharat-Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB-G RAM G) Act, 2026, has come as a bolt, unexpected and sudden. It has, at one stroke, taken away the right to work from crores of rural households. That cannot be accepted.The fundamental objective of the employment guarantee Act is the establishment by law, of the right to work. The right to say to the government, “I want work and you are obliged to provide it.” This right is far more than employment for a wage. It assures dignity and entitlement. It is the right to livelihood. It is no coincidence that women, Dalits and tribal communities have participated in the National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme (NREGP) in such large numbers over the years.Work on demand became a reality because of a remarkable grassroots movement of rural workers, after great struggle and sacrifice; women, Dalits and tribal communities were at the forefront. NREG Act and its twin, the RTI Act, are historic legislations, the culmination of this extraordinary movement. They empower rural households and enable them to hold the government to account. For them, NREGA is a must. It cannot be otherwise.There has been so much misinformation, false information and politicisation of NREGA that any attempt to refute these would be a meaningless exercise. This article will, therefore, focus on the issues that cannot be ignored. The most urgent are those features which require immediate correction. Action is being initiated with such rapidity that there is no moment to reflect upon their consequences and relevance. The pre-determined haste is not surprising, but it is certainly disrupting and unwarranted. The focus is to operationalise, to strengthen “fool proof” procedures. And it is precisely such interventions as these which require to be aborted. There is no alternative. Nor the luxury of time. There are five immediate steps which must be taken to restore the credibility of the government with regard to employment guarantee:1. The peak season banIt is proposed that there shall be a ban on NREGA work during the peak agricultural seasons, “to ensure labour availability for farmers”. The objective is to keep wages low so that costs to the farmer are not increased. Clearly, between the interests of the farmer and those of rural labour, the government has aligned with the farmer. Thus, the government has ensured that rural labour earns low wages in precisely those periods when it has the bargaining power to seek and obtain higher wages. There can be nothing more hostile to the interests of rural labour than the denial, by a law, of the opportunity to earn a higher wage. Quite unthinkable from a government that talks of sabka vikas and development. The provision is unsustainable for Viksit Bharat; the mistake must be rectified. It cannot, of course, be accepted. Having failed to impose inequitable farm laws and appease the corporate lobby, this will be seen as a further act of duplicity. 2. The mindless application of technologyFrom the early years of NREGA, perhaps in 2007, the National Informatics Centre (NIC) put in place an online computerised Monitoring and Information System (MIS) which is truly staggering and compares with the best in the world. It enables access to job cards in any one of India’s villages and panchayats. Updated information about the number of days of employment, the wages paid and so on, are available at a tap on the keyboard.In the last two decades, the MIS has been utilised to “streamline” procedures. This has led to over-centralisation and control over far too many decisions. Technology has blurred our judgement and evidence from the field is consistently ignored. The interest of the rural household has ceased to matter.Technology has a face and this cannot, at any cost, be anti-poor. Only that which is relevant and is beneficial to the rural household, should be adopted – keeping in mind also that flexibility for inter-state and regional conditions is necessary.Having had some experience of work in finance departments, I know that it is their particular weakness to succumb to the elegant appeal of technology; they skip the details, wherein lies the devil, and the understanding. It is hardly surprising that there is a vast gap between the digital literacy of policy makers and the real-time perceptions of NREGA workers. This, and perhaps the direction of the political will has led to the problems of the present day.The inappropriate, almost mindless, applications of technology have done great harm, and continue to do so. There is ample feedback that families feel harassed by technology driven diktats.Every technology application in NREGA must be reviewed for its relevance. This cannot wait.Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Workers in Kollam, May 28, 2025. Credit: Fotokannan, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons 3. Converting NREGA into a centrally-sponsored schemeThe Union government will now assess how the scheme is being implemented in each state. There can be field inspections, independent monitoring, audits and reports. On the basis of its own assessment the Union government can take extreme measures, including withholding funds and even stopping further releases.A national programme with such vast potential will be reduced to a mere centrally sponsored scheme in the Ministry of Rural Development. The states will virtually have no place in the decision-making process. The participation of rural labour will cease, and women, Dalits and tribal communities, especially those who have been empowered by two decades of NREGA, will be reduced to bystanders.There can be no greater irony for a nation which wants recognition as Viksit Bharat. This runs counter to the very concept of vikas and should be immediately dropped. 4. Financial burden on states that don’t have the resources: Death knell of employment guaranteeThe effort at disabling the NREGA has been extended to finances, and the states are now required to bear the major proportion of the expenditure. Instead of 100% of the wage, only 60% is now to be borne by the Union government, as with the administrative costs. Meanwhile, 40% of the cost of materials is to be contributed by the state governments – something that used to be met fully by the Union government. The finances of the states are in a shambles and they are in absolutely no position to meet such expenditure on NREGA. This single measure will stifle the implementation of the scheme. It will also deeply impact the federal character of such national programmes. The employment guarantee cannot be sustained with such stipulations, and they must be removed.5. Withdrawal of unworkable provisionsIt is not surprising that withdrawal is the only option, because there was no genuine process of consultation in the formulation of the Act. The employment guarantee is implemented in India’s six and a half lakh villages and two and a half lakh gram panchayats – with diverse environments, profiles and cultures. Inputs from the field are essential and it is inexplicable why these were not sought and incorporated earlier, before the formulation of the Act. There is neither shame nor embarrassment for the Union government to withdraw provisions that are flawed. On the contrary, this will enhance the government’s stature and be a measure of its strength and self-assurance.Also read: VB-G RAM G Puts a Price Tag on the Right to Work, Replacing Demand With Allocation6. Revert to parliamentIt will be appropriate, further, for the government to take the Bill, suo motu, back to the parliament. It will ensure that the established procedures of a parliamentary democracy are observed – with a pre-legislative consultation, a detailed discussion followed by a reference to a parliamentary standing committee and final deliberations thereafter. It will also affirm that the majority in parliament has not been misused in this case. The removal of the right to livelihood in such a perfunctory manner is an affront to the nation. It would not be acceptable to the women, Dalits and tribal communities for whom the NREGA was a given.7. Illusion of improvements: Implementation issues ‘dealt with’ in new ActThere are four concerns justifying the VB-G RAM G Act which are entirely misplaced. These need to be re-examined and the provisions revisited. First is the uneven allocations between states, where Uttar Pradesh and Bihar receive smaller amounts than Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, even Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan. It is important to note that the disparity is because of the inability of these states to generate a demand for work. The solution then lies in building up their capability to do so and thereby draw higher amounts. Giving “normative allocations”, however high, will simply introduce budget caps – a ceiling on the amount that can be spent. This will not reduce the incongruence between states, and thus, makes little sense for the law on employment guarantee.Second, the concern for creating durable public assets and infrastructure. This is a non-issue. In fact, the overriding priority under NREGA was already on water conservation, drought proofing, irrigation – with check dams, water harvesting structures, field channels and plantations. The activities under NREGA have evolved continuously to incorporate improvements based on experience. Thus, livelihood-related infrastructure on individual landholdings with irrigation wells and horticulture has transformed lives. The community irrigation wells in Jharkhand are a remarkable example.Innumerable field studies and reports confirm these findings – from check dams in Tamil Nadu to mangroves in the Sundarbans, West Bengal, and threshing floors in Karnataka to the Kuhls in Ladakh.Third, the concern around corruption. There can be no compromise on controlling corruption and leakages. Every effort must be supported. However, NREGA is unique – it has inbuilt mechanisms for transparency and accountability. These have shown extraordinary results in several states. Youth from rural labour households have conducted door to door verifications and inspected works; thereafter in the jan sunwais, corrupt officials and public representatives have apologised and returned the misappropriated amounts. There is an apprehension that these efforts will be weakened, and nullified in the new dispensation. With the government-led wage employment programme now proposed, all the issues of the contractor-politician-official nexus could reappear. Fourth, is to increase the number of days of guaranteed employment from 100 to 125. It is not clear how the new Act will ensure this. Employment for even 100 days has never been provided. In the post-Covid years, work was provided under NREG on demand, and touched 390 crore person days, up from 200-250 crore earlier. Now we are down to 210 crore as per the Economic Survey (53% of the peak). Also read: Rural Workers to Stage Nationwide Protest Against VB-G RAM G on July 1If the aim of an employment guarantee is to generate more employment, it will be necessary to move from a supply driven programme to a demand driven one.With the new Act, we are moving back to the supply-driven scenario – even though large numbers of workers want employment near their villages, to avoid migration. Moreover, the budget provision is woefully inadequate even for 100 days. The commitment of 125 days cannot be taken seriously. LearningsEmployment guarantee has always faced stiff challenges from the governments – both, during the UPA years and under the present BJP-led NDA. Nevertheless, the last two decades have demonstrated that good governance, which cuts across sectors, can be adopted to the government’s great advantage.I shall briefly dwell on three: first, the jan sunwai and social audit; second, the ombudsman, Lokpal, in the districts; and third, the panchayat to policy communication system for resolving field issues and problems. Jan sunwai and social auditAll government programmes have had problems in implementation – from those in telecom and space to SEZs to JNURM. NREGA too has had problems. However, what is different, and unique, is in how these are dealt with. The legislation itself contains elements that ensure correction and resolution, with an emphasis on transparency and participation – not as externalities but as part of the process of execution. Social audit is one of the in-built mechanisms of NREGA to ensure transparency and accountability which has shown remarkable results with an enduring impact. The experience of states across the country has been well documented – Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Jharkhand are examples. This can be extended to the entire development effort. District Lokpal (ombudsman)The NREGA provides for the institution of the district ombudsman, whose extraordinary potential has neither been recognised nor utilised. In Odisha, as a member of the selection committee, I found that the Lokpal in Bhadrak district acted on press reports and conducted spot verifications; the person in charge did not wait in his office for complaints to be filed. He toured villages, some jointly with district officers; held field inquiries, heard complaints and passed orders expeditiously. In cases of misappropriation, action was taken on his orders to suspend officials and recover the amounts. The local press gave good coverage and the number of references increased. Greater awareness also brings pressure for transparency.In Manipur, where work was not provided to workers, the ombudsman issued orders that unemployment allowance be paid. In Jharkhand, where payments were not made to persons who had worked under NREGA, directions were issued by the ombudsman to disburse the wages they earned. There are similar cases in all states. Representative image of a labourer at work in Rajasthan. Photo: Eric Parker/Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0)Four features set this ombudsman apart: that it is empowered to be effective through a summary procedure, with no lawyers except with its discretion. Second, it has a clear mandate to protect the interests of the poor – it is to act “on their behalf” even if it means action against officials. Third, it can intervene in real-time, concurrent with implementation. Fourth, the ombudsman’s office is an integral part of the department responsible for implementation, which makes compliance an internal process.In fact, the district Lokpal should be “extended” to other sectors, like the health programmes under NRHM; ICDS including midday meals; PDS and Food Security; Primary Education and the RTE, and their new avatars, by whatever name. ‘Panchayat to policy’ communication for resolving field issuesThis learning is based on the first-hand experience of a committee set up by the Ministry of Rural Development for NREGA, initially in Jharkhand. The objective was to explore the impact of a participatory process, through Action Research pilots under the employment guarantee, and to facilitate replication of the approach in other states. The utilisation of technology in real time, to find solutions to problems faced by NREGA workers was invaluable. This can have wide application and long-term significance for interventions in the villages.In Jharkhand, for the large programme of community irrigation wells, a remarkable structure for consultative processes was created. Perhaps for the first time ever in the history of development, there was a partnership in implementation – between the Union government, state government, NGOs, activists, academics and experts and the community. This was at different levels, going down to the panchayat and village, even to the NREGA household. It was fortunate that there were several NGOs in Jharkhand actually working on NREGA. The usefulness of this partnership was demonstrated when reports of deaths from the collapse of community irrigation wells were acted upon within days; some disturbing circulars by gram panchayats for the recovery of funds were modified; payments for desilting of collapsed wells were quickly made. There was also a sense of empowerment for the families.The Right to Information movement also relied on real time communication between the field interventions and district headquarters, state capitals or Delhi. This simple measure of real time communication between the “policy/decision makers” and the “field” is relevant for all process-oriented programmes. However, it does require effort, determination, planning of details and back-end support. Such an initiative, involving all stakeholders can only come from the Union government.Challenges and opportunitiesWithout a doubt, there have been serious challenges for the employment guarantee – these have come from within the government and from the political leadership, both in the UPA and the NDA. NREGA has never had the support of the Government of India. The issues should have been addressed with professional competence and coordination at all levels. Instead, experts and academics and those within government continuously and strenuously opposed employment guarantee. During the UPA regime, which brought in the legislation, then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, finance minister Chidambaram and the deputy chairman of planning commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia knew this was a catastrophic legislation. The credit for the enactment by the UPA administration goes to the National Advisory Council (NAC) and to Sonia Gandhi, who held no position in government. It was only the indomitable spirit and tireless efforts of Raghuvansh Prasad Singh, the Minister for Rural Development, that ensured that the NREGA remained intact. The NDA government has never supported NREGA and has also described it as a programme to keep rural labour families in a state of perpetual poverty. Even though NREGA played a significant role in the post-Covid years, the negative perception has persisted. Arrears have accumulated and funding has been inadequate.The opportunities have not gone. These are far more significant for transforming rural India than the Green Revolution. The Green Revolution focused essentially on two crops – wheat and paddy – and in irrigated areas, where the farmers often belonged to well-to-do families. Predictably, it was only the better-off farmers in irrigated areas who benefitted. Landless labourers, marginal and small farmers and vast areas in unirrigated villages did not benefit at all. The contrast with the NREGA in this perspective, is stark and obvious. The benefits of NREGA reaches the poorest families in the remotest villages; women, Dalits, the landless, tribal communities participate in large numbers; these households are empowered, and have the dignity of the right to work on demand. We are presented with an unprecedented opportunity. The potential is enormous. The demand for employment guarantee has already risen beyond the right to work and into a programme, enabling the lower-income population to “move out” of poverty and earn sustained livelihood in their own villages. Irrigated farming, horticulture plantations, processing units and more, are all within the ambit of an imaginative and integrated NREGA.Still there’s timeIn today’s uncertain and very troubled times, we have here a programme with a very high return on investment, with direct benefit to the most vulnerable populations, gestation periods as low as one agricultural season, and with a contribution to the GDP that is visible and does not depend on external factors.Two decades after it became operational, the employment guarantee scheme or programme has so much to offer. This tide is in the affairs of the nation and we are indeed “at the flood”. Do we have the vision and courage to venture forth?The Reform Express, summoned in this year’s Union budget, can make an exemplary beginning with NREGA. Can it bring in meaningful reforms? Or will we see the Express pass by with the budget discussions?It is unfortunate that politics has crept in and in recent years there has been a blatant attempt to manipulate allocations and releases under the programme. The new Act will cut at the fundamentals of NREGA, and is going to make matters only worse. The entire approach needs to be re-visited and reviewed.The VB-G RAM G Act, 2026, has been passed with great haste and without serious consultation. There is still an opportunity to rectify this omission.There already is considerable opposition to the unprovoked replacement of NREGA. Some state assemblies have passed resolutions against this as well.The future course could be action on the lines of the farmers’ agitation for the repeal of the three Acts passed by the Union government in 2019. Will the lobby for the poor mobilise into action? That is a challenge which must also be part of their effort.It is clear that the employment guarantee is central to far too many lives and that these households will not allow it to be snatched away with such impunity. A prudent government would sit up and take notice.There is one remote possibility, wishful thinking, perhaps. That is the ability of the bureaucrat in the making of decisions. It needs a Eureka moment to realise that the reform of the Employment Guarantee can and does offer solutions which, if fully explored, will enable India’s innate strength to emerge. The cabinet secretary and the very experienced senior officers in the Prime Minister’s Office could exploit this opportunity today to work wonders. An opportunity deepened further by the world crisis which has descended upon us, unforeseen and unexpected.Lalit Mathur is a former director general NIRD, Ministry of Rural Development. He can be reached at lalitmathur45@yahoo.com.