The president recently gave assent to the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika (Gramin) (VB-G RAM G) Bill, thereby converting it into an Act of Parliament. The new VB-G RAM G Act replaces the Mahatma Gandhi National Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA). While there was some active debate in the parliament, it was neither referred to the standing committee nor subjected to wider consultation, and railroaded through a voice vote, without a single amendment. Although there has been discussion about the erasure of the name Mahatma Gandhi from the Act, the issue is more complicated. It has uprooted the soul and the purpose of MNREGA. The new Act needs to be examined closely from the perspective of employment guarantee and its implications, and from the increasing centralisation resorted to over the past decade.In the journey of moving from MNREGA to VB-G RAM G, the Union has taken out the self-esteem of the poor and converted them to supplicants. MNREGA was a programme hailed across the board as the most significant non-discriminatory and effective pro-poor legislation which gave a right to demand work. It was built on decades of experience, starting with the Employment Guarantee Scheme of Maharashtra, later adopted by Rajasthan. When the Union government launched it, it was first run as a pilot, later as a nationwide scheme, eventually converted into an Act. MNREGA gave a new meaning to social security and employment guarantee. There is evidence to show that the minimum wages of the poor workers improved and stabilised, because people had a benchmark and an option. It prevented them from slipping into bondage, giving them the ability and confidence to negotiate. In the current context of looking at the poor as “beneficiaries” of direct cash transfer, this programme stood out giving them a “right” to demand work and “earn”. Applying the MNREGA benchmark, the new Act is regressive. MNREGA was about choices. Choices of rejecting work if it was not good enough, did not pay enough, because the poor had the confidence of a guaranteed backup. The new Act has many problems. Section 5 suggests that there would be at least 125 days of work, but this assurance comes with ifs and buts. The Union has to notify the district, village, the works would have to fit into prior development plans of “nation building”. The work will go blank for 60 days during agricultural season and subject to nominal allocations in the budget. This is neither a right, nor universal. While the increase in the number of days looks progressive, it is deceptive, as there are neither provisions nor penal clauses to implement the numbers. Moreover, by increasing the share of the states from 10% to 40%, the Union has willy-nilly put a line item of its own in the budgets of the states. This is one more step in the process of centralisation of powers and resources and decentralisation of expenses. While the constitution defines us as a Union of states, the makers of the constitution had opted for a centralising tendency. The situation at that time required such powers, when the integration of the princely states was happening piecemeal and the country was being re-organised on a linguistic basis. A tendency towards centrifugalism was understandable. But the spirit of decentralisation was honoured through the instruments of the National Development Council and Planning Commission. The dispensation then, also honoured the Union, concurrent and the state lists as laid out in the constitution.Also read: ‘Restrict, Dismantle, Repeal’: How Modi Government Killed MGNREGA Before VB-G Ram G Was TabledThe first assault on the concept of federalism was the passing of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act that amended the constitution. While the GST framework was a desirable “reform” from the perspective of “ease of doing business,” it resulted in the centralisation of power and resources. From the perspective of the decentralised autonomy of the states, it was a suicidal step backwards. Talking about one-nation one-tax, we have delivered a deadly blow on localisation. The power to decide the taxation pattern is now fully with the Union and states work more like branches of the Union.Apart from alcohol, fuel, property, stamp duty and all other tax rates are decided by the GST council. While the state GST comes into the coffers of the respective states immediately, the rest of the collections are subject to the Finance Commission award. The states cannot change the rates of tax, neither can they impose a local cess. The states cannot even borrow beyond the Fiscal Responsibility and Budgetary Management Act limits. The Union has the powers to penalise and choke the states for breaches. The Union has no such constraints, as it can amend the FRBM limits through parliament – not a difficult task for a government with a majority. The centralisation process that started with GST is now being expanded in insidious ways.After GST, the Union attempted to pass farm laws – though they belonged to the state list, under the cover of trade. The subject of co-operation which is under the state list is also being undermined by the Union by having a powerful ministry of co-operation as a portfolio with the home minister. The developments in that ministry of floating mega multi-state co-operatives with membership from primaries under the state laws point towards a greater centralisation in an indirect way. Same is happening with education and labour which are in the concurrent list. Not only are these getting centralised, they also carry the prefix of PM, leaving nobody in doubt about the centrality of the centralisation – person or one position.Also read: VB–G RAM G Bill Formalises MGNREGA DisintegrationThe current VB-G RAM G legislation is another step towards the centralisation of powers. While the government diverts our attention by frivolous name changes, the larger design is to be examined carefully. The concept of a double-engine government – indicating that special favours would be available to places where the second “engine” resembles the first, and moving everything towards one Nation, one….. is taking us towards a monotony with no scope for localised ideas and innovations. The states need to wake up to this design.Moreover, it is essential for the states to have autonomy to develop plans and programmes suitable to the local needs, culture and ethos. The Union has an insatiable appetite for data and resources and its greediness is matched by its miserliness in sharing either, keeping everything for its publicity.VB-G RAM G Act bulldozes the beautiful structure of welfare and social security that was built brick by brick. We need to oppose the Act, while recognising the larger pattern of shrinking space for decentralisation. The current dispensation is now snapping at the edges by changing one law after the other. It will not be late before these edges lead to the core and this being done without big bang amendments to the constitution.The states need to wake up to this reality. VB-G RAM G is but one warning bell. The fight needs to start at the core of the problem, in addressing the core issue of GST and the states’ ability to determine tax rates. It is time that states start regaining the autonomy envisaged in the constitution as a union. The rest can follow. M.S. Sriram is a Professor at the Centre for Public Policy, Indian Institute of Management Bangalore. This article was originally published in Kannada in Prajavani.