MGNREGA at the Centre of a Political Storm: Opposition Raises Alarm as Centre Signals Structural Shift
The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), long considered one of India’s most significant social security nets for the rural poor, has once again become the focal point of a fierce political confrontation between the Union government and opposition parties. Recent statements by senior leaders across political lines indicate that the future of MGNREGA, its funding structure, and even its philosophical foundation are under serious debate.
The controversy intensified after the Centre moved ahead with a new rural employment framework, widely referred to as the VB-GRAM G scheme, which opposition leaders allege is effectively replacing or diluting MGNREGA. The development has sparked sharp reactions from Congress leaders, chief ministers of opposition-ruled states, and labour organisations, who argue that the move undermines the statutory right to employment guaranteed under MGNREGA.
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has emerged as the most vocal critic of the Centre’s approach. He has accused the Modi government of systematically weakening labour protections and targeting schemes that empower the rural poor. According to him, MGNREGA is not merely a welfare programme but a critical economic lever that gave bargaining power to agricultural labourers, especially Dalits, OBCs, and marginalised communities. He has warned that dismantling or restructuring MGNREGA would reverse gains made in wages, working conditions, and distress migration control.
Rahul Gandhi has also drawn parallels with earlier policy rollbacks, claiming that just as farmers’ protests forced the repeal of contentious farm laws, sustained political and social pressure could compel the government to retreat on changes to MGNREGA. He has indicated that the Congress Working Committee is preparing a nationwide political strategy to mobilise workers, panchayats, and state governments against any dilution of the scheme.
From Punjab, Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann has echoed similar concerns, stating that the Centre’s move places an unfair financial burden on states while weakening a programme that directly supports the rural economy. He has questioned how states are expected to fund employment guarantees without assured central support, especially when many states are already facing fiscal stress. Mann has also announced plans to convene a special session of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha to formally oppose the new framework and build pressure on the Centre.
Senior Congress leader Pratap Singh Bajwa has gone a step further, terming the move an attack not only on rural employment but also on federalism itself. He has argued that altering MGNREGA’s structure without adequate consultation with states violates the spirit of cooperative federalism. According to Bajwa, reducing the Centre’s financial responsibility while retaining control over policy design places opposition-ruled states at a disadvantage and limits their ability to respond to local employment needs.
The debate has also spilled over into Parliament, where disruptions were reported during the passage of related legislation. The Chairman of the Rajya Sabha publicly criticised the conduct of opposition MPs, calling their behaviour unbecoming. While the Chair highlighted the productivity of the session in procedural terms, opposition parties countered that parliamentary protest was necessary to draw attention to what they describe as a fundamental assault on social justice.
At the heart of the political disagreement lies the nature of MGNREGA itself. Introduced as a rights-based programme guaranteeing up to 100 days of wage employment to rural households, MGNREGA has functioned as a lifeline during economic shocks, including droughts and the COVID-19 pandemic. Critics of the new scheme argue that replacing a legal guarantee with a mission-mode programme changes the relationship between the state and the citizen, turning entitlement into discretion.
The Centre, on its part, has maintained that reforms are aimed at improving efficiency, reducing leakages, and aligning rural employment with asset creation. Government representatives argue that the new framework allows for better convergence with infrastructure and productivity goals. However, opposition leaders remain unconvinced, pointing out that delays in wage payments, reduced allocations, and stricter work norms have already weakened MGNREGA in recent years.
Labour unions and rural worker collectives have also joined the chorus of criticism, calling the legislative changes retrogressive. They argue that limiting the scope of permissible works and altering funding ratios could exclude the most vulnerable households from accessing employment when they need it the most.
As the political battle intensifies, MGNREGA has once again become more than a policy instrument—it has turned into a symbol of competing visions of governance. For the opposition, it represents the state’s obligation to protect the poorest. For the Centre, it appears to be a scheme in need of restructuring to fit a broader development narrative.
What remains clear is that any major shift in MGNREGA’s design will have far-reaching political, economic, and social consequences. With general elections never too far from the national imagination, the fate of rural employment guarantees is likely to remain a defining issue in India’s political discourse in the months ahead.
