The Government of India has now introduced a revised rural employment scheme, fine-tuning the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), which has been under implementation for nearly two decades.
The MGNREGA scheme provides 100 days of guaranteed rural employment, predominantly benefiting those living in rural areas.
The revised scheme is named VB-G RAM–G (Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission – Gramin). As the revised scheme involves several structural changes and improvements—such as increasing the guaranteed number of workdays from 100 to 125, changes in the financing pattern, strengthening the unemployment allowance, and introducing penalties for delayed wage payments—it has become necessary to change the name of the scheme in order to clearly distinguish it from the existing MGNREGA.
As has been the trend in recent times in India, critics and opposition political parties have protested against the implementation of the revised scheme. In Parliament, when the Bill was introduced, instead of providing an opportunity for members to discuss the merits and demerits of the scheme and evolve a consensus view, opposition parties resorted to unacceptable forms of protest such as sloganeering, tearing the Bill, and throwing papers. Such behaviour prevented what could have been a much-needed, informed debate. As a result, citizens were denied the opportunity to hear alternative viewpoints.
The revised scheme is required because it has been found that the existing scheme had several shortcomings which partly prevented the full benefits from reaching the people and the country. Apart from complaints of corruption in implementation—such as the use of false statistics regarding the number of beneficiaries—there were concerns about poor productivity in the work carried out and a lack of clear focus on the nature of jobs provided. Furthermore, it has been argued that the availability of labour for hard agricultural work has declined sharply, as people preferred employment under MGNREGA where the work is comparatively less strenuous and less closely supervised.
The revised scheme focuses on water security, core rural infrastructure, livelihood-related infrastructure, and mitigation of extreme weather conditions, all of which are highly relevant and much-needed areas.
Critics have objected to the revised scheme largely on two grounds: first, the removal of Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the title of the scheme, and second, the revised financing pattern under which the Central Government would fund up to 60 per cent of the scheme, with the remaining 40 per cent to be borne by state governments. Under MGNREGA, the scheme was fully funded by the Central Government.
Mahatma Gandhi was not only a freedom fighter but also a social reformer with a deep commitment to truth and probity in both private and public life. One of his cardinal principles was the total implementation of prohibition. He believed that widespread alcohol consumption was a root cause of many social evils and family disruptions. Unfortunately, this policy has not been implemented across India today, except in two states—Gujarat and Bihar. Furthermore, corruption-free administration and governance have become increasingly elusive in present-day India. Many of Mahatma Gandhi’s ideals are now ignored or disrespected, both within government institutions and by the public.
At the same time, Mahatma Gandhi’s birth and death anniversaries are observed through symbolic gestures such as garlanding statues and conducting prayer meetings. In short, token respect rather than sincere and committed adherence to his principles is largely evident in India.
In this context, the insistence by critics that Mahatma Gandhi’s name should not be removed from the revised scheme appears hypocritical. There are hundreds of buildings, memorials, statues, streets, and lanes across India bearing Mahatma Gandhi’s name, and the removal of his name from a single scheme should not be viewed as an act of disrespect.
What is required is greater respect for Mahatma Gandhi’s spirit and ideals, rather than an excessive focus on the use of his name, which represents a cosmetic approach to honouring his legacy.
It is high time that political discussions in India on social and economic issues became more thoughtful and mature, rather than being reduced to performances aimed at public spectacle through distorted and misinterpreted arguments.
When political discourse fails to meet acceptable standards, it reflects a decline in the quality of thought and priorities among politicians, which inevitably leads to a deterioration in the country’s political culture. Discerning observers believe that this situation is a matter of serious concern.
