G RAM G will have to be rescinded, just like farm laws … ‘right to job’ reduced to a labharthi yojana: Parliamentary Standing Committee chief

The statement by a Parliamentary Standing Committee chief, advocating for the rescinding of "G RAM G" and criticizing its reduction to a 'labharthi yojana' while linking it to the 'right to job', points directly to the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). While the article uses a slightly different acronym, the context of 'right to job', a major national scheme, and the 'beneficiary scheme' criticism strongly indicates MGNREGA. This analysis will proceed with that assumption, given its prominence in India's social welfare landscape.

**Background Context: The Genesis of MGNREGA**

MGNREGA, enacted in 2005 (initially as NREGA and renamed in 2009), stands as one of the world's largest social welfare programs. Its primary objective is to guarantee 100 days of wage employment in a financial year to every rural household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work. The Act aims to enhance livelihood security in rural areas, particularly for the most vulnerable, by providing a statutory right to work. Beyond employment, it also seeks to create durable assets (like roads, irrigation canals, water harvesting structures) and strengthen Panchayati Raj institutions. The scheme was a response to chronic rural poverty, seasonal unemployment, and distress migration, embodying a significant step towards realizing the 'right to work' as a statutory entitlement rather than merely a welfare handout.

**What Happened: A Call for Rescinding**

The Parliamentary Standing Committee chief's call to rescind "G RAM G" (MGNREGA) draws a stark parallel to the repeal of the contentious farm laws in 2021. This comparison is significant, as the farm laws were withdrawn after widespread protests and significant political pressure, indicating a willingness by the government to reverse major legislation. The criticism that the 'right to job' under MGNREGA has been "reduced to a labharthi yojana" suggests a concern that the scheme, originally conceived as an empowerment tool providing a statutory right, has devolved into a mere dole-out or a direct benefit transfer program without fulfilling its broader objectives of asset creation, economic stimulus, and genuine rural transformation. This perspective often comes from those who believe such schemes foster dependency rather than genuine economic development.

**Key Stakeholders Involved**

1. **Government of India (Ministry of Rural Development):** The primary implementer and funder of MGNREGA. Any decision to rescind or significantly alter the scheme would fall under its purview, in consultation with the Union Cabinet.

2. **Parliamentary Standing Committee:** These committees provide legislative oversight, scrutinize government policies, demand accountability, and offer recommendations. Their chiefs often voice concerns that reflect a segment of legislative opinion.

3. **State Governments and Panchayati Raj Institutions:** Crucial for the ground-level implementation of MGNREGA, from identifying projects to disbursing wages. Their efficiency directly impacts the scheme's success.

4. **Rural Households/Beneficiaries:** Millions of rural poor depend on MGNREGA for supplementary income, especially during lean agricultural seasons. Their livelihoods would be directly impacted by any changes.

5. **Civil Society Organizations and Activists:** Have historically played a vital role in advocating for the scheme's transparency, accountability, and proper implementation. They would likely oppose any move to dismantle it.

6. **Economists and Policy Experts:** Continuously debate the scheme's economic impact, cost-effectiveness, and alignment with broader development goals.

**Significance for India**

MGNREGA holds immense significance for India. Socially, it acts as a crucial safety net, particularly for women and marginalized communities, ensuring a basic income and reducing distress migration. Economically, it injects purchasing power into rural economies, stimulates demand, and has been credited with creating valuable rural infrastructure. Politically, it is a flagship welfare program with a vast beneficiary base, making any move to dismantle it fraught with electoral risks. The criticism highlights a recurring debate in India about welfare policies: whether they are empowering rights or merely temporary relief measures, and their long-term impact on productivity and economic growth. The comparison to farm laws also signals a potential for significant political pushback if such a move were seriously considered.

**Historical Context and Constitutional Provisions**

The 'right to work' is enshrined in the **Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)** under **Article 41** of the Indian Constitution, which mandates the State to make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education, and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness, and disablement. While not enforceable in a court of law, DPSPs are fundamental in the governance of the country and guide the State in making laws. MGNREGA is a legislative embodiment of this DPSP, transforming a moral obligation into a statutory right. Other relevant DPSPs include **Article 39(a)**, which directs the state to secure adequate means of livelihood for all citizens, and **Article 43**, concerning a living wage. The scheme's evolution has seen debates over fund allocations, timely wage payments, and leakages, but its fundamental structure as a demand-driven, rights-based program has largely remained intact. The repeal of the farm laws in 2021 demonstrated that even significant legislative reforms can be reversed under public pressure, setting a precedent for revisiting controversial policies.

**Future Implications**

The call to rescind MGNREGA, if taken seriously, could spark a significant political and social upheaval. While a complete rescinding seems unlikely given its deep roots and widespread impact, the criticism suggests a potential push for reforms. Future implications could include:

1. **Reforms in Implementation:** A focus on improving asset creation, reducing administrative inefficiencies, and ensuring timely wage payments.

2. **Budgetary Rationalization:** Debates over the scheme's financial sustainability and potential capping of allocated funds.

3. **Policy Shift:** A move towards more skill-based employment programs or a greater emphasis on direct cash transfers, potentially diluting the 'right to work' aspect.

4. **Political Debate:** MGNREGA could become a key battleground in upcoming elections, with political parties either defending or criticizing its efficacy.

5. **Impact on Rural Economy:** Any significant reduction or dismantling could severely impact rural livelihoods, potentially leading to increased poverty, distress migration, and reduced rural demand, especially in times of economic slowdown or agricultural distress.

The ongoing debate surrounding MGNREGA reflects a broader philosophical conflict in Indian policy-making: balancing social welfare and rights-based entitlements with economic efficiency and fiscal prudence. The scheme's future will depend on political will, economic realities, and the continued advocacy of its beneficiaries and supporters.