NO GUARANTEE OF RIGHT TO WORK

PRERNA FOR IAS

NO GUARANTEE OF RIGHT TO WORK

1. Right to Work

The Right to Work is the principle that every citizen should have access to employment opportunities that provide a dignified livelihood. In India, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), 2005 legally guarantees 100 days of wage employment each year to rural households willing to perform unskilled manual work. This guarantee empowers workers by providing income security and reducing distress migration during periods of unemployment. Critics argue that replacing MGNREGA with a demand-based programme without a legal guarantee may weaken workers' bargaining power and reduce accountability. Thus, the right to work remains a crucial pillar of social welfare and rural development.

2. End of MGNREGA and Introduction of V-B GRAM G 2025

The Government has proposed replacing MGNREGA with the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (V-B GRAM G) 2025. While the new programme aims to improve rural employment through better planning and infrastructure development, critics argue that it removes the legally enforceable guarantee of employment. Under MGNREGA, eligible households could demand work and receive compensation if employment was not provided. The proposed scheme shifts towards administrative allocation of work, raising concerns that employment opportunities may become dependent on government decisions rather than legal rights. This transition has sparked debate among policymakers and labour organisations.

3. 125 Days of Employment

The proposed V-B GRAM G scheme increases employment opportunities from 100 days to 125 days annually. At first glance, this appears beneficial because workers may receive more employment. However, labour groups argue that the additional days have little value if employment is not legally guaranteed. Unlike MGNREGA, where workers could demand work as a legal entitlement, the new system depends on project approvals, funding availability, and administrative decisions. Therefore, workers fear they may not actually receive the promised 125 days. The debate highlights that employment security depends not only on the number of workdays but also on enforceable legal rights.

4. Split the Bill – 60:40 Funding Model

The proposed scheme follows a 60:40 funding model, requiring State Governments to contribute 40% of project costs while the Central Government provides the remaining 60%. Under MGNREGA, wages were primarily financed by the Centre, reducing the financial burden on states. Several state governments have expressed concern that the new funding arrangement could strain their budgets, especially financially weaker states. If states are unable to contribute their share, rural employment projects may be delayed or reduced. Critics argue that unequal financial capacity among states could create regional disparities in employment opportunities and rural development.

5. Not Perfect

Although MGNREGA has significantly improved rural employment, it has faced several implementation challenges. Delayed wage payments, insufficient funding, digital payment issues, job card verification problems, and irregular work allocation have affected workers. Many households entitled to employment have not always received the promised number of workdays. Workers have also experienced delays in receiving wages, reducing the scheme's effectiveness during financial hardship. Despite these shortcomings, MGNREGA has provided income security to millions of rural families. Experts argue that reforms should improve implementation rather than replace the legal guarantee that has benefited vulnerable rural populations for nearly two decades.

6. Right Under Question

One of the main concerns surrounding the proposed employment scheme is whether it preserves the legal right to demand work. Under MGNREGA, workers could request employment, and if work was not provided within fifteen days, they were entitled to unemployment allowance. The proposed V-B GRAM G scheme removes this legal guarantee and instead provides employment based on approved government projects and available funds. Labour organisations argue that this shifts employment from a rights-based model to an administrative programme. Consequently, workers may lose bargaining power and become more dependent on government decisions for livelihood opportunities.

7. Excessive Digitisation

Digitisation has improved transparency in welfare programmes, but excessive dependence on technology has created new challenges for rural workers. Under MGNREGA, workers have reported problems with biometric attendance, internet connectivity, Aadhaar authentication failures, and payment delays due to technical errors. These issues often prevent eligible workers from receiving wages on time. Critics argue that digital systems should support, rather than restrict, access to employment and social benefits. They recommend strengthening digital infrastructure while ensuring alternative methods for attendance and payment. A balanced approach can improve efficiency without excluding vulnerable workers lacking reliable digital access.

8. Overall Significance

The debate over replacing MGNREGA highlights the broader question of balancing efficiency, accountability, and workers' rights. While reforms may improve planning, technology, and infrastructure development, employment programmes should continue protecting vulnerable rural households through legal safeguards. A successful rural employment policy must guarantee timely work, fair wages, adequate funding, and transparent implementation. It should also strengthen local participation and ensure that benefits reach those most in need. The future of rural employment in India depends on combining administrative efficiency with social justice, ensuring that economic development does not weaken the livelihood security of millions of rural workers.