The Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act — commonly referred to as the VB-G RAM G Act — has become the centre of a fierce political debate in India, pitting the Central government’s vision of rural reform against concerns raised by opposition-ruled states, including Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, over its feasibility, funding burden, federal implications and potential impact on rural employment.
Introduced by the Union government in December 2025, the VB-G RAM G Act aims to replace the nearly two-decade-old Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) with a reimagined rural job-guarantee framework that increases guaranteed workdays and restructures funding norms.
But as the new law moves from policy into implementation, it has drawn sharp criticism, especially from non-BJP governance fronts, for what critics call an unfunded mandate that strains state finances and undermines federalism.
DK Shivakumar Questions Feasibility: “No State Can Provide Grant”
On Monday, Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar publicly challenged the feasibility of implementing the VB-G RAM G Act, bluntly asking, “Who will provide the funds? No state can give the grant.”
Speaking to reporters in Bengaluru, Shivakumar argued the Act’s financing requirements — which involve significant state contributions toward the rural job scheme — will be overly burdensome for states already struggling with stretched budgets. He reiterated that state governments do not have the fiscal capacity to shoulder the mandated funding share without jeopardising other essential services.
He also extended an open invitation to the Centre for detailed discussions in the Karnataka Assembly, stating, “We are ready to answer all things during the discussion.”
Opposition Voices Broader Constitutional Worries
Shivakumar’s critique was echoed by Karnataka Rural Development Minister Priyank Kharge, who alleged that the VB-G RAM G Act violates the Constitution by diluting the right to work and undermining the role of local self-government bodies like panchayats. According to Kharge, the new law strips rural communities of autonomy by centralising decision-making and setting rigid funding conditions that were not part of MGNREGA’s original framework.
“The VB-G RAM G bill has violated the powers of the panchayat, violated the Constitution. There is no minimum wage for labour. They’ve diluted the entire right-to-work,” Kharge said, highlighting concerns that the structural shift could erode once-sacrosanct labour entitlements.
Federalism and Funding: A Broader Opposition Chorus
Karnataka is not alone in voicing such concerns. In Tamil Nadu, the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) recently passed a legislative resolution labelling the VB-G RAM G scheme anti-federal and urging that the name “Mahatma Gandhi” remain linked to the welfare programme. Chief Minister M.K. Stalin criticised the Centre for what he described as discriminatory funding delays and said that the new mechanism could hurt rural livelihoods, especially for women — who comprise a significant majority of job card holders under MGNREGA.
Similarly, opposition figures such as Congress leader Vijay Inder Singla and activists in regions like Belagavi, Karnataka have staged protests against the new law, alleging that the shift from MGNREGA’s demand-driven model to a more centrally planned structure will limit employment capacity and deepen rural distress.
Meanwhile, Telugu Desam Party (TDP), an ally of the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA), flagged concerns about cost-sharing and fiscal burdens on states, further complicating the government’s narrative of broad political buy-in.
Government Defends VB-G RAM G as Modernisation, Not Curtailment
Defenders of the new law, including Union Rural Development Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan, have sought to refute fears that the VB-G RAM G Act weakens rural employment rights. They argue the Act not only expands guaranteed workdays from 100 to 125 per year but also introduces technology-driven monitoring and direct benefit transfer mechanisms to curb corruption and streamline delivery.
BJP leaders at district workshops — such as one recently held in Mangaluru — have emphasised the scheme’s reformist intent, underscoring upgrades like higher minimum wages and technological tracking of assets and employment outcomes. According to some party officials, these enhancements will ultimately empower rural communities and boost support for the government’s rural development agenda.
However, critics counter that these changes do not offset the financial risk to states now required to provide up to 40% of scheme funding, a stark contrast to MGNREGA’s earlier model where the Central government bore the principal financial burden.
State Governments Seek Dialogue, Pause in Rollout
Amid the controversy, Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah has taken his protest to the Centre, writing to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to request a suspension of the VB-G RAM G rollout until more inclusive consultations with state governments can take place. Siddaramaiah warned that the absence of a collaborative approach could weaken the very federal framework enshrined in the Constitution.
State officials in Karnataka have also estimated potential annual losses of several thousand crore rupees due to reduced Central funding participation, with fears that the altered scheme could remove critical financial support for vulnerable households and rural infrastructure projects.
What Experts and Analysts Say
Policy analysts and rural development experts say that the VB-G RAM G Act’s departure from MGNREGA’s demand-driven ethos warrants careful examination. Some contend the new framework may encourage infrastructure-oriented work, but only if states are adequately funded and involved in planning and implementation. Others argue that the rushed passage of the law — which moved quickly through Parliament — contributed to misunderstanding and mistrust among opposition leaders and state administrations.
Looking Ahead
As the VB-G RAM G Act enters its operational phase, the political debate shows no signs of abating. With several states demanding greater consultation, potential court challenges over constitutional issues, and advocacy groups mobilising rural voices, the Act’s future may hinge as much on political negotiations and fiscal recalibrations as on its stated goals of modernising rural employment guarantees.
For now, the controversy underscores a broader discussion about centre-state relations, fiscal federalism and the design of social welfare policy in India — issues that are likely to reverberate through policy corridors and assembly halls in the months ahead.
