The landscape of India's rural employment guarantee is undergoing a fundamental transformation with the repeal of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) and its replacement by the VB-G RAM G Act. This shift carries profound and specific implications for the state of Andhra Pradesh, where MGNREGA has long served as a critical economic safety net for millions.
From Legal Right to Administrative Provision: A Structural Break
Analysts and experts are raising alarms that the new law is not merely a redesign but a complete overhaul of the programme's core philosophy. MGNREGA established a legally enforceable, demand-driven right to work. In contrast, the VB-G RAM G Act transforms employment into an administratively managed provision, governed by budgetary allocations, government notifications, technological mandates, and calendar-based restrictions.
Senior social scientist Buddha Chakradhar from Libtech describes this as a structural break, not a policy upgrade. "MGNREGA at least provided workers with a legal claim, even if the State often failed to fully honour it. Under VB-G RAM G, discretion replaces entitlement, which is a serious setback for vulnerable workers in Andhra Pradesh," he observed.
While the central government has highlighted the increase in the annual employment ceiling from 100 to 125 days as a key improvement, past experience under MGNREGA suggests a higher ceiling does not guarantee more work. In Andhra Pradesh during the 2024-25 financial year, households averaged only 51.6 days of employment, with a mere 11 percent completing the full 100 days. This shortfall was largely due to fiscal and administrative rationing, not a lack of demand from workers.
Financial and Logistical Challenges for Andhra Pradesh
The fiscal implications of the new Act present a significant challenge for the state's treasury. VB-G RAM G introduces a 60:40 cost-sharing ratio between the Centre and the State, without the statutory guarantee of full central funding that existed under MGNREGA. With Andhra Pradesh already navigating tight fiscal conditions, estimates indicate a staggering rise in potential liability.
To maintain the employment levels of FY 2024-25, the state's wage burden could skyrocket from approximately ₹517 crore under MGNREGA to nearly ₹3,470 crore under the new framework. This massive increase creates a strong incentive for the state government to ration work, further undermining employment security.
Another major concern is the change in coverage. While MGNREGA applied uniformly across rural Andhra Pradesh, VB-G RAM G restricts employment to areas specifically notified by the Central government. This enables phased or selective implementation. Reports indicate that Gram Sabhas are being convened statewide without clarity on which areas will be covered, raising fears of exclusion, particularly for dispersed Adivasi communities.
Technology and Seasonal Restrictions Add New Risks
The new law also embeds technology-linked conditions that pose a direct risk to workers' access. Andhra Pradesh's own experience under MGNREGA saw around 78 lakh workers deleted from rolls due to changes in the Aadhaar-based payment system, and another 16 lakh deletions during a single month of intensive e-KYC drives. Under VB-G RAM G, such technological failures can legally become grounds for denial of work or wages.
Furthermore, seasonal restrictions introduce another layer of complexity. Unlike MGNREGA, which allowed work even during agricultural seasons, VB-G RAM G permits restrictions of up to 60 days during notified peak periods. For a state with diverse and overlapping agricultural calendars, this could exclude workers precisely when they need supplementary income support the most.
In light of these sweeping changes and potential risks, there are growing calls from civil society and analysts for the Andhra Pradesh government to urgently review the Act's implications. They advocate for widespread consultations with workers' groups and civil society organizations, followed by a formal representation to the Union government seeking a reconsideration of the new framework to protect the interests of the state's rural workforce.
