There have been two distinct thought processes. One thought process is, needy people should be given employment within a 5 kms radius whether assets are created or not. However, efforts should be made to achieve those assets. Another thought process is that whenever there is a demand for wage employment, works of asset creation should be implemented so that people will get employment. These seemingly similar thoughts create a lot of difference in actual execution. The MGNREGA was based on first thought while the VB G RAM G is on the second.
The ratio 60:40 for labour and material respectively is common in both MGNREGA and VB G RAM G. But, through the latter the country strives to achieve the goals of Viksit Bharat while the earlier focused on wage employment.
Though not through scientific study, an opinion goes in Maharashtra that Latur, Solapur and Ahilyanagar districts used erstwhile Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS) for construction of roads and percolation tanks while providing wage employment to the needy. This planned use of EGS funds catapulted these districts of Maharashtra to higher economic position. But, other districts couldn’t achieve the same feat because in EGS, the objective was to provide wage employment.
If the absolute numbers of Deprived Households as per Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) report 2023 in the State is taken as criterion, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have used a high proportion of funds under MGNREGA compared to its poorer counterparts. Both these states have moved ahead towards elimination of poverty. In fact, Kerala has declared that it has Eliminated Extreme Poverty on 01.11.2025. However, what percentage of this success can be attributed to judicious use of MGNREGA funds needs deeper probing. Now, VB G RAM G strives to achieve Viksit Bharat though not through it alone, still there may be some pointers to be learned from these states for grassroot level planning and execution.
One such pointer was long term planning that Tamil Nadu did even in MGNREGA days when the Act required only for annual labour budget. When Maharashtra started working towards making Lakhpati Families and Prosperous Villages the planning process changed to long term, that is 10 years’ planning. The VB G RAM G is clearly asking for Viksit Gram Panchayat Plans. This is a welcome change compared to MGNREGA. This planning is of utmost importance if the country has to achieve Viksit status.
Needless to say that the Viksit Bharat would have eliminated not only extreme poverty but any kind of poverty altogether. Different provisions of VB G RAM G lead towards it. The para 2(2) Sch. II – states that the State shall proactively verify the requirements of the Vulnerable Groups and provide them with work. This means that BPL families as per MPI need to be given work without waiting for demand from them. The execution of this provision will help in accelerated Elimination of Extreme Poverty.
Similarly, Para 6 Sch. I provides the framework for Convergence and Integrated Planning – Single Plan, Multi Funding Approach to promote convergence across departments and align all rural development efforts (National, State and Local) with the Viksit Bharat 2047 vision of creating productive, transformative and resilient rural assets.
The soul of the Act lies in harmonious creation of all rural infrastructure delineated clearly in four categories: 1. Water Security, 2. Viksit Bharat National Rural Infrastructure Stack, 3. Livelihood Related Infrastructure and 4. Climate Mitigation Structures.
While implementing MGNREGA, there have been instances where needy were provided wage employment in say mud road construction, no WBM or tarring. It got washed away in the next rainy season or two. If the focus is on providing wage employment then this is a perfect situation where the same work and the same labour become available again and again. Work is not done for permanent use nor the labourer comes out of poverty. This was not intentional but sometimes it occurred anyway. Such things were sought to be avoided by making an amendment in the law in 2014 when the 60:40 ratio was allowed to be maintained at the district level instead of at individual work.
Some discussions during review meetings of GoI showed that some field leveling work on individual farms was done every year at the same place. Now, certainly a field needn’t be leveled every year. At the best it’s inefficient use of tax payers money.
Permissible works under MGNREGA were 266, therefore, it seemed to have great flexibility. But, if one wanted to do a lot of work that required more material components then the restrictions on labour and material ratio of 60:40 became a hurdle. In one of the discussions it was also found that field leveling was being done just to satisfy this ratio. In that district they might have needed more work requiring more material components. The labour materials ratio remains the same in the VB G RAM G also.
It will be more than academic interest to study the kinds of works done by states where poverty has remained at high levels even after spending a lot of money under MGNREGA.
Though VB G RAM G focus is on asset creation, the labour and material components ratio has been kept at 60:40 only. Both these things is very difficult to do simultaneously. It’s hoped that restrictions on this ratio will be lifted sooner than later.
Currently new work to be started have been instructed to be VB G RAM G compliant. Also, the ongoing work under MGNREGA shall have to be completed. Since, under MGNREGA works sanctioned and started are more for wage employment, completing them will create more labour components. That should be allowed to be used for doing new work under VB G RAM G.
Nand Kumar, IAS (Rtd)
