Many BJP states opposing “G Ram G” which replaced MGNREGS

New Delhi: Many BJP-NDA ruled states, including Madhya Pradesh and Bihar raised concern over the proposed shift of financial burden on state governments under the new rural employment programme. The new scheme requires a majority of the states
to bear 40 % of the total expenditure, in contrast to the MGNEREGA, under which the Center bore 100% of the wage bill and the states had to pay only a part of the material bill, which accounted for only 10% of the total budget.

It was the NDA government last year in 2025 came out with Viksit Bharat– Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission(gramin) Act, 2025 (VB-G RAM G) which replaced the MGNREGS to be implemented from July 1,2026. The new law was originally scheduled to be launched on April 1, but it was pushed back because the portal and technical infrastructure were not ready. Till now 19 states have officially notified the scheme.

The MGNREGS said to be successful rural employment program during the 10 year rule of UPA government led by Man Mohan Singh at the Centre. Now the NDA government replaced it with new–G Ram G– which is being opposed by several states, because of the financial burden. It is being criticized that the only guarantee the new law offered is that of ” extreme centralisation” and “weakening of the bargaining power of rural labour”.

Besides the some of the NDA ruled states, the Congress ruled states like Karnataka, Telangana and Kerala also raising several objections in implementing the scheme. It is being pointed out that the Center had not carried out any consultations before replacing MGNERGS with –VB-G Ram G Act.

Congress spokesperson Jairam Ramesh said ” The Modi government, vengeful and petty as ever, bulldozed the repeal of MGNREGA through Parliament without any thorough consultation with the parliamentary standing committee on Rural development, state governments or other relevant stakeholders”. The question being raised now is, “if even the ‘Double engine’ governments cannot Shoulder this 40% cost burden, how will poor workers get employment on the ground?”.