Following the controversial replacement of the rural jobs guarantee, the Indian government has set its sights on reforming two other landmark laws from the previous administration: the Right to Education (RTE) Act and the National Food Security Act (NFSA). Officials state the goal is to ensure benefits reach all eligible beneficiaries, but policy experts warn this signals a broader, systemic shift in India's social welfare architecture.
The move comes weeks after Parliament passed theViksit Bharat—Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, 2025 (VB-G RAM G), which replaced the 20-year-old Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). The government argues these reforms are necessary to correct implementation flaws, plug leaks, and ensure "100% registration" of beneficiaries.
The Template: What the MGNREGA Overhaul Reveals
The new VB-G RAM G Act provides a clear template for the government's approach. While it increases the guaranteed workdays from 100 to 125 per household, it introduces critical structural changes:
Shift in Funding: States must now share 40% of the scheme's costs (90:10 for northeastern states), a departure from the old central-government-funded model.
Centralised Control: The central government determines state-wise annual allocations and retains control over norms, while implementation responsibility falls on states.
Seasonal Pauses: Work can be statutorily suspended for up to 60 days during peak agricultural seasons.
Redefined Focus: Works are now channeled into four pre-defined domains like water security and rural infrastructure, integrated with national master plans.
| Policy Aspect | Previous Framework (MGNREGA) | New Framework (VB-G RAM G) | Potential Implication for RTE/NFSA |
|Core Principle | Demand-driven, justiciablelegal right | Centrally managed,guarantee-based scheme | Shift from enforceable entitlement to conditional benefit? |
|Financial Responsibility | Primarily central government | Significant cost-sharing with states (60:40) | Increased fiscal pressure on states for education & food |
|Implementation Driver | Household demand for work | Central allocation and planning | Centralized target-setting over local needs assessment |
|Accountability | Legal entitlement to unemployment allowance | Scheme rules and administrative discretion | Weaker legal recourse for beneficiaries |
Three Concerns Driving the Opposition
The opposition's protest against the MGNREGA replacement was not merely about removing Mahatma Gandhi's name. Analysts identify three foundational concerns that will likely resurface with the proposed RTE and NFSA reforms:
1. From Right to Discretion: Critics argue the core shift is from arights-based framework—where citizens could legally claim work, education, or food—to a scheme-based model dependent on government discretion and budgetary allocation. This fundamentally alters the state-citizen relationship.
2. The Federal Fiscal Squeeze: By making states bear a larger financial burden (40% under VB-G RAM G) while retaining central control over norms, fiscally strained states may be forced to ration benefits or delay payments. This could lead to a "quiet hollowing out" of the entitlements without formally abolishing them.
3. Vulnerable Groups at Risk: Nearly half of MGNREGA workers are women. Scholars fear that reduced work availability and increased bureaucracy will disproportionately impact women, marginalized communities, and migrants—groups the original acts were designed to protect. Similar vulnerabilities exist in education and food security.
The Road Ahead: Rules, Reforms, and Resistance
The government has indicated it will first attempt changes through rules and executive orders before potentially introducing new bills in Parliament. This approach allows for significant operational overhaul without immediate legislative debate.
However, resistance is building. States like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka have convened emergency meetings to oppose the VB-G RAM G Act. A collective of international economists and UN experts has warned the new rural jobs law threatens past gains. This subnational and institutional pushback will likely intensify as reforms target the education and food security sectors.
The coming months will reveal whether these reforms are the administrative "course correction" the government claims or, as critics allege, a decisive ideological move to replace India's rights-based welfare model with a centrally controlled, fiscally constrained system of benefits. The fate of millions of students and families hangs in the balance.
.jpg)
