Punjab's Rural Jobs U-Turn Explained: Why The AAP Government Changed Course On The Centre's Employment Scheme

On December 22, 2025, the Punjab Legislative Assembly convened a special one-day session. Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann and his cabinet sat together as the House unanimously passed a resolution condemning the Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act.

The resolution alleged that the new framework would harm the interests of rural labourers, especially Dalits, OBCs, tribals, and women — all major beneficiaries of MGNREGA. The Congress, then the principal opposition, promptly supported the resolution.    

On June 26, 2026, the Department of Rural Development and Panchayats issued a gazette notification: 'In order to align the rural development framework with the national vision of Viksit Bharat 2047 by providing an enhanced statutory wage employment guarantee of 125 days in each financial year to such rural households whose adult members volunteer to undertake unskilled manual work, the government of Punjab is pleased to notify the VB-G RAM G Scheme, Punjab 2026.'

What Is The VB-G RAM-G Scheme?

The Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act was passed in Parliament's Winter Session 2025, replacing MGNREGA — the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, which had guaranteed 100 days of paid work per rural household since 2005.

VB-G RAM-G retains the employment guarantee principle but changes three things: the guarantee rises from 100 to 125 days per year; a national minimum wage floor of ₹300 per day is established for the first time; and the funding model shifts from near-complete central funding to a 60:40 Centre-state split, with Himalayan and north-eastern states bearing only 10%.

Under MGNREGA, the Centre bore 100% of wage costs and approximately 75% of material costs. Under VB-G RAM-G, states bear 40% of all scheme expenditure — a significant and sudden increase in liability for states that are already fiscally stretched. Punjab's notified wage under the new scheme is ₹360 per day, above the national floor.

Why Did Punjab Initially Oppose It?

Punjab and Himachal Pradesh, both non-BJP-ruled states in the north, faced the new scheme's funding model as a direct fiscal challenge. The AAP government's opposition was both ideological and financial. Ideologically, the party framed VB-G RAM-G as the BJP dismantling a right-based programme that had given millions of rural households a legal entitlement to work.

Financially, Punjab already carries one of India's highest state debt-to-GSDP ratios. Its own welfare commitments have added to its annual obligations. The additional 40% cost-share burden from VB-G RAM-G was substantial and unbudgeted.

The December 2025 Assembly resolution was the AAP government's most unambiguous public statement on the issue. By convening a special session and passing a unanimous resolution — with Congress support — Mann signalled that opposition to VB-G RAM-G was a matter of political principle, not merely a procedural complaint about implementation mechanics.

Why Has The AAP Government Changed Its Stand?

Punjab and Himachal Pradesh, both non-BJP-ruled states, faced practical and financial pressures in staying out of the new framework and eventually decided to join the national rollout. The most immediate pressure is fiscal. Staying outside VB-G RAM-G does not mean Punjab's rural workers stop needing employment support — it means the state would have had to fund an alternative rural jobs programme from its own depleted resources, or leave those workers without any guarantee.

The second pressure is central transfers. States that refuse to participate in centrally sponsored schemes risk being classified as non-compliant, which can affect the flow of other rural development funds. A principled stand on VB-G RAM-G that jeopardised those flows would have undermined the government's core political compact with its own voters.

Why Are Opposition Parties Calling It A U-Turn?

The Congress and the Akali Dal both reacted sharply to the notification. Punjab Congress chief Amrinder Singh Raja Warring questioned the timing, asking whether the sudden implementation had something to do with the ongoing controversy related to the chief minister — a reference to a video row in which an alleged objectionable video had gone viral, with AAP and Mann maintaining the video was not of him.

Reversing the resolution passed in December by issuing a quiet gazette notification six months later without a Parliamentary statement, without a press conference, without an explanation treats a legislative resolution as though it were a campaign slogan rather than a formal expression of the House's will.

What Does The Move Mean For Rural Workers?

For Punjab's rural workers, the practical outcome is a net improvement in their employment guarantee — at least on paper. The jump from 100 to 125 days, and the ₹360/day wage (above the ₹300 national floor), represent a real gain in annual earning potential for households that are fully utilising the scheme.

The question is whether those gains outweigh the structural change in the scheme's character: from a rights-based law where citizens could approach courts for enforcement, to what critics argue is a more administratively discretionary framework where entitlement depends more on government delivery than on legal guarantee.

Could Other States Face Similar Choices?

Punjab is not the only opposition-governed state to have made this calculation. Himachal Pradesh similarly notified the scheme after months of resistance. The pattern suggests that for non-BJP state governments, the fiscal cost of principled non-participation in centrally-sponsored schemes is simply too high to sustain beyond a deadline.

The scheme's 60:40 split is a structural pressure that cuts across party lines. Punjab's U-turn is the most visible example of states discovering that fiscal federalism, in practice, narrows the space for political independence in welfare policy.