Jharkhand Says No to G-RAM-G, Pushes to Keep MGNREGA Intact

Opposition to the G-RAM-G is growing stronger in several states across the country. Karnataka, Kerala, Telangana and Punjab have already passed resolutions in their assemblies against the proposed changes. Now Jharkhand has also joined this list. On the last day of the Jharkhand Assembly’s budget session on March 18, a resolution was passed by voice vote to continue MGNREGA instead of replacing it with the VB-G RAM-G framework. The Assembly also decided to send a proposal to the central government requesting that no changes be made to the scheme.

During the discussion, Jharkhand’s Rural Development Minister Deepika Pandey Singh said in the House that MGNREGA is a lifeline for the poor and rural workers and that any kind of interference in the scheme will not be tolerated. She also urged the Centre to increase the guaranteed employment under MGNREGA from 100 days to 150 days so that people in rural areas can get more work and their livelihoods can become stronger. At the same time, she made it clear that the law should remain unchanged.

The Government of India has renamed the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) as VB-G RAM-G — Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin), which is being referred to as G-RAM-G. Although the original law has not been formally amended, the nature of its implementation has been altered. The most significant change relates to the guarantee of 100 days of employment. Earlier, this guarantee functioned as a demand-based legal right of workers, under which the government was required to provide work within 15 days. Under the G-RAM-G framework, employment is now being linked to government targets, budget allocations and notified areas.

This shift has drawn criticism from the Congress, non-BJP ruled states, and several experts associated with MGNREGA. They argue that the change weakens the guarantee of 100 days of employment in practice and converts a legal entitlement into a scheme-based arrangement. There is also concern over the revised funding structure. Under the new framework, most states will now have to bear 40 per cent of the wage component under the scheme, which many believe will weaken implementation in financially constrained states.

Earlier, expenditure under MGNREGA was shared between the Centre and the states in a 90:10 ratio. This has now been changed to 60:40. Along with this, a 60-day “no work” window has also been introduced, meaning that workers will not be able to demand employment during two months of the agricultural season. Critics argue that this provision will further limit access to work and reduce the effective scope of the scheme.

In Jharkhand, one of the long-standing concerns regarding MGNREGA has been delays in wage payments. According to the law, workers are supposed to receive payment within 15 days of completing work recorded in the muster roll. In practice, however, payments often take several months. The state government has repeatedly argued that these delays are linked to the non-release of funds by the Centre.

After the introduction of G-RAM-G, Chief Minister Hemant Soren accused the central government of not releasing thousands of crores of rupees due to Jharkhand under MGNREGA, which, according to him, has affected the implementation of the scheme in the state. This has also raised questions about how the state government will manage the increased financial responsibility if the revised funding structure comes into effect. When the state is already facing difficulties in meeting its earlier 10 per cent share on time, the shift to a 40 per cent contribution could significantly increase the burden.

Media reports suggest that Jharkhand is already facing financial stress. The ruling parties, Congress and Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), have alleged that nearly Rs 1.36 lakh crore in grants and scheme-related funds due to the state from the Centre have not been released. According to them, this has affected payments under several welfare programmes, including MGNREGA.

In this context, questions are being raised about what options the state government will have if the Centre does not accept Jharkhand’s proposal to continue the scheme in its existing form. Prakash Rana, a master trainer with the Jharkhand Panchayati Raj Department and a person familiar with the MGNREGA law, believes that the operational structure of the scheme has already undergone major changes. According to him, if the state government refuses to implement the provisions introduced under G-RAM-G but still expects financial support from the Centre under the earlier framework, it is unlikely that such a request will be accepted.

He says that in such a situation, the state government will have two options. One option would be to continue implementing MGNREGA on its own resources, which would be extremely difficult given the financial implications. The second option would be to accept the G-RAM-G framework and continue receiving the Centre’s 60 per cent contribution.

He also points out that states have the constitutional space to modify the way central schemes are implemented or to run alternative programmes. However, if a state government chooses to run a parallel scheme instead of implementing a central scheme, it usually has to bear the entire cost on its own.

Similar examples can be seen in West Bengal, where the Mamata Banerjee government has implemented state-level alternatives in place of certain central schemes. For instance, Ayushman Bharat was not implemented in the state and was replaced by the Swasthya Sathi scheme. Similarly, disagreements between the Centre and the state over the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana led to the launch of the Bangla Awas Yojana. Questions have also been raised by the Centre regarding the implementation of schemes such as Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana and other centrally sponsored programmes related to women’s welfare.

Against this background, an important question is whether Jharkhand would be able to bear the entire financial burden of MGNREGA if the Centre does not accept its proposal.

Responding to this question, Rural Development Minister Deepika Pandey Singh told Outlook that the state government does not have the financial capacity to run the scheme entirely on its own. She said that doing so would create serious difficulties, especially since budget allocations have already been fixed. Earlier, employment under MGNREGA had to be provided according to demand, but now allocations are increasingly being linked to central budget decisions. According to her, under the present system, it may become difficult to ensure even 50 to 60 days of employment, let alone 125 days.

She also said that the state government has formally requested the Centre to retain MGNREGA in its existing form and increase the guaranteed employment from 100 days to 150 days, particularly in order to reduce migration from states like Jharkhand. However, she argued that instead of strengthening the scheme, the changes introduced under the new framework have weakened it.

Jharkhand continues to face serious structural challenges such as unemployment, migration and high levels of poverty. According to the Multidimensional Poverty Index report released by NITI Aayog in 2021, about 42.16 per cent of the state’s population is affected by multidimensional poverty, making Jharkhand the second poorest state in the country. In such circumstances, a programme like MGNREGA plays a critical role in supporting rural livelihoods, provided employment opportunities and wage payments are ensured on time.

However, available data suggest that the scheme has not been able to achieve its full potential in the state even under the existing framework. A single MGNREGA job card often covers several members of a household. Jharkhand currently has around 34.4 lakh active job cards and 40.32 lakh registered active workers under the scheme. Over the past five years, the state has not been able to provide even an average of 50 days of employment per job card. Official figures indicate that workers received an average of 45.27 days of employment in 2021–22, 44.31 days in 2022–23, 50.22 days in 2023–24, 49.92 days in 2024–25 and 43.53 days so far in the current financial year 2025–26.

These figures suggest that even the legally guaranteed 100 days of employment have not been realised in practice. This raises further questions about how the expanded guarantee of 125 days proposed under the G-RAM-G framework would be implemented on the ground. It also raises concerns about whether the ongoing disagreement between the Centre and the state government could weaken the scheme further in Jharkhand.

Meanwhile, Jharkhand BJP spokesperson Ajay Shah has argued that the state government’s proposal reflects an attempt to divert attention from alleged irregularities in the implementation of MGNREGA in the state. According to him, discussions around MGNREGA inevitably bring up issues related to corruption and misuse of funds, and Jharkhand is not an exception in this regard. He said that if the state government had been serious about the scheme, such irregularities would not have occurred. He also argued that since MGNREGA is a central scheme meant for the entire country, it cannot be implemented according to the preferences of an individual state. If the rules of the scheme are not followed properly, the Centre would have reasons to withhold funds.

He further stated that the state government’s objection appears to be linked more to the name G-RAM-G and the politics around it, and that such differences could ultimately affect the poor people who depend on the scheme.

On the other hand, former Jharkhand Finance Minister and Congress leader Rameshwar Oraon has argued that the changes introduced by the Centre have weakened the structure of MGNREGA. According to him, the scheme had earlier received recognition and appreciation at the global level, including from the World Bank. However, he believes that the revised framework has created uncertainty about its future functioning.

Oraon also described the revised 60:40 funding pattern as the biggest challenge for Jharkhand. According to him, the additional financial responsibility placed on states under G-RAM-G will affect Jharkhand more than many others and could make implementation difficult. He said that if the scheme becomes difficult to operate under the revised conditions, the responsibility for that situation would rest with the central government.