VB-G RAM G: When policy change matches rural realities

Bandarugudem village in Bapulapadu mandal of Krishna district is located at a distance from the urban bustle. Andhra Pradesh. Its narrow mud roads are dark from years of use, lined with shallow drains that carry sewage and spread a heavy stench in the humid air.

Elderly and middle-aged women wearing folded cotton saris walk in uneven rows through the lanes separating small, low-roofed houses, their conversations punctuating the hustle and bustle of rural life. Apart from the occasional rumble of two-wheelers, there is no sign that the world beyond the village is changing rapidly.

In these quiet streets, the debate on the future of rural employment has started echoing. Sixty-year-old Barre Jayamma stands at the end of the road, talking animatedly to a group of women. “What is the use of a new scheme when we are not able to take full advantage of the existing scheme?” she asks, referring to the central government’s decision to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) with the Bharat-Guarantee developed for Employment and Livelihood Mission (Rural) or VB-G RAM G.

Jayamma and most of the women around her are unfamiliar with the nuances of the new Act. Their understanding comes from what local officials have told them, that the guaranteed number of workdays has been increased from 100 to 125 and that payment delays are being addressed. For them the question is not about legislative niceties but about work. The mandate of MNREGA was simple and legally enforceable – at least 100 days of wage employment in a financial year to every rural household whose adult members were willing to do unskilled manual work. But in practice, the experience varied widely.

Fifty-year-old Medabaalimi Dhanalakshmi expresses her frustration. “My cousins ​​in villages like Chavatipalli in Nellore district, Adavinakkalam in Eluru district and even neighboring Ampapuram get 100 days of paid employment every year. I have to fight with local authorities to find work even for two weeks,” she says. Her neighbour, Chintalapudi Aluvelamma (58), got 28 days of work in the last financial year. “I am healthy and willing to work, but there is no work around this village,” she laments.

Bandarugudem’s problem is structural. It is one of the smaller gram panchayats in the mandal and lacks the kind of community assets that could generate sustained employment under the scheme. The village pond, which was once a stable source for desilting and strengthening the dam, has been leased out for fish farming. That decision has effectively closed off an important avenue of wages, especially during the lean farming season. Merugu Rajaratnam (53) summarizes the prevailing mood: “The tank that provided us with some work is now gone. Most of us need work, but there is not much around.” Peeka Adamma (40) says she had raised the issue in gram sabhas, but to no avail.

Field assistant Chelli Prasanna says it is a challenge to distribute the limited work among 20 groups of 50 members each. In the last financial year, the villagers here could get work only for 30 days.

The contrast with neighboring Ampapuram is stark. The roads there are wide and paved, and the houses are mostly concrete and arranged in neat rows. The village presents an environment of relative prosperity. Ganduboyina Venkateswara Rao (65) takes care of four buffaloes in a shed built under MNREGA.

Inside, piles of hay rest on mud-smeared walls, some neatly tied up, some scattered on the wet floor. The structure represents an asset, which is a concrete result of the programme’s emphasis on individual beneficiary actions.

“The scheme allows construction of individual properties, including livestock sheds,” explains field assistant Lalita. Such works should be included in the labor budget and annual work plan approved by the Gram Sabha. For Rao, Shed has been transformative. “This is more useful than I imagined,” he says, rearranging the bundles of hay.

Similarly, Chilakanti Jyoti (34) opted for oil palm cultivation under the scheme and received monthly maintenance assistance during the critical growth years. The program includes digging pits, planting and irrigation structures and also provides maintenance to ensure the survival of the plants.

Ampapuram has 280 job cards divided into seven groups, each with 40-50 members. Beneficiaries have reportedly completed 70-80% of their allotted working days in the current financial year. Bapulapadu division’s additional program officer S. In 27 villages of Bapulpadu mandal, 9,818 families got work under MNREGA this year, with ₹10.44 crore spent on wages, says Ashok Kumar. They say there is no payment pending.

At the district level, NV Shiv Prasad Yadav, project director of Krishna District Water Management Agency (DWMA), outlines the scale of implementation. In 2024-25, employment was provided to 139,739 families, generating 7,580.66 lakh person-days; In 2025-26 (to date), 5,490.37 lakh person-days have been generated. The number of women was 2,956.87 lakh person-days. Salary expenditure stood at ₹15,406.78 lakh and material expenditure at ₹8,622.18 lakh, while the average wage was ₹280.54. More than 3,900 families completed 100 days of work this year, he says, adding that the plantation activities have covered hundreds of acres and kilometers of pathways and canal stretches.

It is clear that in some parts of Krishna district, MNREGA has worked as intended, generating employment and creating assets. Yet the disparities between villages like Bandarugudem and Ampapuram reflect unevenness of implementation.

Small panchayats with limited common land face inherent constraints. Authorities try to bridge the gap by encouraging individual actions such as private ponds for water storage. “But many small farmers are reluctant to give up scarce land,” says Ashok Kumar.

It is in this backdrop that the Central Government’s move to replace MNREGA with VB-G RAMG has given rise to controversy. Opposition parties and civil society groups argue that the change represents not just a redesign but a structural shift.

He argues that the defining feature of MNREGA was its statutory guarantee, the legal right to demand work. Critics fear that the VB-G could transform rural employment from a demand-driven entitlement to a scheme administratively managed by budget allocation, notification and technical control.

Congress has strongly criticized this change. Congress Parliamentary Party President Sonia Gandhi called it an attack on farmers and rural labourers. Congress Andhra Pradesh president YS Sharmila has launched a protest march from Bandlapalli in Anantapur district, where the MGNREGA scheme was first launched in 2006, underscoring its historical significance.

Bandlapalli itself provides evidence of the transformative potential of MNREGA. Ground water level has been improved by water harvesting ponds, percolation tanks and trenches. Connectivity has increased with the cement concrete roads built under the programme. Cheemala Peddakka, who got her first job card two decades ago, continues to work.

“The money helps me make ends meet,” she says. To her, the name of the scheme is less important than its ability to retain farm workers. “It would be painful to see any reduction in the job creation programs that have helped so many families improve their financial situations,” she says.

Libtech India, a research and advocacy organization focused on transparency and social security, has examined the implications of the new Act. Its report on the impact of VG-B RAMG on Andhra Pradesh argues that even under MNREGA, the state had an average of 51.6 days of employment per household in 2024-25, of which only 11% completed 100 days, suggesting fiscal and administrative rationing despite statutory guarantees.

It warns that the VB-G RAM G removes the explicit right to demand work and allows selective implementation in notified areas, potentially excluding vulnerable communities such as tribals. The report also highlights fiscal concerns. It said that given existing liabilities, the state may struggle to maintain employment levels without rationing.

The apprehensions are not baseless. Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu discussed the financial provisions of the VB-G RAM G scheme in his recent meeting with Union Home Minister Amit Shah. Stating that the revised 60:40 Centre-State funding ratio has placed additional financial burden on the State and may adversely impact implementation, he requested for alternative financial assistance.

“The state government should urgently review the impact of the VB-G RAM G Act on employment security and conduct wide-ranging consultations, including a dedicated assembly debate. Based on these discussions, the state should formally urge the central government to reconsider the framework and retain the statutory employment guarantee of MNREGA,” says Chakradhar Buddha, senior researcher at Libtech India.

For villagers like Jayamma, these policy debates are a distant thing. Their reality is measured in days of protected or denied work. Variation between villages suggests that implementation capacity, availability of assets, and administrative priorities shape outcomes as much as the law. MNREGA has built ponds, sheds and roads, raised groundwater levels and provided income support. But it has also exposed shortcomings in planning and resource allocation.

The transition to VB-G RAM G raises fundamental questions: will the new framework strengthen delivery or weaken entitlements? Can it remove the disparities between villages like Bandarugudem and Ampapuram? And will it preserve the core principle that rural families should be assured access to wage employment in times of need?

As Andhra Pradesh moves toward this change, the answer may lie less in rhetoric and more in ensuring that the scheme, whatever its name, remains responsive to the realities of rural workers. For the women standing along the dusty streets of Bandarugudem, employment is a matter of survival, dignity and a promise that the state will stand with its poorest citizens.