A sharp war of words broke out on the floor of the Telangana Legislative Assembly between legislators of the ruling Congress and the opposition BJP. The contentious issue was the recent changes to the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), notably its renaming to the VB-G Ram G scheme.
Minister Seethakka Flags Financial Burden and Norm Changes
Initiating a short-duration discussion on the scheme, Panchayat Raj Minister Danasari Anasuya, popularly known as Seethakka, launched a strong critique of the central government's decisions. She argued that the overhaul would impose a significant additional financial burden on state governments.
Seethakka emphasized that the original MGNREGA, introduced in 2005 by the UPA government, was the product of extensive consultations with states and stakeholders over four years. In contrast, she claimed, the current NDA government had introduced the new VB-G Ram G framework without any discussion with the states.
The minister highlighted the scheme's crucial role as a safety net during the COVID-19 pandemic, benefiting crores of people, especially in rural India. She presented data showcasing Telangana's impressive implementation record: the scheme is active in 12,760 gram panchayats, with 52 lakh job cards covering 1.06 crore individuals.
Telangana ranks among the top states in implementation, creation of durable assets, and women's participation. Approximately 62% of wage earners are women, and nearly 90% of beneficiaries belong to SC, ST, and BC communities.
BJP's Counter: Increased Days and Sustained Funding
BJP floor leader A Maheshwar Reddy mounted a vigorous defense of the central government's actions. He asserted that the Union government had not reduced the budget allocation for the scheme. In fact, he pointed out that the number of guaranteed employment days had been increased from 100 to 125 days.
Reddy stated that there was nothing unusual in asking states to contribute financially, noting that even under the old structure, the funding pattern was 90% from the Centre and 10% from the states. He insisted that the Centre had only worked to improve the scheme's norms.
Citing data from NABARD, the BJP leader made a broader claim about poverty reduction. He said poverty levels had dramatically declined from 27% in 2011-12 to just 4.8% in 2023-24, attributing this success to the central government's various measures.
Core of the Controversy: Rights-Based vs. Capped Model
The debate centered on a fundamental philosophical shift in the scheme's design. Minister Seethakka argued that the new VB-G Ram G framework would transform MGNREGA from a demand-driven, rights-based programme into a capped allocation model.
She warned that this shift, coupled with the altered funding expectations, would not only strain state finances but also weaken the bargaining power of rural labourers. For her, changing the name and the core norms of a scheme that had become an institutional pillar for rural employment was fundamentally incorrect.
The exchange underscores the ongoing tussle between the state and central governments over flagship welfare schemes, their funding, and their operational autonomy. The renaming and restructuring of MGNREGA has become the latest flashpoint in this persistent political dynamic.
