VB-G RAM G: when a policy shift meets rural realities

Bandarugudem village in Bapulapadu mandal of Krishna district sits at a distance from the restless churn of urban Andhra Pradesh. Its narrow mud roads are worn dark by years of use, flanked by shallow drains carrying sewage and spewing out a stench that hangs heavily in the humid air.

Elderly and middle-aged women in crumpled cotton saris walk along the lanes separating small, low-roofed houses in uneven rows, their talk punctuating the hum of rural living. Except for the occasional growl of two-wheelers, there is little to signal that the world beyond the village is changing rapidly.

It is in these quiet lanes that the debate over the future of rural employment has begun to echo. Sixty-year-old Barre Jayamma stands at the end of a street speaking animatedly with a group of women. “What good is the new scheme when we are unable to utilise the full benefits of the existing one?” she asks, referring to the Union government’s decision to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) with the Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) or VB-G RAM G.

Jayamma and most women around her are unfamiliar with the finer points 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 nuance but about work. MGNREGA’s mandate 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 Medabalimi Dhanalakshmi voices her frustration. “My cousins in villages like Chavatipalli in Nellore district, Adavinekkalam in Eluru district and even in neighbouring Ampapuram get 100 days of paid employment every year. I have to fight with local officials to find work even for two weeks,” she says. Her neighbour, Chintalapudi Aluvelamma (58), got 28 days of work 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 can generate sustained employment under the scheme. The village tank, once a steady source of work through desilting and bund strengthening, has been leased out for fish rearing. That decision has effectively closed off a crucial avenue of wage labour, particularly during lean agricultural seasons. Merugu Rajaratnam (53) sums up the prevailing mood: “The tank which provided us some work is gone now. Most of us need work, but there is not much around.” Peeka Adamma (40) says they had raised the issue in gram sabhas, but to no avail.

Field assistant Chelli Prasanna says that distributing limited works among 20 groups of 50 members each is a challenge. In the previous fiscal year, villagers here could only access 30 days of work.

The contrast with neighbouring Ampapuram is stark. The roads there are wider and paved, and houses are mostly pucca and arranged in neat rows. The village presents an air of relative prosperity. Ganduboyina Venkateswara Rao (65) tends to four buffaloes in a shed constructed under MGNREGA.

Inside, hay stacks lean against mud-plastered walls, some neatly tied, others scattered across the damp floor. The structure represents an asset, a tangible outcome of the programme’s emphasis on individual beneficiary works.

“The scheme allows for individual asset creation, including livestock sheds,” explains field assistant Lalitha. Such works must be included in the labour budget and annual action plan approved by the gram sabha. For Rao, the shed has been transformative. “It is more useful than I imagined,” he says, rearranging bundles of hay.

Similarly, Chilakanti Jyothi (34) opted for oil palm cultivation under the scheme and receives monthly maintenance support during the critical growth years. The programme covers pit digging, planting and irrigation structures and also provides for maintenance to ensure sapling survival.

Ampapuram has 280 job cards divided into seven groups, each with 40–50 members. Beneficiaries have reportedly completed 70–80% of their allotted workdays in the current financial year. Across the 27 villages of Bapulapadu mandal, 9,818 households received work under MGNREGA this year, with ₹10.44 crore spent on wages, says Additional Programme Officer for Bapulapadu mandal S. Ashok Kumar. He says there are no pending payments.

At the district level, N.V. Shiva Prasad Yadav, Project Director of the Krishna District Water Management Agency (DWMA), outlines the scale of implementation. In 2024–25, 139,739 households were provided employment, generating 7,580.66 lakh person-days; in 2025–26 (till date), 5,490.37 lakh person-days have been generated. Women accounted for 2,956.87 lakh person-days. Wage expenditure stood at ₹15,406.78 lakh and materials at ₹8,622.18 lakh, with an average wage of ₹280.54. Over 3,900 families completed 100 days of work this year, he says, adding that plantation activities have covered hundreds of acres and kilometres of avenue and canal stretches.

It is evident that in parts of Krishna district, MGNREGA has functioned as intended, generating employment and creating assets. Yet disparities between villages such as Bandarugudem and Ampapuram illustrate the unevenness of implementation.

Smaller panchayats with limited common land face inherent constraints. Officials attempt to bridge the gap by encouraging individual works such as private ponds for water storage. “But many small farmers are reluctant to part with scarce land,” says Ashok Kumar.

It is against this backdrop that the Union government’s move to replace MGNREGA with VB-G RAM G has sparked controversy. Opposition parties and civil society groups argue that the change represents not merely a redesign but a structural shift.

They contend that MGNREGA’s defining feature was its statutory guarantee, the legal right to demand work. Critics fear that VB-G RAM G could transform rural employment from a demand-driven entitlement into an administratively managed scheme shaped by budget allocations, notifications and technological controls.

The Congress has sharply criticised the change. Sonia Gandhi, Chairperson of the Congress Parliamentary Party, described it as an assault on farmers and rural workers. Congress Andhra Pradesh president Y.S. Sharmila has undertaken a protest yatra from Bandlapalli in Anantapur district, where MGNREG scheme was first launched in 2006, underscoring its historical significance.

Bandlapalli itself offers evidence of MGNREGA’s transformative potential. Water harvesting ponds, percolation tanks and trenches have improved groundwater levels. Cement concrete roads built under the programme have enhanced connectivity. Cheemala Peddakka, who received the first job card two decades ago, continues to work.

“The money helps me take care of my needs,” she says. For her, the scheme’s name is less important than its ability to sustain farm labourers. “It would be painful to see any dilution of the employment generation programme that has helped so many families to improve their financial condition,” she says.

LibTech India, a research and advocacy organisation focused on transparency and social protection, has examined the implications of the new Act. Its report on the impact of VG-B RAM G on Andhra Pradesh argues that even under MGNREGA, employment averaged 51.6 days per household in the State in 2024–25, with only 11% completing 100 days, suggesting fiscal and administrative rationing despite statutory guarantees.

VB-G RAM G, it warns, removes the explicit right to demand work and allows selective implementation in notified areas, potentially excluding vulnerable communities like Adivasis. The report also highlights fiscal concerns. Given existing liabilities, the State may struggle to maintain employment levels without rationing, it says.

The fears are not unfounded. Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu, in his recent meeting with the Union Home Minister Amit Shah, discussed the financial provisions of VB-G RAM G scheme. Stating that the revised 60:40 Centre-State funding ratio had put additional financial burden on the State and could adversely impact the implementation, he requested alternative financial support.

“The State government should urgently review the impact of the VB-G RAM G Act on employment security and hold broad consultations, including a dedicated Assembly debate. Based on these discussions, the State should formally urge the Union government to reconsider the framework and retain MGNREGA’s statutory employment guarantee,” says Chakradhar Buddha, senior researcher with LibTech India.

For villagers like Jayamma, these policy debates are distant abstractions. Their reality is measured in days of work secured or denied. The divergence between villages shows that implementation capacity, asset availability and administrative priorities shape outcomes as much as legislation does. MGNREGA has built ponds, sheds and roads, it has raised groundwater levels and provided income support. But it has also revealed gaps 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 address disparities between villages like Bandarugudem and Ampapuram? And will it preserve the core principle that rural households should have assured access to wage employment in times of need?

As Andhra Pradesh navigates this shift, 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 at the edge of Bandarugudem’s dusty lanes, employment is a matter of survival, dignity and the promise that the State will stand by its poorest citizens.