Ex-NITI Aayog CEO Defends MGNREGA Replacement, Calls G RAM G Act 'Evidence-Based Update'

2 min read     Updated on 24 Dec 2025, 09:02 PM
scanx
Reviewed by
Ashish TScanX News Team
Overview

Amitabh Kant, ex-NITI Aayog CEO, defended Parliament's replacement of MGNREGA with the Viksit Bharat G RAM G Act, citing evidence of design flaws where poorest states had lowest utilisation while better-off states absorbed more funds. The new act increases guaranteed employment from 100 to 125 days and shifts cost-sharing from Centre bearing most expenses to a 60:40 split, while focusing on productive rural employment linked to durable assets and climate resilience rather than relief work.

28135931

*this image is generated using AI for illustrative purposes only.

Amitabh Kant, the ex-CEO of NITI Aayog, has publicly defended Parliament's decision to replace the two-decade-old Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) with the new Viksit Bharat – G RAM G Act, 2025. In a detailed X post shared on Wednesday, Kant argued that evidence-based analysis necessitated this legislative transformation to address fundamental design limitations in the original scheme.

Evidence-Based Justification for Change

Kant highlighted critical findings from official audits that exposed structural flaws in MGNREGA's implementation. "CAG audits and independent studies showed that MGNREGA utilisation was often lowest in the poorest states and districts, while relatively better-off states absorbed a larger share of funds," he stated. This pattern contradicted the scheme's core objective of targeting the most vulnerable populations, with the self-targeting assumption weakening significantly over time.

The ex-NITI Aayog CEO emphasised that MGNREGA was designed for a fundamentally different rural economy in 2005. He noted that nearly two decades of development have brought structural changes including widespread electrification, improved road connectivity, digital payment systems, Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) mechanisms, and more diversified livelihood opportunities. These transformations rendered the original wage-employment framework, designed for a low-capacity, cash-based system, increasingly ineffective.

Key Changes Under G RAM G Act

The new legislation introduces several significant modifications compared to its predecessor:

Parameter MGNREGA G RAM G Act Change
Guaranteed Employment Days 100 days 125 days +25 days
Centre's Wage Cost Share 100% 60% -40 percentage points
Centre's Material Cost Share 75% 60% -15 percentage points
State's Overall Burden ~10% 40% +30 percentage points

Strategic Shift in Focus

Kant explained that the G RAM G Act represents a fundamental strategic pivot from relief-oriented employment to productive rural work. "The new law shifts focus from relief to productive rural employment, linking wage work to durable assets, water security, climate resilience and livelihood infrastructure," he stated. This approach addresses longstanding concerns about fragmented, low-impact works that characterised many MGNREGA projects.

The legislation also incorporates modern governance mechanisms including improved digital monitoring systems, faster payment processing, and clearer accountability frameworks. These enhancements reflect the enhanced governance capacity developed over the past two decades, enabling more efficient programme implementation and better outcomes measurement.

Defending Against Dilution Concerns

Addressing potential criticism about weakening social protection, Kant firmly rejected characterisations of the change as dilution. "This is not dilution of social protection, but an evidence-based update of a 2005 law, aligning rural employment with productivity, accountability and today's rural realities," he emphasised. The increase in guaranteed employment days from 100 to 125 demonstrates the government's commitment to strengthening rather than weakening the employment guarantee framework.

The ex-G20 Sherpa's analysis positions the legislative change as a necessary evolution responding to transformed rural conditions, improved governance capabilities, and evidence of implementation challenges under the previous framework.

like17
dislike
Explore Other Articles