Jharkhand Joins Punjab, Karnataka in Opposing Centre's VB-G RAM G Act
Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren has joined Punjab and Karnataka in opposing the Centre's VB-G RAM G Act, which replaces MGNREGA implemented in 2005. Soren called the new legislation interference with MGNREGA's "soul" and an attack on rural poor rights, emphasizing no compromise on wages, work guarantee, and state rights. Economist Jean Dreze plans to approach Jharkhand government for a resolution opposing the act during the Budget session. Activists warn the new law could intensify distress migration and deepen livelihood insecurity in states with large rural populations dependent on employment schemes.
*this image is generated using AI for illustrative purposes only.
Jharkhand has become the latest state to oppose the Centre's new rural employment legislation, with Chief Minister Hemant Soren strongly criticizing the Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act on Tuesday. The JMM leader termed the new law as interference with the "soul" of MGNREGA and declared that any dilution of the rural job guarantee scheme was unacceptable.
Strong Opposition from Jharkhand Leadership
Soren conveyed his concerns during a conversation with noted economist Jean Dreze and later shared his position on social media platform X. The Chief Minister alleged that the Centre's changes to the MGNREGA framework constitute a direct attack on the rights of the rural poor.
| Key Concerns Raised: | Details |
|---|---|
| Primary Issue: | Interference with MGNREGA's core principles |
| Impact on Rural Poor: | Direct attack on their rights |
| Non-negotiable Elements: | Wages, work guarantee, state rights |
| State's Position: | Complete opposition to dilution |
"There will be no compromise on wages, guarantee of work, and the rights of the states," Soren emphasized in his social media post.
Legislative Background and Replacement
The Centre recently introduced VB-G RAM G as a replacement for the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, which was implemented by the UPA-led government in 2005. This legislative change has sparked significant opposition from multiple state governments across the country.
Growing Coalition of Opposition States
Jharkhand's opposition aligns with similar stances taken by Punjab and Karnataka, creating a growing coalition of states challenging the Centre's new rural employment framework. Economist Jean Dreze indicated that efforts would be made to approach the Jharkhand government to build pressure during the Budget session of the state assembly.
The strategy involves passing a resolution opposing the VB-G RAM G Act, following the model of similar resolutions already adopted by Punjab and Karnataka. This coordinated approach demonstrates the multi-state nature of opposition to the new legislation.
Concerns from Civil Society Groups
Activists and labour rights groups in Jharkhand have expressed significant concerns about the potential impact of the new law. These organizations warn that the VB-G RAM G Act could have severe consequences for rural communities and employment security.
| Potential Impacts Identified: | Consequences |
|---|---|
| Migration Patterns: | Intensified distress migration |
| Livelihood Security: | Deepened insecurity in rural areas |
| Vulnerable States: | Particularly affects states like Jharkhand |
| Dependent Population: | Large rural populations relying on employment schemes |
The concerns are particularly acute for states like Jharkhand, which have substantial populations dependent on rural employment schemes for their livelihoods. Civil society groups argue that the new framework could undermine the safety net that MGNREGA has provided to rural communities for nearly two decades.
Political and Economic Implications
The opposition from Jharkhand adds to the growing political tension between the Centre and several state governments over rural employment policy. The debate highlights fundamental differences in approach to rural development and employment guarantee schemes, with states arguing for the preservation of existing frameworks that have supported rural livelihoods since 2005.
17
