When the Viksit Bharat — Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, 2025 finally received Presidential assent, it arrived amidst considerable political clamour. Parliamentary disruptions and social media outrage quickly framed the law as either an ideological rupture or a cosmetic rebranding of the rural employment guarantee. In this din, however, the most important aspect of the Act has been largely missed: its substantive attempt to recalibrate rural employment policy through fiscal prudence, normative funding, and developmental alignment.

Public discourse has focused disproportionately on symbolism and legacy, leaving little room for a serious examination of what the law actually does and why it has been designed the way it has. Yet, for a country aspiring to become a Viksit Bharat, the question that should matter most is not who claims ownership of past programmes, but whether new legislation meaningfully strengthens state capacity, improves outcomes, and remains fiscally sustainable.

From Entitlement Expansion to Responsible Design

At first glance, the Act appears to be an expansion rather than a contraction of the rural employment guarantee. The statutory assurance of work has been enhanced from 100 to 125 days per rural household annually. This is not a trivial change. In regions prone to agrarian distress, climate variability, or seasonal unemployment, the additional 25 days provide a critical buffer against income volatility.

But the real shift lies not in the number of days guaranteed, but in the architecture of the guarantee. Unlike its predecessor, which operated largely as an open-ended, demand-driven entitlement with contingent fiscal liabilities, the new Act consciously embeds employment assurance within a more structured and predictable financing framework. This design choice reflects a sober recognition of macroeconomic constraints and the necessity of balancing welfare commitments with fiscal responsibility.

Far from diluting the guarantee, this recalibration seeks to protect it from the very risks that plagued earlier models-chronic delays in wage payments, mounting arrears, and periodic budgetary shortfalls that undermined credibility at the grassroots level.

Why the Earlier Model Became Unsustainable

What is often forgotten in the current debate is that the earlier model of rural employment operated under an open-ended, demand-driven........

© The Pioneer