[Marxistindia] Press Release

[news from the cpi(m)]

June 29, 2026

 

Press Release

 

Smt. Brinda Karat, senior leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist),
and former Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha, has written a letter today to
Shri. Shivraj Singh Chauhan, Union Minister for Rural Development, regarding
the Draft Rules for VB-GRAMG Act.

 

We are herewith releasing the text of the letter for publication. 

 

Muralidharan

(For CPI(M) Central Committee Office)

 

 

June 29, 2026

 

Adarniya Shivraj Singh Chauhan ji,

 

I am writing to you on the eve of the rollout of the new Act, Viksit Bharat
- Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act. 

 

Yesterday (June 28), I was at a designated MGNREGA worksite in an adivasi
village of Barapala in Udaipur district Rajasthan interacting with the
workers who were predominantly women. Rajasthan has special summer timings
because of the heat. For four hours, from 6.30 am till 10 am, scores of
women waited for the online official attendance site to open. But despite
repeated efforts, the connection was not available and the "mate" in charge
had to finally declare there could be no work that day. This, I was told, is
a common occurrence. 

 

>From December last year when MGNREGA was scrapped, even though Parliament
was assured that work would continue till the new law was implemented, these
women workers have got only 18 days of work from January till June. At least
12 elderly women workers said the biometric face recognition had excluded
them as their eyes could not be captured by the technology. I met several
workers across the adivasi villages in Udaipur district. All had the same
complaint. The scrapping of MGNREGA has been disastrous for the rural poor.

 

The reason I give you these details is because your Ministry has published a
set of eight Rules for the implementation of the VB-GRAMG Act on May 22
without any consultation with rural and MGNREGA workers' organisations and
unions. Perhaps if they had been consulted, the very real problems I have
described above would have been addressed by the Rules. On the contrary, it
is a matter of great concern that the Rules go a step further than even the
flawed VB-GRAMG law in excluding the voice of the workers and their real
problems. 

 

The first question that arises is whether the Rules are in violation of
Article 258 of the Constitution which deals with laws which "confers or
imposes" duties on the states. The VB-GRAMG law "imposes" not only duties
but also financial burdens without consultation, leave alone agreement of
the state governments. Sub-section (3) of the said article states: "Where by
virtue of this article powers and duties have been conferred or imposed upon
a State or officers or authorities thereof, there shall be paid by the
Government of India to the State such sum as may be agreed, or, in default
of agreement, as may be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Chief
Justice of India, in respect of any extra costs of administration incurred
by the State in connection with the exercise of those powers and duties."
The Rules not just impose duties but deny the states any role whatsoever in
decision making. This is a critical question which I request you to respond
to.

 

The Rules reflect (1) extreme concentration of all decision making in the
hands of the union government (2) are an assault on the federal nature of
the constitution by denying state governments any say in the implementation
of the law except what is decreed by the union government (3) prescribe
"objective" parameters for fund allocation which are neither objective nor
fair (4) rely excessively on technology (5) lay out no parameters for wage
fixation. 

 

Apart from the constitutional issue I will elaborate some of the major
issues which I request you to consider:

 

Normative Allocation (Rule 396 E): The law has already changed a demand
driven law to one dependent on fund allocation of which only 60 per cent is
to be paid by the union government. But the Rules (396 E) go one step
further by setting in place a framework of rank discrimination against
workers depending on where they reside. What else can be said when the Rules
state that the criteria for allocation will be the "horizontal devolution as
recommended by the Sixteenth Finance Commission and accepted by the
Government of India." This measures how far a State's per capita GSDP falls
short of the wealthiest States which is given a weightage of over 42.5 per
cent. The next highest weightage is given to population (17.5%), benefiting
larger States. What have these criteria to do with rural workers demanding
work under the law? 

 

Southern states have a lower population. Yet they have been providing the
highest number of average days of work. For example the state of Kerala had
provided an average of 66 days of work a year, much higher than the national
average. However given the 17 per cent weightage to population, Kerala will
be deprived of funds. Tamilnadu is among the top five states as far as GSDP
is concerned. Yet it has the highest number of active MGNREGA workers. Facts
show that the criteria of the Sixteenth Finance Commission has no relevance
to the demand for work. States which have a high GSDP and a low population
will get less funds. Moreover the Rules state that a portion of the
allocations will be given as "reward" for better performance. Is the right
to work to be held hostage to the efficiency or inefficiency of state
governments as decided by the union government? The entire criteria of
normative allocation is highly objectionable, discriminatory and requires
immediate reconsideration.

 

"Excess Expenditure" (Rule 403E): It is equally objectionable that the Rules
refer to the decision of a state to allocate more funds for the provision of
work in a most derogatory way as "excess expenditure." In fact it is the
union government which is guilty of "excess expenditure" to subsidise
corporates through tax exemptions and "under expenditure" for the rural
working poor. What a state government wants to spend is its concern.
However, the Rules mandatorily link expenditure of the state to the central
financial monitoring system. This is an example of assault on the rights of
a state government to expand and innovate through its own funds, on the
right to work. 

 

Manner of Payment of Wages (402 E) and Workers Identity (397 E): The Rules
are conspicuously silent on any discussion on the actual fixation of wage
rates, the mandatory timeline for increase in wages, the linkage with price
index and so on. It only mentions the "manner of payment," which is based
not on rural reality, but a projection of the so-called technologically
developed India. It is unfair and unjust to insist on individual based
online registration of workers. This can take, on a good day when internet
is available, between one to three hours. Will wages include this time or is
the time of rural workers of no value? There are other ways to ensure
registration of attendance. Why should workers be punished for the
dishonesty of officials? The entire method is based on an elitist
understanding that technology is automatically equated with justice.
Experience of lakhs of MGNREGA workers prove this is untrue. According to
the law, wages are piece rated. However the productivity norms are often
completely arbitrary and so high that make it impossible for a worker to
earn the basic minimum wage. The Rules must ensure regular time-use surveys
so as to decide a doable norm. Since women make up a large percentage of
workers on these sites, this is all the more necessary to prevent the loot
of female manual labour. 

 

In Rule (397 E) it is said that during the transitional stage existing job
cards which are e-KYC verified and Aadhaar seeded can be used. This again is
unthinking and unfair. It means that around 44 per cent of active workers
will be denied work. The RD Ministry has stated that just over half, 56 per
cent, have e-KYC verification. e-KYC verification requires technological
tools including a smart phone which many rural workers may not have. If a
worker has other identity proof it is entirely incorrect to insist on such
verification.

 

National Level Steering Committee (397 E) Central Council (399 E): The Rules
create an NLSC which is nothing but a bureaucratic body nominated by the
union government with minimum representation from the states - just five
members - and none at all from worker's representatives or any stake
holders. Even the Ministries chosen show the insensitive nature of this
exercise. Whereas 18 per cent of all workers are ST and 17 per cent are SC,
over 50 per cent are women none of these Ministries are represented. The
Ministry of Tribal Affairs, the Ministry of Social Justice and that of Women
are excluded. Though the states are paying 40 per cent of the cost, they
have been treated most unfairly with only five representatives. This is like
the union government telling the state governments: it is your
responsibility to share the cost but our right to take decisions. 

 

The Central Council formed has included "non-official" members, and
representatives of ST, SC and women etc. However the Council itself has no
rights. It can make recommendations which will be placed before Parliament
but these are not binding. 

 

It is ironical that a set of Rules ostensibly drafted to ensure transparency
and control corruption has no separate body for social audit or any
independent authority. The task of social audit or "oversight" cannot be
left to government appointed bureaucrats. It must be an independent body
with full authority. This is not there in the Rules published so far.

 

The top heavy, bureaucratic nature of the entire exercise is underlined by
the total lack of recognition in the Rules of the rights of panchayats and
their voice in decision making.

 

For all these reasons, the Rules need to be withdrawn. The MGNREGA should
remain in operation. To repeal it on July 1st as planned will be a most
cruel blow to the rural working people of our country.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Brinda Karat

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cpim.org/pipermail/marxistindia_cpim.org/attachments/20260629/93351ca6/attachment.html>