The Politics Behind VB G-RAM-G Bill

Why tighter controls threaten local political machines across opposition
states.

Job cards have become instruments of local power. The drama in Parliament
isn’t about workers—it’s about middlemen losing their cut.

When West Bengal’s chief minister dramatically ripped up her copy of the
VB-GRAMG Bill, she claimed to defend rural workers. The bill she destroyed
offers 125 days of guaranteed work—25 more than MGNREGA ever promised.
Mallikarjun Kharge called the reform “systematic murder.” The Communist
Party demanded withdrawal. But here’s the thing: none of them addressed the
numbers that make this fight necessary.

Let’s talk about what MGNREGA actually delivers. A University of
California, San Diego study found 41% of officially listed households in
Bihar had never worked—ghost beneficiaries on paper, collecting wages that
went elsewhere. The CAG’s 2013 audit documented 4.33 lakh job cards with
missing photographs, enabling systematic impersonation. The programme
spends roughly five rupees for every one rupee that reaches the poor.

The government’s own data from 2024-25 shows ₹193.67 crore in documented
misappropriation. Monitoring across 23 states found works “not found or not
commensurate with expenditure.” Meanwhile, ₹12,219 crore in wages sits
unpaid—money owed to workers but stuck in a system that can’t even
guarantee timely payment.

Now watch what the VB-GRAMG Bill actually mandates: biometric
authentication for every transaction, GPS and satellite monitoring of work
sites, AI-enabled fraud detection, and weekly public disclosures. The
opposition calls this “surveillance.” A more accurate description is that
ghost workers become harder to maintain, fictitious work sites harder to
claim, and embezzlement harder to hide.



Consider West Bengal’s position. The TMC claims ₹51,627 crore in unpaid
dues from the Centre. That’s not just an accounting dispute—it’s a number
that reveals the scale of claims being made. States with endemic
implementation problems could attract more central funds precisely because
the Centre bore 100% of wage costs. The worse your administration, the more
money you could demand.

The 60:40 funding split changes this calculus entirely. When states must
fund 40% of programme costs, their bureaucracies suddenly have reason to
ensure expenditure is genuine. Gram panchayats that allocated work to
political supporters now face biometric verification. Middlemen who
extracted their cut from every transaction now face real-time GPS tracking.

This is why the rhetoric focuses on “federalism” and “rights” rather than
implementation. The substantive ground is unfavourable. India’s Direct
Benefit Transfer architecture has already proven what’s possible—cumulative
savings of ₹3.48 lakh crore since 2009, with 9.2 crore fake or duplicate
beneficiaries eliminated from government rolls. The Welfare Efficiency
Index improved from 0.32 in 2014 to 0.91 in 2023.

The opposition’s framing assumes MGNREGA as implemented deserves
protection. But only 7.61% of enrolled households actually complete 100
workdays. The average hovers around 50-60 days. The legally guaranteed
entitlement is, for most participants, a theoretical construct while
administrative costs and leakages impose real economic costs.

The VB-GRAMG Bill is imperfect. Its normative allocation system needs
careful calibration. Its technology mandates require flexibility for areas
with poor connectivity. But the core logic is sound: accountability
mechanisms free resources for real workers by eliminating fake ones. The
question isn’t whether MGNREGA should change—it’s whether the opposition’s
real objection is to reform itself, or to losing control of the patronage
machine that reform threatens.

K Rajaram IRS 201225

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoo%2BStUcSr83fVniU3WoaL6%3D6fRcYnqGeH4Y%3D4nBATS43A%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to