NewKerala.com

DMK Slams Centre: How New Rural Jobs Bill Undermines Federal Rights

The DMK has launched a sharp critique of the Centre's newly passed VB-G RAM-G Bill. They argue it fundamentally weakens the guarantee of rural employment that was central to MGNREGA. The party highlights concerns over financial burdens on states and the use of central data that could exclude deserving beneficiaries. This political clash underscores a deeper tension over federal authority and social welfare priorities.

Key Points: DMK Attacks Centre Over VB-G RAM-G Bill Replacing MGNREGA

  • DMK claims the new Bill shifts from a legal right to work to employment only if available
  • Party argues 60:40 cost-sharing forces excessive financial burden onto states
  • Editorial warns using a central poverty index could deprive progressive states like Tamil Nadu
  • Provisions allowing Centre to set state job quotas are seen as an attack on federal autonomy
3 min read

'Rural job schemes weakened, federal rights undermined': DMK slams Centre for replacing MNREGA with VB-G RAM-G

DMK accuses Centre of diluting rural job guarantees and undermining federalism with the new VB-G RAM-G Bill, citing financial burdens and reduced state autonomy.

"The Bill compromises the very objective of providing assured rural employment. - DMK via 'Murasoli' editorial"

Chennai, Dec 20

Tamil Nadu’s ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) on Saturday launched a sharp attack on the BJP-led Union government over the newly passed Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill, or VB-G RAM G, accusing the Centre of diluting the fundamental spirit of rural employment guarantees and undermining federal principles.

The DMK’s criticism, articulated through an editorial in its mouthpiece 'Murasoli', argued that the controversy over removing Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the scheme was only a minor aspect of a deeper problem.

The party asserted that the Bill compromises the very objective of providing assured rural employment and opens the door to suspending or stalling the programme altogether at the Centre’s discretion.

According to the editorial, assurances of 125 days of employment are hollow, as legal provisions enable the government to halt or limit the scheme with ease.

The DMK claimed the Centre-State cost-sharing ratio of 60:40 amounted to forcing states to shoulder an excessive financial burden for a Union-mandated scheme.

The party also pointed to clauses that prevent job generation during peak agricultural seasons, arguing that such a restriction harms thousands of rural workers who are not engaged in farming.

Another major concern flagged was the decision to use the Centre’s Multidimensional Poverty Index to determine beneficiaries.

This, the DMK contended, threatens to deprive states like Tamil Nadu — which have made significant strides in reducing poverty — of rightful access to rural jobs by declaring poverty "eliminated" based on selective data.

The editorial further contended that whereas the MGNREGA legally guaranteed the right to work, the new Bill offers employment only if available, marking a shift away from a rights-based approach.

Provisions that allow the Centre to determine job quotas for each state were termed an attack on federal autonomy and a mechanism that could be used to disadvantage non-BJP-ruled states.

The DMK also criticised AIADMK leader Edappadi K Palaniswami for focusing solely on restoring Mahatma Gandhi’s name while remaining silent on broader policy changes.

Questioning his political consistency, the 'Murasoli' editorial accused Palaniswami of misleading the public in the past on issues such as the Citizenship Amendment Act and the now-repealed farm laws.

The Parliament passed the VB-G RAM G Bill earlier this week, replacing the 20-year-old MGNREGA framework. While the Centre claims the new law expands opportunities, the DMK insists it threatens to dilute rural employment guarantees and erode state authority.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

R
Rohit P
The 60:40 cost-sharing is a huge burden on states. Tamil Nadu has managed its finances well, but why should we pay more for a central scheme? This feels like punishing performing states. The federal structure is indeed being weakened.
D
David E
While I understand the concerns, maybe we should wait and see how the new scheme is implemented? The government claims it will expand opportunities. Constant political bickering helps no one, especially the rural poor who need stability.
A
Aditya G
The clause preventing jobs during peak agricultural season is illogical! Not everyone in a village is a farmer. What about landless labourers, women from weaver communities? This shows a complete disconnect from ground reality. 👎
S
Sarah B
Shifting from a right to work to "employment if available" is a fundamental downgrade. MGNREGA gave people legal recourse. This new bill seems to take that away. The poverty index point is also worrying—data can be manipulated.
K
Karthik V
The DMK is correct to call out the opposition AIADMK as well. Just fighting over Gandhi's name is political drama. The real issue is the policy change that affects crores of people. We need opposition unity on substantive matters, not symbolism.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50