Union Budget 2026: Activists slam allocation for rural jobs schemes

Civil society groups and rural employment activists have criticised the Union Budget’s allocations for rural job schemes, alleging that the government has offered little clarity on the transition from the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) to the new Viksit Bharat‑Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB‑GRAMG) framework, and that the promised 125 days of employment cannot be financed with the outlay provided.

The Budget has earmarked ₹95,692.31 crore for VB‑GRAMG and ₹30,000 crore for MGNREGS, taking the combined allocation for the two rural employment heads to ₹1,25,692.31 crore, which the government has projected as a 43% increase over the Revised Estimate (RE) of ₹88,000 crore for MGNREGS in 2025‑26.

However, Nikhil Dey, founder member of the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) and a key architect of MGNREGS, said the Budget “creates confusion about the transition to the new law and its real implications.” He argued that the ₹30,000 crore provision for MGNREGS is particularly opaque. “While it has not been made clear what the ₹30,000 crores allocation to MGNREGA is meant to fund,” he said, adding it may be used either to clear liabilities and wind down the programme or to run a short transition period.

Mr. Dey contended that even a transition cushion appears unlikely because of pending dues and near‑term spending. “There are current dues of about ₹15,000 crore. Additionally, there is likely to be an expenditure of about 15000 crores in the next two months. Therefore, the MGNREGA ₹30,000 crore allocation seems to have no relevance for next year,” he said.

Mr. Dey flagged unresolved operational questions, including when MGNREGA will formally end, when its repeal will be notified, when VB-G RAMG will start, and when its guidelines—especially on cost‑sharing and state‑wise normative allocations—will be brought into effect”. He warned that States are being forced to budget “in the dark” without knowing their required 40% share until the Centre discloses allocations. “On paper, the Centre appears to have completed its role by fixing its budget share, but has left major implementation and funding burdens on States, making the actual functioning of VB-GRAMG highly uncertain,” he said.

The NREGA Sangarsh Morcha (NSM), a coalition of organisations working with MGNREGS workers, echoed those concerns. “The Budget speech and documents aggravate the Modi Government’s lack of transparency on VB‑GRAMG,” it said, pointing out that the Finance Minister’s 90‑minute Budget speech did not mention either MGNREGS or VB‑GRAMG and the Budget documents provided “no indication whatsoever of where and when VB‑GRAMG is to be notified, what the state‑wise ‘normative allocations’ are likely to be, or how the transition is to take place.”

NSM described the 125‑day guarantee claim as untenable at current funding levels. “The 125‑day promise of the VB‑GRAMG Bill is nothing but an eyewash. The budget allocation is a mere 42% of what will be required actually to finance this guarantee,” it said, estimating that to provide 125 days of work even to active households, the total outlay would need to be about ₹3.84 lakh crore, with the Centre’s share at roughly ₹2.3 lakh crore. It added that if the Centre’s VB‑GRAMG figure is treated as a 60% share, the total programme envelope would be about ₹1.59 lakh crore, which could translate to only around 52 days of work for active households, far below the promised 125.

Activists warned that without clear transition rules, timely disclosure of State‑wise norms, and adequate funding, rural workers could face uncertainty over job availability and payment timelines during the shift to the new regime.