Editorial

The nationwide rollout of the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) — VB-G RAM G — on July 1, 2026, marks a significant overhaul of India’s rural employment landscape. Replacing the two-decade-old Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), the new scheme promises 125 days of statutory wage employment per rural household annually, up from 100 days. Backed by a substantial central allocation and a 60:40 Centre-State funding model (90:10 for northeastern and Himalayan states), it seeks to align employment generation with durable asset creation, livelihoods, and infrastructure under the broader Viksit Bharat vision.

This reform arrives at a critical juncture. Rural distress, uneven monsoon patterns, and the need for skill-aligned jobs have long tested MGNREGA’s efficacy. VB-G RAM G addresses some limitations by emphasising productive outcomes — integrating with the National Rural Infrastructure Stack, promoting digital monitoring, and prioritising water conservation, roads, and farm-related assets. The existing job cards remain valid, ensuring continuity, while the 15-day work guarantee and direct benefit transfers aim to reduce delays and leakages. Proponents argue it strengthens rural demand, boosts consumption, and supports India’s journey towards developed-nation status by 2047.

Yet, the launch has not been without scepticism. Several farm workers’ unions and activists have launched protests, demanding repeal or further enhancements, citing inadequate workdays relative to actual needs and potential wage burdens on states. Reports indicate that while 19 states and UTs have notified the scheme, concerns persist about fiscal implications for fiscally weaker states and the risk of uneven implementation. Critics also question whether the shift from a rights-based demand-driven model to one with greater emphasis on “normative budgets” and infrastructure might sideline the most vulnerable during lean agricultural seasons.

The success of VB-G RAM G will hinge on robust execution. States must proactively identify projects, ensure timely payments, and converge with schemes like PMGSY, Jal Jeevan Mission, and skill development initiatives. Technology can play a pivotal role in transparency, but ground-level capacity building — from gram panchayats to district administrations — remains essential. Monitoring mechanisms should track not just person-days generated but also quality of assets and livelihood outcomes.

In essence, VB-G RAM G represents a pragmatic evolution rather than a radical departure. By increasing guaranteed days and linking employment to tangible rural development, it has the potential to reduce distress migration, enhance resilience, and fuel inclusive growth. However, addressing implementation gaps, ensuring wage adequacy, and fostering genuine state buy-in will determine whether it truly transforms rural India or becomes another scheme mired in bureaucratic hurdles. As the scheme beds down, the government must remain responsive to feedback. Rural prosperity demands not just more days of work, but meaningful, sustainable opportunities. The nation will be watching closely.

The recent appeal by over 100 prominent voices from India and Pakistan, including veteran politicians Farooq Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti, for renewed confidence-building measures (CBMs) has once again thrust the complex India-Pakistan relationship into the spotlight. The letter underscores the need for dialogue to address longstanding issues, prevent escalation, and foster people-to-people ties. It comes against the backdrop of heightened regional tensions, cross-border incidents, and the enduring shadow of terrorism. Predictably, the BJP has responded firmly: peace cannot be one-sided, and talks cannot resume without a decisive end to terrorism sponsored from Pakistani soil.

This polarisation reflects a familiar pattern. For decades, India has maintained that terrorism is the core obstacle to meaningful engagement. The scars of Pulwama, Pathankot, Uri, and multiple ceasefire violations run deep. New Delhi’s position — no dialogue under the shadow of the gun — enjoys broad domestic consensus, especially after the abrogation of Article 370 and the integration of Jammu and Kashmir. The government argues that Pakistan must dismantle terror infrastructure, prosecute perpetrators, and demonstrate sincerity through verifiable action rather than mere rhetoric.

Yet, the appeal for dialogue is not without merit. Proponents highlight the human and economic costs of perpetual hostility: divided families, stalled trade, military expenditure draining resources that could address poverty and climate challenges, and the risk of miscalculation in a nuclear neighbourhood. In an era of global realignments, reduced tensions could open avenues for regional cooperation on water sharing, Afghanistan stability, and connectivity. Track-II diplomacy and voices from civil society, business, and moderate political quarters often serve as safety valves, preventing complete breakdown of communication.

However, good intentions must confront harsh realities. Pakistan’s internal political instability, its military-jihadi nexus, and continued support — overt or covert — to groups targeting India erode trust. Recent history shows that goodwill gestures have often been met with renewed infiltration or propaganda. Any dialogue must therefore be predicated on concrete deliverables: ending cross-border terrorism, dismantling terror camps, and respecting the sanctity of the Line of Control.

India’s approach of “terror and talks cannot go together” has yielded strategic dividends — international isolation of Pakistan on terror financing, strengthened global counter-terror coalitions, and focused domestic development in Kashmir. Yet, strategic patience should not translate into permanent disengagement. Backchannel communications and issue-specific discussions (trade, visas, environment) can continue without compromising core security interests.

Ultimately, sustainable peace requires Pakistan to make a strategic choice against terrorism as state policy. Until then, India must prioritise national security while keeping diplomatic doors ajar for genuine reconciliation. The appeal by prominent voices is a reminder that dialogue remains a long-term necessity, but only when conditions are ripe. Rushing into talks without addressing the terror ecosystem risks repeating past failures and emboldening hardliners on both sides. Prudence, firmness, and calibrated engagement — not emotion — must guide policy.

• SAS Kirmani