Swaraj, or freedom, is never a one-way street—and the very impulse to seek the truth enjoins thorough scrutiny. Much has already been written about the new scheme that has come to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), a key feature of which was the right to demand work. This right has been extinguished under the new scheme. But to grasp MGNREGA properly, one must understand its economic and social dimensions—and its political economy. That terrain is complex, and it is not uniform across India.

In regions with scant rainfall and barely one crop a year, MGNREGA was a lifesaver. In other areas, where agriculture itself generates ample work—especially where two or three crops are harvested annually— dependence on MGNREGA as a source of employment was lower. Coincidentally, western Malwa in Madhya Pradesh has long enjoyed relatively prosperous agriculture, though even there falling groundwater levels are beginning to change the picture.

Conversations in village chaupals have thrown up some questions. First: did regions like these not need MGNREGA at all? And if so, will its withdrawal have no impact there? Should MGNREGA have been restricted only to regions where agriculture cannot sustain livelihoods? If demands for its restoration are made again, should such regional variations be factored in? Is MGNREGA merely a job-creation entitlement, or is it a deeper, transformative institutional arrangement?

MGNREGA functioned as a guarantee establishing a minimum wage for labourers—much as the minimum support price (MSP) fixes a floor for agricultural produce. That early post-Independence decision meant crops wouldn’t be sold at throwaway prices. Later, the UPA government extended support prices to minor forest produce as well, breaking the grip of middlemen and exploitative commission agents—though further reforms are still badly needed. Pulses and oilseeds are procured only up to about 25 per cent of output; grains face no........

© National Herald