Is the Akali Dal Right to Oppose the 60:40 Funding Ratio in Rural Employment Schemes?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
The Shiromani Akali Dal has voiced strong opposition to the Union government's proposed funding ratio for the MGNREGS, warning that it could severely affect rural employment and livelihood security in Punjab. They urge a return to full Central funding to protect vulnerable populations.
Key Takeaways
- Akali Dal opposes 60:40 funding ratio
- Concerns over rural employment security
- Punjab's economy at risk
- Call for 100% Central funding
- Potential impact on vulnerable communities
Chandigarh, Dec 16 (NationPress) The Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) raised alarms on Tuesday regarding the Union government's formula to establish a 60:40 funding ratio between the Centre and states for the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), part of the new Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Aajeevika Mission (Gramin) framework.
The Akali Dal articulated its strong disapproval of the proposed 60:40 cost-sharing approach, arguing that it fundamentally undermines the essence of the scheme and its primary goal of ensuring livelihood security through wage employment in the rural sector.
The party highlighted that Punjab, known for its agricultural economy and large rural labor force, would be disproportionately impacted.
“Shifting responsibilities onto the states compromises the scheme's universal reach and conflicts with the principles of cooperative federalism,” the party noted.
Consequently, the SAD urged the Centre to reconsider this initiative and revert to the original framework that provided 100% Central funding for wages.
“This would guarantee that the scheme continues to play its crucial role in alleviating rural poverty and unemployment without imposing excessive financial burdens on the states,” the party emphasized.
Looking ahead, the Akali Dal pointed out that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government in Punjab is already struggling to meet its financial commitments in various programs, causing hardships to the people, especially in healthcare.
They warned that critical initiatives, such as the Scheduled Caste Scholarship scheme, have already suffered.
“If the funding responsibility for MGNREGS falls on the Punjab government, the most vulnerable may be deprived of daily wages,” they cautioned.
Describing MGNREGS as a vital lifeline for countless rural families, particularly in challenging times, the SAD leadership indicated that the new financial demands could jeopardize the scheme's effectiveness in many regions.
“Multiple states, particularly those facing budgetary challenges, may lack the resources to cover 40% of the costs. This limitation could severely hinder their capacity to implement the program fully, thus diminishing job opportunities and leaving at-risk rural communities without necessary support,” the statement concluded.
Point of View
The concerns raised by the Shiromani Akali Dal highlight an important debate on federal funding mechanisms. While the aim to enhance employment in rural areas is crucial, the proposed funding ratio must be carefully evaluated to ensure it does not compromise the essence of the MGNREGS or further burden states like Punjab, which rely heavily on these initiatives.
NationPress
16/12/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the MGNREGS?
The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) is a social security measure that aims to guarantee at least 100 days of unskilled wage employment in a financial year to every rural household.
Why is the funding ratio controversial?
The proposed 60:40 funding ratio shifts substantial financial responsibility to states, which could undermine the scheme's effectiveness and accessibility.
How will this affect Punjab?
Punjab, with its large rural workforce, may struggle to meet its funding obligations, potentially impacting job opportunities and wage security for vulnerable populations.
What does the Akali Dal propose?
The Akali Dal urges the Centre to revert to 100% Central funding to safeguard the livelihoods of rural residents and maintain the scheme's effectiveness.
What are the broader implications of this funding change?
If implemented, the funding change could lead to reduced employment opportunities in various states, particularly those with fiscal constraints, further exacerbating rural poverty.
