{"id":79533,"date":"2025-12-25T12:40:43","date_gmt":"2025-12-25T07:10:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/?p=79533"},"modified":"2025-12-25T12:40:43","modified_gmt":"2025-12-25T07:10:43","slug":"daily-editorial-analysis-25-december-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/daily-editorial-analysis-25-december-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Daily Editorial Analysis 25 December 2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><strong>The Deliberate Unmaking of India\u2019s \u2018Right to Work\u2019<\/strong><\/h2>\n<h3><strong>Context<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The replacement of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) with the Viksit Bharat\u2013Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, 2025 marks a decisive transformation in India\u2019s welfare regime.<\/li>\n<li>Enacted in 2005, MGNREGA established a demand-driven, legally enforceable guarantee of employment for rural citizens.<\/li>\n<li>The new law overturns this framework, replacing entitlement with discretion and decentralised implementation with centralised authority.<\/li>\n<li>This transition represents a <strong>fundamental ideological redefinition of welfare<\/strong>, altering the relationship between the state and its most vulnerable citizens.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Background: The Origins and Significance of MGNREGA<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>MGNREGA emerged from the contradictions of post-liberalisation India, where economic growth failed to generate adequate employment or livelihood security.<\/li>\n<li>Persistent agrarian distress, jobless growth, and widening inequalities exposed the limits of market-led development.<\/li>\n<li>In response, the United Progressive Alliance introduced a rights-based legislative framework that included the Right to Information Act and the Forest Rights Act.<\/li>\n<li>MGNREGA stood at the centre of this framework. It recognised <strong>Employment as a legally enforceable right<\/strong>, affirming that political equality requires material security.<\/li>\n<li>Rather than rejecting liberalisation, the programme sought to mitigate its social costs by embedding enforceable entitlements within governance.<\/li>\n<li>Employment was treated as the most dignified and effective form of social protection in an economy dominated by informal labour.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Structural Changes under the VB-G RAM G Act<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The VB-G RAM G Act reverses the defining principle of guaranteed employment.<\/li>\n<li>By shifting from a demand-driven to a supply-driven model, it grants the Centre decisive authority over allocations, scope, and implementation.<\/li>\n<li>Work becomes contingent on administrative approval rather than citizen demand, reinforcing the <strong>centralisation of power and discretion<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>The revised funding structure deepens this shift. The Centre\u2013State cost-sharing ratio has changed from 90:10 to 60:40, transferring substantial financial responsibility to States without corresponding fiscal support.<\/li>\n<li>Many poorer States may struggle to meet these obligations, compelling them to curtail project approvals and suppress employment generation.<\/li>\n<li>This combination of fiscal decentralisation and administrative centralisation undermines both federal balance and programme viability.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Ideological and Political Dimensions<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The repeal of MGNREGA represents a deliberate ideological break.<\/li>\n<li>The removal of Mahatma Gandhi\u2019s name severs the programme from a moral legacy grounded in justice, dignity, and the upliftment of the poorest.<\/li>\n<li>This symbolic shift aligns with a broader political economy that prioritises market imperatives and corporate interests.<\/li>\n<li>Rights-based welfare schemes empower workers, decentralise authority, and institutionalise claims on the state.<\/li>\n<li>Such features conflict with governance models that favour executive discretion and market dominance.<\/li>\n<li>Discretionary welfare reframes social protection as benevolence, depoliticising structural inequality and transforming welfare into an instrument of political loyalty rather than social justice.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Democratic and Legislative Implications<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The legislative trajectory of the VB-G RAM G Act contrasts sharply with that of MGNREGA.<\/li>\n<li>While MGNREGA was enacted with unanimous parliamentary support, the 2025 Act was rushed through Parliament amid Opposition walkouts and without scrutiny by a Parliamentary Standing Committee.<\/li>\n<li>The absence of consultation with affected communities further underscores the <strong>erosion of democratic accountability<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>Restrictions on public protest and the procedural hurdles imposed on dissent highlight a shrinking civic space.<\/li>\n<li>Long-standing rights can be dismantled swiftly, while opposition is delayed through bureaucratic regulation, weakening participatory democracy.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Broader Consequences for Social Justice and Federalism<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>MGNREGA demonstrated that large-scale welfare programmes could enhance productivity, raise rural wages, and strengthen democratic participation.<\/li>\n<li>Its nationwide reach and rights-based design converted welfare into enforceable citizenship claims.<\/li>\n<li>Its repeal, particularly after its critical role during the COVID-19 pandemic, constitutes a rollback of legal, fiscal, and institutional safeguards.<\/li>\n<li>By making livelihoods contingent on fiscal discretion, the new framework weakens constitutional commitments to <strong>dignity through work as a right<\/strong> and redefines welfare as conditional assistance rather than obligation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Conclusion<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The <strong>dismantling of MGNREGA<\/strong> marks the end of India\u2019s most ambitious experiment with rights-based welfare.<\/li>\n<li>The repeal signifies a retreat from enforceable entitlements and a reorientation toward discretionary governance.<\/li>\n<li>Beyond the fate of a single programme, it raises fundamental questions about social justice, federalism, and the future of democratic accountability in India.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>The Deliberate Unmaking of India\u2019s \u2018Right to Work\u2019 FAQs<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><strong>Q1. <\/strong>What core principle of MGNREGA was reversed by the VB-G RAM G Act?<br \/>\n<strong>Ans. <\/strong>The Act replaced the demand-driven right to employment with a supply-driven, discretionary framework.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q2. <\/strong>Why was MGNREGA significant in post-liberalisation India?<br \/>\n<strong>Ans. <\/strong>It addressed jobless growth and livelihood insecurity through a legally enforceable employment guarantee.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q3. <\/strong>How did the new funding structure affect States?<br \/>\n<strong>Ans. <\/strong>The revised cost-sharing ratio increased States\u2019 financial burden without providing adequate fiscal support.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q4.<\/strong> What ideological shift does the repeal of MGNREGA represent?<br \/>\n<strong>Ans. <\/strong>It marks a move away from rights-based welfare toward market-oriented and discretionary governance.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q5. <\/strong>How does the repeal impact democratic accountability?<br \/>\n<strong>Ans. <\/strong>It weakens participatory law-making by reducing consultation and limiting citizens\u2019 ability to assert rights.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Source: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/opinion\/lead\/the-deliberate-unmaking-of-indias-right-to-work\/article70434566.ece\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">The Hindu<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h2><strong>New Labour Codes, the Threats to Informal Workers<\/strong><\/h2>\n<h3><strong>Context<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The labour reforms enacted by the Indian government in 2019 and 2020 have faced sustained opposition from <strong>trade<\/strong> <strong>unions<\/strong> and worker collectives across the country.<\/li>\n<li>These labour reforms have generated widespread concern, particularly for <strong>unorganised<\/strong> <strong>workers<\/strong>, who form over 90% of India\u2019s workforce and contribute nearly 65% of national output.<\/li>\n<li>The new <strong>labour<\/strong> <strong>codes<\/strong>, covering wages, industrial relations, <strong>social<\/strong> <strong>security<\/strong>, and working conditions, were passed without tripartite consultation.<\/li>\n<li>Their implementation raises serious concerns about the future of worker rights and protections in India.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Background and Claims of the Labour Codes<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The Union government has justified the reforms as an attempt at <strong>consolidation<\/strong> of labour laws and expansion of social protection.<\/li>\n<li>However, the restructuring has instead resulted in the <strong>dilution<\/strong> of several sector-specific protections that previously addressed the realities of informal employment.<\/li>\n<li>Rather than strengthening safeguards, the reforms centralise authority while weakening legal mechanisms built through decades of labour struggles.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Criticism of New Labour Codes<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>\n<h4><strong>Dilution of Occupational Safety and Health Protections<\/strong><\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li>One of the most significant consequences of the reforms is the weakening of occupational safeguards under the <strong>Occupational<\/strong> <strong>Safety<\/strong> <strong>Health<\/strong> and Working Conditions framework.<\/li>\n<li>The repeal of protections governing the <strong>construction<\/strong> sector has removed detailed safety regulations despite the hazardous nature of work and high fatality rates.<\/li>\n<li>The shift from physical workplace inspections to digital systems has undermined effective <strong>inspections<\/strong>, limiting enforcement and accountability.<\/li>\n<li>This approach reduces on-ground verification and weakens compliance mechanisms essential for protecting workers in informal and high-risk settings.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<h4><strong>Neglect of Occupational Health of Informal Workers<\/strong><\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li>Informal workers face severe occupational health risks across sectors.<\/li>\n<li>Construction workers suffer from <strong>silicosis<\/strong>, agricultural labourers are exposed to carcinogenic pesticides, and salt workers experience chronic eye, skin, and kidney ailments.<\/li>\n<li>The absence of structured mechanisms for diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation leaves these workers without meaningful protection.<\/li>\n<li>Without access to formal insurance systems, occupational diseases remain unrecognised, untreated, and uncompensated, deepening health-related vulnerabilities among informal workers.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<h4><strong>Threats to Welfare Boards and Social Security<\/strong><\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li>The restructuring of social protection frameworks poses serious risks to worker <strong>welfare<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>Sector-specific funding mechanisms, including dedicated <strong>cesses<\/strong>, have been removed without viable alternatives.<\/li>\n<li>This has disrupted financial support systems for workers in mining, construction, beedi, and salt industries.<\/li>\n<li>The move towards a single welfare structure undermines existing <strong>State-level<\/strong> boards that provide pensions, maternity benefits, and educational assistance.<\/li>\n<li>These boards were designed to address sector-specific needs and have played a crucial role in supporting informal workers.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Federal Concerns and the Case of Tamil Nadu<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The reforms raise important <strong>federal<\/strong> concerns, particularly for States with long-standing welfare architectures.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Tamil<\/strong> <strong>Nadu<\/strong> has built an extensive system supporting informal workers through legislation and welfare boards developed over decades.<\/li>\n<li>The introduction of the <strong>e-Shram<\/strong> registry raises apprehensions regarding central control over accumulated welfare <strong>funds<\/strong>, estimated to be substantial.<\/li>\n<li>Such centralisation threatens State autonomy and risks diverting resources away from intended beneficiaries.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Conclusion<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The labour reforms mark a significant retreat from worker-centric protections.<\/li>\n<li>The erosion of safety standards, weakening of welfare mechanisms, and centralisation of authority have intensified worker <strong>precarity<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>Without corrective measures, these changes risk deepening inequality and insecurity among informal workers.<\/li>\n<li>Preserving State initiatives and ensuring participatory reform processes are essential to uphold worker <strong>dignity<\/strong> and long-term social justice.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>New Labour Codes, the Threats to Informal Workers FAQs<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><strong>Q1. <\/strong>Why did trade unions oppose the new labour codes?<br \/>\n<strong>Ans.<\/strong> Trade unions opposed the labour codes because they were passed without tripartite consultation and weaken existing worker protections.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q2.<\/strong> Which group of workers is most affected by the labour codes?<br \/>\n<strong>Ans.<\/strong> Unorganised workers are most affected because they form the majority of the workforce and lack strong legal safeguards.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q3.<\/strong> How did the new codes affect occupational safety regulations?<br \/>\n<strong>Ans.<\/strong> The new codes weakened occupational safety by repealing sector-specific laws and reducing effective workplace inspections.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q4.<\/strong> Why are welfare boards important for informal workers?<br \/>\n<strong>Ans.<\/strong> Welfare boards are important because they provide pensions, maternity benefits, and educational assistance tailored to sector-specific needs.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q5.<\/strong> Why is Tamil Nadu cautious about implementing the Social Security Code?<br \/>\n<strong>Ans.<\/strong> Tamil Nadu is cautious because the Code threatens its existing welfare boards and centralises control over worker welfare funds.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Source: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/opinion\/op-ed\/new-labour-codes-the-threats-to-informal-workers\/article70434603.ece\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">The Hindu<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Daily Editorial Analysis 25 December 2025 by Vajiram &#038; Ravi covers key editorials from The Hindu &#038; Indian Express with UPSC-focused insights and relevance.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":20,"featured_media":50653,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[138],"tags":[141,882,909],"class_list":{"0":"post-79533","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-daily-editorial-analysis","8":"tag-daily-editorial-analysis","9":"tag-the-hindu-editorial-analysis","10":"tag-the-indian-express-analysis","11":"no-featured-image-padding"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79533","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/20"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=79533"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79533\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/50653"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=79533"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=79533"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=79533"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}