1. Change for the Worse: On the Repeal of MGNREGA
The Hindu Editorial Analysis: 800 Words
Context: The passage of the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB-G RAM G) Bill, 2025, which repeals the 20-year-old Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).
I. The Dismantling of a Rights-Based Architecture
- From Entitlement to Mission: The core of the editorial’s critique is that MGNREGA was a “Right to Work” (Article 41). By rebranding it as a “Mission,” the state shifts from a legal guarantor to a welfare provider.
- Death of Demand-Driven Work: MGNREGA’s strength was that it was legally mandatory for the government to provide work within 15 days of demand. The new Bill introduces budgetary caps. Once the year’s budget is used up, the “guarantee” effectively ends, turning a legal right into a “budget-dependent favor.”
- The Problem of Nomenclature: The editorial notes that removing “Mahatma Gandhi” from the name is not just symbolic. It signifies a move away from the Gram Swaraj philosophy—where local panchayats decided the work—to a centralized, top-down “Viksit Bharat” model.
II. Federalism and the Fiscal Burden
- The 60:40 “Poison Pill”: Under MGNREGA, the Centre paid 100% of unskilled wages. The new Act shifts this to a 60:40 fund-sharing ratio. For poor states like Bihar or Odisha, this 40% share is an unbearable fiscal burden, likely leading to a reduction in the number of jobs offered.
- Undermining State Autonomy: Decisions regarding “which work to permit” are now centralized in a National Technical Bureau. This takes power away from the Gram Sabhas, which best understand local irrigation or soil needs.
III. Technological Exclusion and Digital Gatekeeping
- The “Biometric Barrier”: The Bill mandates Agentic AI for work monitoring and Aadhaar-based payments. The editorial points to the “silent exclusion” of millions who live in “shadow zones” with poor connectivity.
- Algorithmic Wage Theft: If the AI fails to tag a worker’s location, their wages are automatically denied. The Bill lacks a “Human-in-the-Loop” fallback, making the poorest citizens victims of tech glitches.
IV. Critical Conclusion & Way Forward
- The Productivity vs. Survival Debate: The government claims the new Bill builds “durable assets.” However, during droughts, a laborer needs immediate cash, not a long-term asset.
- Recommendation: Restore the Demand-Driven Guarantee. If the government truly wants a “Viksit Bharat,” it cannot start by starving the rural foundation.
- Way Forward: A National Employment Allowance must be triggered if the 60:40 funding leads to delays in wage payments.
2. Naval Piracy or Policy?: On the U.S. Blockade of Venezuela
The Hindu Editorial Analysis: 800 Words
Context: U.S. President Donald Trump’s designation of the Venezuelan government as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” and the enforcement of a total naval blockade.
I. The Erosion of International Maritime Law
- Unilateralism over Multilateralism: The editorial argues that a naval blockade without a UN Security Council resolution is a violation of the UNCLOS (Law of the Sea). It brands this as “Naval Piracy” sanctioned by a state.
- The “Terrorist” Label as a Tool: By labeling a sovereign government a terrorist group, the U.S. creates a legal loophole to seize private tankers in international waters, a move that threatens the principle of “Freedom of Navigation.”
II. Impact on Global Energy and the Global South
- Energy Security for India: India is a top buyer of Venezuelan crude. A blockade forces India to buy more expensive U.S. shale or Middle Eastern oil, worsening India’s Current Account Deficit (CAD).
- The Humanitarian Cost: Venezuela relies on oil exports to buy food and medicine. A blockade is essentially a “siege” on 28 million civilians. The editorial critiques the West for using “starvation as a diplomatic weapon.”
III. The Strategic Trap for “Middle Powers”
- Secondary Sanctions: The U.S. has threatened to sanction any country (including India) that trades with Venezuela. This tests India’s Strategic Autonomy.
- Weaponization of Finance: The move to cut Venezuela off from the global maritime insurance market shows how deeply the U.S. can weaponize the global financial infrastructure.
IV. Way Forward
- International Court of Justice (ICJ) Intervention: Affected nations should seek a ruling on the legality of seizing tankers in international waters.
- India’s Stance: New Delhi should lead a BRICS+ coalition to create an “Alternative Maritime Insurance Pool” that is not dependent on Western systems.
