The Centre’s proposed legislation to replace the rural employment guarantee scheme MGNREGA triggered sharp exchanges in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday, as opposition parties accused the government of attempting
to “weaken” a landmark welfare law and questioned the “obsession with renaming schemes”. The debate led to a strong pushback from the Treasury Benches as the Bill was taken up for discussion, with Union minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan saying, “Mahatma Gandhi-ji lives in our hearts”.
Leading the Opposition’s attack, Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra described the proposed Viksit Bharat Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill, 2025 as an effort to centralise authority while transferring the financial burden to the states. She argued that legislation of such significance should not be enacted based on “somebody’s whim, ambition and prejudice”.
Criticising what she called the government’s “obsession” with renaming schemes, Gandhi said the VB-G RAM G Bill dilutes the rights guaranteed under MGNREGA, which provides a legal guarantee of 100 days of wage employment to rural households annually.
Opposing the Bill under Rule 72(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha, Gandhi said: “MGNREGA has been successful in providing livelihood to rural India and strengthening the rural economy for 20 years. This is such a revolutionary law that when it was brought, all political parties in Parliament supported it. This provides 100 days of employment in a year to the poorest of the poor in this country.”
She added: “I don’t understand this obsession with changing the name. It involves a lot of expenditure. I don’t understand why they are doing it unnecessarily. Secondly, under MGNREGA, a right was provided, the right to 100 days of employment for the poorest of the poor. And this Bill will weaken that right. The way they have added two or three things in this Bill, it seems from the outside that they have increased the number of days. Have you increased the wages?”
Terming the proposed law an attempt to “weaken the system”, the Congress MP said: “Our basic Constitution rights are being depleted. This is against the basic tenets of Panchayati Raj as well. States are reeling under the pressure of financial burden but this Bill will give more power to the Centre and less responsibility.”
Gandhi also responded to a remark from the Treasury Benches referring to her family, saying: “Mahatma Gandhi is not from my family, but he is like my family member and the entire country feels the same way.”
Backing her position, senior Congress leader Shashi Tharoor criticised the government’s move using a poetic refrain, saying: “Dekho deewano ye kaam na karo, Ram ka naam badnam na karo.”
Other Opposition parties joined the criticism, with the Trinamool Congress objecting to the removal of Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the scheme and raising concerns about the financial implications for states. “Ram is revered by all, but I am more against the removal of Gandhi’s name. Also, the state will have to cough up 40 per cent of funds,” said TMC MP Saugata Roy, as he demanded that the Bill be referred to a select committee.
