The government faced fierce opposition criticism in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday after tabling a bill to replace the landmark Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) with a new scheme, triggering accusations of undermining rural employment guarantees and centralising power.
The Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill, 2025 — termed the VB-G RAM G Bill — was tabled by Union Minister for Rural Development and Agriculture, Shivraj Singh Chouhan. It proposes to provide a statutory guarantee of 125 days of wage employment per year to rural households, replacing MGNREGA’s 100-day guarantee.
Leading the opposition’s vehement protest was Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, who questioned the government’s “obsession with renaming schemes” and argued that the move strips away rights and suffocates rural employment.
“For so many years, you have been reducing funds for MGNREGA. Wherever one goes, labourers will say money has not come,” she said during the heated debate. “The right of the gram panchayat to decide where to allocate funds and where to get the work done is being snatched away. From all perspectives, we feel this bill is wrong.”
The Congress leader, representing Wayanad, Kerala, demanded that the bill be referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for deeper scrutiny and stated that the legislation was “against the essence of the Constitution.”
Countering the opposition’s claims, Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan asserted that the government not only believes in Mahatma Gandhi but follows his principles. He framed the new bill as an instrument for village development and a step toward “Ram Rajya.”
“We will realise Mahatma Gandhi’s dream and establish the Ram Rajya he dreamed of,” Chouhan said, amid continuous sloganeering from opposition MPs. He emphasised that the legislation aims to streamline processes and enhance rural employment under the broader “Viksit Bharat” vision.
The proposed legislation outlines several structural changes:
Guaranteed Days: Increases the statutory guarantee to 125 days of wage employment per financial year for rural households whose adult members volunteer for unskilled manual work.
Implementation Timeline: State governments must formulate a scheme consistent with the new law within six months of its commencement.
Funding Pattern: Alters the financial liability sharing between Centre and states:
90:10 for Northeastern and Himalayan states.
60:40 for all other states and Union Territories with a legislature.
100% Centre-funded for UTs without a legislature.
The opposition’s criticism hinges on several key concerns:
Dilution of Local Governance: Accusations that the bill centralises decision-making, eroding the power of gram panchayats in planning and approving works—a cornerstone of MGNREGA’s architecture.
Historical Underfunding: Citing years of reduced budgetary allocations and widespread delays in wage payments under MGNREGA, opponents question the government’s commitment to any employment guarantee.
Scheme Overhaul vs. Renaming: The opposition contends that the move is less about substantive improvement and more about rebranding a celebrated, Congress-era welfare scheme.
As the debate intensifies, the demand for a JPC review signals a protracted parliamentary battle over the future of India’s rural employment safety net. The government, however, remains steadfast, positioning the bill as a necessary evolution for a “Developed India.”
Leave Your Comment