Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has strongly criticised the renaming of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), saying the move strips the rural employment programme of its core essence. His remarks came after Parliament cleared the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill, also referred to as the VB-G RAM G Bill.

Speaking to media, Tharoor said the decision to remove Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the scheme “takes out the heart” of the rural employment programme that has been in place for years. He noted that the identity and philosophy associated with Mahatma Gandhi were central to the original law.

Tharoor also objected to the way the new name was framed, arguing that it unnecessarily combined multiple languages. He pointed out that the Constitution envisages the use of one language in legislation, while the Bill’s title mixes English and Hindi terms such as “Guarantee”, “Rozgar” and “Ajeevika”, along with the conjunction “and”.

‘Disrespect to both names’

The Congress leader said that inserting the word “Ram” while dropping Mahatma Gandhi’s name amounted to disrespecting both. Referring to Mahatma Gandhi’s ideas, Tharoor said that for Gandhi, the concepts of Gram Swaraj and Ram Rajya were inseparable, and removing his name from a rural employment law went against that vision.

He added that the name of Lord Ram could be used in many contexts, but questioned the rationale behind excluding Mahatma Gandhi from a programme closely linked to his philosophy of village self-rule.

Protests over passage of the Bill

The VB-G RAM G Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on December 18 and cleared by the Rajya Sabha in the early hours of December 19 amid protests from Opposition members. Several MPs opposed the manner in which the legislation was pushed through, with scenes of sloganeering and tearing of papers in the House.

Outside Parliament, members of the Trinamool Congress staged a sit-in protest near Samvidhan Sadan against the passage of the Bill. Congress also announced nationwide protests earlier this week, accusing the government of weakening rights-based welfare schemes.

Despite opposition criticism, the government has maintained that the new law will strengthen rural employment and livelihood security. The Bill raises the guaranteed employment from 100 days to 125 days per rural household and outlines a 60:40 cost-sharing formula between the Centre and states, with a higher central share for northeastern, Himalayan states and certain Union Territories.

Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi has launched a sharp attack on the Modi government after Parliament cleared the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Employment and Livelihood Mission (Rural) Bill, commonly referred to as the ‘G RAM G’ bill. He described the proposed law as “anti-state” and “anti-village”, arguing that it weakens the core spirit of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).

The new legislation, which is positioned as an updated version of MGNREGA, was passed amid protests by opposition parties and is expected to replace the existing scheme once it receives presidential assent.

‘Bulldozed without scrutiny’, says Rahul Gandhi

Rahul Gandhi criticised the manner in which the bill was cleared, saying it was pushed through Parliament without adequate debate or examination. He pointed out that the opposition’s demand to refer the bill to a standing committee was rejected.

According to him, any law that fundamentally alters the rural employment framework and affects crores of workers should undergo detailed scrutiny, expert consultation and public hearings before approval.

Claim of dilution of rights-based guarantee

Targeting the central government, the Congress leader said the proposed law dismantles the rights-based and demand-driven nature of MGNREGA and replaces it with a rationed system controlled from Delhi. He argued that this shift undermines the autonomy of states and villages.

Rahul Gandhi alleged that the intent behind the move is to centralise power and weaken labour, particularly impacting rural communities such as Dalits, OBCs and Adivasis.

Defence of MGNREGA’s impact

Highlighting the role of MGNREGA, Gandhi said the scheme provided rural workers with bargaining power, reduced distress migration and improved wages and working conditions, while also contributing to rural infrastructure development.

He also recalled the role of MGNREGA during the Covid period, stating that it prevented crores of people from slipping into hunger and debt. According to him, any rationing of a jobs programme first affects women, landless workers and the poorest communities.

Opposition to name change and provisions

The Congress has also objected to the renaming of the scheme, accusing the government of attempting to erase the legacy associated with Mahatma Gandhi. Opposition MPs staged a dharna within the Parliament complex, questioning provisions of the bill that they claim dilute the “soul and spirit” of the original law enacted in 2005.

Under MGNREGA, the government guaranteed 100 days of work in rural areas along with an unemployment allowance if work was not provided. The ‘G RAM G’ bill proposes to raise the guaranteed workdays to 125, while retaining other provisions. However, critics have flagged concerns over employment being linked to pre-approved plans.

The bill was cleared after a midnight voice vote in the Rajya Sabha, following its passage in the Lok Sabha amid protests and walkouts. It will become law once approved by the President.

Parliament has cleared the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Employment and Livelihood Mission (Rural) Bill, commonly referred to as the G RAM G Bill, paving the way for the replacement of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). The legislation was passed within two days amid sharp political confrontation, walkouts and overnight protests by opposition parties.

The bill was approved by the Lok Sabha despite repeated disruptions and protests. In the Rajya Sabha, the debate stretched beyond midnight, with voting held around 12.15 am. The bill was eventually passed by a voice vote after opposition members staged a walkout, leaving the ruling alliance members present in the House.

Opposition objects to name change and provisions

The Congress and other opposition parties mounted a strong challenge to the bill, objecting both to the change in the scheme’s name and its revised framework. A key point of contention was the removal of Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the legislation, which opposition leaders said reflected an ideological shift rather than a policy necessity.

Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge launched a sharp attack during the Rajya Sabha debate, urging the government to withdraw the bill and warning that it would harm the rural poor. He accused the government of speaking in the name of welfare while undermining the interests of vulnerable communities, making an emotional appeal to reconsider the legislation.

Several opposition members initially demanded that the bill be referred to a standing committee for detailed scrutiny. When that demand was not accepted, they called for the bill’s withdrawal and later staged a walkout. Members of the Trinamool Congress and other parties subsequently sat on a dharna within Parliament premises.

Heated exchanges in the Upper House

The debate witnessed intense exchanges between the treasury benches and the opposition. Trinamool Congress MP Derek O’Brien linked the passage of the bill with developments in West Bengal, alleging that the Centre’s actions had consequences for the implementation of rural employment schemes in the state. He also referred to the state government’s decision to rename its employment initiative following the Lok Sabha vote.

As Rural Development Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan rose to reply, opposition members raised slogans demanding the withdrawal of what they termed a “black bill”. When the protests continued, opposition MPs walked out, allowing the bill to be passed without their presence.

Responding sharply, Chouhan criticised the walkout and accused the opposition of refusing to engage in debate. He defended the government’s move, arguing that the earlier scheme had suffered from corruption and inefficiencies, and said the new law was drafted after consultations with stakeholders.

Government defends overhaul of rural employment scheme

The government has maintained that updating the two-decade-old MGNREGA framework was necessary to address structural shortcomings and align it with current rural needs. According to the provisions outlined, the new law increases the guaranteed days of work from 100 to 125 while retaining key elements of the earlier scheme.

However, critics have pointed out that employment under the new framework will be based on pre-approved plans rather than demand-driven applications at the gram panchayat level. The work categories have also been streamlined into four segments—water security, core rural infrastructure, livelihood-related assets, and climate resilience—raising concerns that local flexibility may be reduced.

Opposition leaders have argued that these changes dilute the original spirit of MGNREGA, which was designed as a rights-based, demand-driven employment guarantee programme.

Protests continue after passage

Following the bill’s passage, opposition parties reiterated their charge that the legislation weakens the guarantee, livelihood assurance and social security that formed the core of the original programme introduced in 2005. Despite these objections, the government’s numerical strength ensured the bill’s smooth passage through both Houses.

With parliamentary approval now secured, the G RAM G Bill is set to replace MGNREGA, marking a significant shift in India’s rural employment policy framework amid continuing political debate.