MGNREGA name erased, guarantee diluted as Modi government triggers parliament revolt

The winter session of Parliament descended into chaos after the government introduced legislation to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act with a new rural jobs scheme bearing a radically different name and structure. Opposition parties stormed the Lok Sabha, accusing the BJP-led government of deliberately removing Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi’s name and dismantling the legal guarantees that made MGNREGA one of India’s most consequential welfare laws.

The bill, titled the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin), seeks to recast the rural employment framework first enacted in 2005. The government describes the move as a long-overdue overhaul to fix inefficiencies and improve asset creation. The opposition sees it as an ideological attack on Gandhi’s legacy and a retreat from the rights-based promise of guaranteed work.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi opened the debate by defending the proposed changes as modernisation rather than dismantling. That assurance failed to calm tempers, with Congress and several opposition parties alleging that the scheme’s core guarantee had been weakened under the guise of reform.

What VB-G RAM G changes in rural employment law

Under the proposed legislation, the statutory guarantee of wage employment would rise from 100 to 125 days per rural household each year. The government argues that this expansion demonstrates its commitment to rural livelihoods. Critics counter that the increase is rendered meaningless by other structural changes.

The most contentious shift is financial. The bill replaces full central funding with a centrally sponsored model, under which costs would be shared in a 60:40 ratio between the Centre and states, rising to 90:10 for north-eastern and Himalayan states. Union Territories without legislatures would continue to receive full central funding. States would also be required to bear any expenditure beyond centrally determined normative allocations.

The scheme would no longer be purely demand-driven. While MGNREGA legally obliges the state to provide work on demand, the new framework introduces budget ceilings and centralised planning. Opposition parties argue that this transforms a legal guarantee into a supply-limited programme vulnerable to fiscal tightening.

Responsibility for unemployment allowance would shift more clearly to states, payable if work is not provided within 15 days. Rates are set at no less than one-quarter of wages for the first 30 days and one-half thereafter. The government says this clarifies accountability. Critics say it offloads liabilities onto already strained state finances.

The bill also reorients permissible works towards four verticals: water security, core rural infrastructure, livelihood-linked assets and mitigation of extreme weather events. All assets would be digitally mapped on a national platform, accompanied by biometric authentication, GPS monitoring, AI-led audits and direct benefit transfers. Wages would continue to be fixed by the Centre and could not fall below existing MGNREGA rates until revised notifications are issued.

Another controversial provision bars scheme work during peak sowing and harvesting periods, ostensibly to avoid competing with farm labour demand. Opposition MPs argue this could sharply reduce employment availability in practice.

Gandhi's legacy, federalism concerns, ignite opposition fury

For the opposition, the renaming itself became a political flashpoint. Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge described the removal of Gandhi’s name as a deliberate insult to the Father of the Nation. Rahul Gandhi said the scheme “unsettles” the Prime Minister because it embodies Gandhian ideas of Gram Swaraj and decentralised empowerment.

One of the contentions of @ShashiTharoor is misplaced. Making the state government bear 40% of the VB-G RAM G’s cost is justifiable because the ruling party in every state is accused of favouring its apparatchiks while distributing such annually guaranteed employment.

The… https://t.co/d48C33V8BE

— Surajit Dasgupta (@surajitdasgupta) December 16, 2025

Priyanka Gandhi Vadra questioned the government’s fixation with renaming schemes, pointing to administrative costs and accusing the BJP of hypocrisy in invoking Gandhi symbolically while discarding his name from landmark legislation. A walkout by several opposition MPs followed her speech.

Regional and Left parties echoed these concerns. Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra warned of nationwide protests over what she called disrespect to Gandhi. CPI(M) leaders accused the Centre of cutting its own financial responsibility while devolving risks to states. Samajwadi Party MPs described the bill as an attempt to “kill” Gandhian ideals under fiscal pressure.

Federal tensions also surfaced over language. The Hindi-heavy acronym “RAM G” drew criticism from leaders in Tamil Nadu and other non-Hindi-speaking states, who argued that national schemes should avoid linguistic symbolism that alienates large parts of the country.

BJP leaders rejected these charges. Some dismissed the uproar as discomfort with the Hindi acronym rather than substantive objections. Others argued that the bill incorporates long-standing demands for better asset quality, transparency and accountability that critics themselves had raised in the past.

As the bill moves through Parliament, its fate remains uncertain. What is clear is that the proposed replacement of MGNREGA has reopened deep political fault lines over welfare, federalism and the symbolic weight of Mahatma Gandhi in India’s public policy architecture.