New Delhi: The Opposition Tuesday mounted a strong pushback against the proposed revamp of the rural job guarantee scheme—seeking to replace MGNREGA with a new law—terming the move “retrograde” and warning that it would erode the right-to-work framework established under the UPA-era legislation.
The Opposition benches in the Lok Sabha erupted in protest as Rural Development Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan sought to introduce the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB-G RAM G) Bill, 2025, which seeks to replace MGNREGA (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act).
Leading the charge in the Lower House were Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) veteran T.R. Baalu, Trinamool Congress MP Sougata Roy, Revolutionary Socialist Party’s (RSP) N.K. Premchandran, and Samajwadi Party’s Dharmendra Yadav. Congress MP Shashi Tharoor also weighed in strongly, despite recent attention on his perceived drift from the party leadership.
Vadra said no Bill should be introduced or passed in the House based on “someone’s ambition, obsession or prejudice”.
“The obsession to change the name of every scheme is inexplicable. Whenever they do it, the Centre has to spend money. Without any discussion, without the permission of the House, this Bill should not be passed in such haste. This Bill should be withdrawn or at least sent to a Standing Committee for deep scrutiny,” she said.
When a voice from the treasury benches pointed out that Mahatma Gandhi did not belong to the Gandhi family that Priyanka comes from, she retorted, “Mahatma Gandhi did not belong to my family, but he was like my family, and that is the case for the whole nation.”
In his response, Chouhan said he would address the concerns raised by Opposition MPs when the Bill is taken up for detailed discussion. “Mahatma Gandhi resides in our hearts. Congress had changed the name of Jawahar Rozgar Yojana. Does it mean it insulted Jawaharlal Nehru? Gandhi envisioned self-sustained, empowered villages. The new law will help realise his vision by ensuring total development of villages. I do not understand their objection to G RAM G. The scheme is not being weakened. The Bill is to establish Ram Rajya,” Chouhan said.
Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi also registered his protest against the new Bill in a post on X. Calling it a “direct insult to the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi”, he wrote, “Modi ji has a deep dislike for two things—the ideas of Mahatma Gandhi and the rights of the poor.”
He added, “Now, Modi ji wants to transform MGNREGA into a tool of centralised control: 1. Budgets, schemes, and rules will be dictated by the Centre 2. States will be forced to bear 40% of the costs 3. Once funds run out, or during harvest season, workers will be denied employment for months.”
Modi ji has a deep dislike for two things – the ideas of Mahatma Gandhi and the rights of the poor.
MGNREGA is the living embodiment of Mahatma Gandhi’s vision of Gram Swaraj. It has been a lifeline for millions of rural Indians and proved to be a crucial economic safety net…
— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) December 16, 2025
Nearly all Opposition MPs, who registered their objections during the introduction of the Bill in the Lok Sabha, flagged the increase in the financial burden on states under the proposed new architecture of the scheme, and its pivot from being demand-driven to supply-driven.
Under the revamp, the Centre and most states will share the expenses in a 60:40 ratio.
NCP MP Supriya Sule, however, struck a different note, stating that she acknowledges the need to update schemes and policies over time. Sule opposed the move to drop the name of Mahatma Gandhi from the scheme and also seconded the demand that the Bill be sent to a House committee.
Her nuanced position can be traced to the fact that it was her father, Sharad Pawar, who in 2011, while serving as agriculture minister in the UPA-II government, had recommended that works under the scheme be halted during peak sowing and harvesting seasons to free up manpower for farm work. The new Bill also proposes halting work during peak seasons in the agriculture cycle.
Tharoor said the Centre’s move represents a “deeply regrettable and retrograde step”, contending that removing Mahatma Gandhi’s name amounts to stripping the Bill of “its moral compass and historical legitimacy”.
On the Bill’s name, the Thiruvananthapuram MP also quoted a song from his childhood, “dekho yeh dewano O dewano yeh kaam mat karo, Ram ka naam badnam mat karo“. Tharoor was pointing to the use of both Hindi and English in the title “just to get the acronym G RAM G”.
“This is not just an administrative tweak. It is an assault on the very spirit and philosophical foundation of this crucial programme. Mahatma Gandhi’s vision of Ram Rajya was never a purely political programme. It was a socio-economic blueprint rooted in the empowerment of villages. The original act acknowledged this profound connection that true employment guarantee and upliftment must flow from the grassroots,” he said.
Tharoor said the proposal to shift 40 per cent of the scheme’s financial burden to states was not only “fiscally irresponsible” but also threatened to make the programme unviable.
“This sudden and massive shift in liability will inevitably make it impossible for poorer states. It will lead to delays in wage payments, reduced days of work, and ultimately the destruction of the scheme itself,” Tharoor said, echoing a point made by Vadra.
DMK MP Baalu alleged that the “father of the nation is being ridiculed through this new Bill”. Roy said that while Lord Ram is a revered figure, “Mahatma Gandhi is more relevant”.
Congress MP KC Venugopal attacked Chouhan, saying, “You will be remembered as the minister who removed the name of Mahatma Gandhi.”
Samajwadi Party’s Dharmendra Yadav pointed out that it was ironic that while leaders of the ruling dispensation “go around the world garlanding the statue of the Mahatma”, they were dropping his name from the scheme.
(Edited by Vidhi Bhutra)
Also read: Kharge tears into Dhankhar, says ‘forced’ to seek removal. ‘His loyalty with govt, not Constitution’