Renaming MGNREGA with VB-G RAM G Bill : Protest outside Parliament
New Delhi, Dec 18: The NDA on Thursday defended the introduction of the Viksit Bharat G RAM G Bill, saying it would benefit those seeking employment under the scheme, even as the Opposition remained unconvinced and strongly criticised the Centre for removing the name of Mahatma Gandhi from the legislation.
The Opposition staged a protest outside Parliament on Thursday, holding placards and raising slogans against the Centre over its move to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).
The protest followed the introduction of the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB-G RAM G), 2025, a Bill that seeks to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act.
Defending the proposed legislation, BJP MP Sanjay Jaiswal told IANS that the Bill actually expands employment opportunities and increases the number of guaranteed workdays.
“Earlier, the Ajeevika Mission was not included in the MGNREGA, but now the Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission are part of it. Everyone will now get a chance to work for 125 days. Those who want to work on a daily wage will get this opportunity. This extension ensures that anyone without employment can now work for 125 days under the Ajeevika scheme. It is a good thing. Everything will be in a fixed asset form. This is a commendable Bill, through which everyone will benefit,” he said.
However, Opposition leaders said the Bill was introduced without adequate scrutiny and stressed the need for a thorough re-evaluation.
Congress National President Mallikarjun Kharge, speaking to the reporters, said, “This is not just about changing a name. MGNREGA is about rights — the Right to Work that we provided. Those rights are being taken away. By ending its demand-driven nature, they will deny work and then claim there is no demand. This is an attack on people’s rights, especially the poor, backward classes, and Dalits.”
Congress MP Imran Masood also criticised the move, stating, “They have ruined the entire scheme. The MGNREGA introduced by Sonia Gandhi was meant to benefit the poor, and it did benefit them as well.”
Shiv Sena(UBT) MP Priyanka Chaturvedi echoed similar concerns and questioned the timing and intent behind the Bill’s introduction.
Speaking to IANS, Chaturvedi said, “The Bill should be carefully examined before being passed. It was rushed at a time when the parliamentary session was about to end, without proper consideration of what is right, what is wrong, and the shortcomings. The way the financial burden is being shifted to the state government is unfair. Everyone needs to re-evaluate this Bill. It should be sent to the JPC.”
The Congress also maintained that the controversy centres on the removal of Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the initiative, claiming that even NDA constituent parties are uncomfortable with the change.
Speaking to IANS, Congress leader Rakesh Sinha said, “Regarding the renaming of MGNREGA, it’s not just the Opposition; now even members of NDA’s constituent parties are saying that the name should not be changed. This country belongs to Gandhi, so how can you erase Gandhi’s thoughts and name from it? Gandhi was the guiding principle behind MGNREGA, and the scheme is closely linked to his ideals.”
“Gandhi’s influence, both direct and indirect, is reflected in this scheme. By removing his name, you are disregarding that connection. This country is Gandhi’s, and schemes running in his name should not have their names changed or his ideals erased.
This matter should definitely be sent to a JPC. The Opposition will continue to protest, and we will oppose this nationwide,” he added.
Meanwhile, NDA constituent parties Suheldev Bharatiya Samaj Party and JD(U) came out in support of the Bill.
Uttar Pradesh Minister and Suheldev Bharatiya Samaj Party chief O.P. Rajbhar told IANS, “Changing a name cannot harm anyone’s true personality. Today, the whole world worships and respects Mahatma Gandhi, and the entire country recognises him.
Everything is increasing — prices, inflation — and workers’ wages should also rise along with their work. So, if a 125-day guarantee is being provided, it is indeed a positive step.”
JD(U) spokesperson Neeraj Kumar said, “Some objections are being raised regarding the Bill and its objectives. It is not like this is the first time the name of an initiative is being changed; the main issue is that a 125-day guarantee is being provided.
Workers are not questioning this; the Opposition has diverted the discussion. The focus should not stray from the core issue, and it is the responsibility of the Opposition to ensure that.” (IANS)
