Lok Sabha Row Erupts Over Replacement of MGNREGA; Gandhi’s Name at Centre of Debate

The Lok Sabha on Thursday witnessed heated exchanges and protests as the government pushed through the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill, 2025, a proposed law that seeks to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). The legislation triggered a sharp political confrontation, particularly over the decision to drop Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the rural employment framework.

During the debate, Union Rural Development Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan stirred controversy by claiming that Mahatma Gandhi’s name was added to the original National Rural Employment Guarantee Act primarily with an eye on the 2009 general elections. According to Chouhan, the scheme initially functioned as NREGA and was later renamed for political considerations rather than out of ideological necessity. He maintained that the government’s current proposal focuses on strengthening rural livelihoods and reflects a broader vision of development.

The VB-G RAM G Bill proposes to increase the guaranteed employment from 100 days to 125 days per rural household, a move the government has highlighted as a significant enhancement. The Centre has argued that the new framework will ensure more effective delivery, promote self-reliance in villages and align rural employment with wider development goals under its long-term national vision.

However, the Opposition strongly objected to both the substance and symbolism of the proposed changes. Several MPs accused the government of showing disrespect to Mahatma Gandhi by removing his name from one of the country’s most prominent welfare laws. Opposition leaders described the renaming as an attempt to erase the legacy associated with a scheme that has played a crucial role in providing income support to millions of rural families.

Critics also raised concerns about structural changes proposed in the new law, warning that it could dilute the rights-based character of the original employment guarantee. They argued that alterations in funding mechanisms and implementation responsibilities might weaken the assurance of work and shift greater financial burdens onto state governments. According to them, MGNREGA was designed as a legal entitlement, and any move away from that principle could adversely affect the rural poor.

The debate soon escalated into protests inside the House, with Opposition members accusing the government of prioritising political narratives over social security. Outside Parliament, party workers and activists staged demonstrations in several places, demanding that Mahatma Gandhi’s name be retained and the bill reconsidered.

As the bill heads to the Rajya Sabha for further consideration, the controversy over its political, social and symbolic implications is expected to dominate the remainder of the winter session, keeping the future of India’s flagship rural employment programme at the centre of national debate.