E-Paper
Centre moves to replace MGNREGA with G RAM G bill; Opposition says 'what's the point of replacing Gandhi name?'
Priyanka Gandhi said whenever a scheme’s name is changed, several administrative alterations are required in offices leading to additional expenditure.
The Narendra Modi-led Union government has proposed replacing the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (MGNREGA) with a new framework under the Viksit Bharat—Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) or ‘VB—G RAM G Bill, 2025’.
The proposed legislation seeks to realign rural employment policy with the government’s long-term vision of Viksit Bharat @2047, while also changing the structure, funding pattern of the existing scheme, HT reported earlier.
The move has triggered reactions from the Congress and other Opposition parties, with leaders questioning the "intention" behind removing Mahatma Gandhi's name.
What the proposed G RAM G bill says
According to the draft Bill, the new bill aims to establish a “rural development framework aligned with the national vision of Viksit Bharat @2047”, with a statutory guarantee of 125 days of wage employment per financial year for every rural household whose adult members volunteer for unskilled manual work.
The Bill also stresses empowerment, convergence and saturation to build a “prosperous and resilient rural Bharat”.
The G RAM G scheme will be implemented as a Centrally Sponsored Scheme, unlike MGNREGA which was fully funded by the Centre. Under the new proposal, the Centre–state fund-sharing ratio will be 60:40 for all states and Union territories with legislatures with exceptions made for North Eastern states, Himalayan states and UTs such as Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir, with 90:10 ratio.
Under MGNREGA, unskilled wages were fully funded by the Centre.
The Bill introduces a higher financial burden on state governments and, for the first time, bans VB G RAM G-related works during agricultural seasons.
It also changes the administrative architecture of the scheme. While MGNREGA was implemented directly by the Union rural development ministry, the new law mandates the constitution of a State Gramin Rozgar Guarantee Council in every state for monitoring and reviewing implementation.
Congress on MGNREGA name change
Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra on Monday questioned the government’s intention behind removing Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the scheme.
She said that whenever a scheme’s name is changed, several administrative alterations are required in offices and stationery, leading to additional expenditure, and asked what benefit this served, reported news agency PTI.
Questioning the objective of the move, she said, “Why is Mahatma Gandhi's name being removed. Mahatma Gandhi is considered the tallest leader not just in the country but in the world, so removing his name, I really don't understand what is the objective? What is their intention?” according to the report.
Congress MP Tariq Anwar said the move reflected hostility towards the Gandhi legacy. “It is unfortunate that the government is changing its name. It seems that they hate the name Gandhi. This decision will hurt the sentiments of those who believe in Mahatma Gandhi and his ideology,” he said, reported news agency ANI.
RJD leader Manoj Jha said, “I fail to understand why we should bow before the Prime Minister and his Cabinet,” he said, adding that by changing the name, the scheme’s essence was being destroyed. He sarcastically suggested renaming it “Pujya Bapu Yojana” and claiming unemployment had been eliminated, PTI reported.
Responding to Priyanka’s remarks, BJP MP Sudhanshu Trivedi said the government’s intent went beyond symbolism. “PM Modi is not just changing names but the underlying sentiment,” PTI quoted him as saying.
Left flags ‘cost shifting’, loss of rights
In a legthy post on X, CPI(M) MP John Brittas said the proposed law went far beyond a name change, arguing that it fundamentally altered the rights-based nature of MGNREGA.
He said that removing Mahatma Gandhi’s name was “only the trailer”, and alleged that the government had replaced a legal employment guarantee with a conditional, centrally controlled scheme that disadvantaged states and workers.
He said states would have to collectively spend over ₹50,000 crore more, with Kerala alone facing an additional burden of ₹2,000–2,500 crore. Calling it “cost-shifting by stealth”, he said it was not reform but a rollback of federal responsibility.
Contrasting the two schemes, Brittas said MGNREGA was demand-driven, where the Centre had to pay if a worker demanded work, while the new framework would operate under pre-fixed allocations and ceilings, meaning “when funds run out, rights run out”.
Summing up his critique, Brittas said the new scheme meant “same workers, less rights, more burden”, and argued that the Bill dismantled MGNREGA “fiscally, institutionally and morally”.
