Lok Sabha: Opposition slams ‘Hindi imposition’ and removal of Mahatma Gandhi’s name in new rural employment bill
text_fields
New Delhi: The Lok Sabha witnessed sharp criticism from opposition members during discussions on the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (VB-G RAM G) Bill, 2025, which seeks to repeal the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), 2005.
Introduced by Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan on 16 December amid protests, the new legislation proposes a rural employment framework guaranteeing 125 days of wage work annually, an increase from the previous 100 days, while introducing changes to funding patterns and operational structures.
Opposition leaders, however, focused their attacks on the cultural and political implications of the Bill. DMK MP K Kanimozhi strongly opposed the legislation’s nomenclature, stating that reading its name "vexes" her and labelling it as yet another instance of the Central government imposing Hindi and Sanskrit on non-Hindi speaking states.
Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra echoed these sentiments, accusing the government of communalising the scheme by invoking Lord Ram's name through the acronym "RAM G". Moitra further demanded the release of pending MGNREGA funds for West Bengal, alleging the Centre is now "repealing the Bill altogether" after withholding state dues.
Congress leaders, including Priyanka Gandhi, protested the removal of Mahatma Gandhi's name from the scheme, terming it an "insult" to the Father of the Nation and calling for nationwide agitations to protect the legacy of the 2005 Act, which they credited with creating widespread rural employment.
Conversely, TDP MP Lavu Sri Krishna Devarayalu supported the Bill, describing it as "just another iteration" of earlier schemes and welcoming the increase in guaranteed work days to 125 as a positive step.
The Bill introduces significant structural changes, including a 60:40 Centre-State funding split (90:10 for Northeast/Himalayan states), seasonal pauses during peak agricultural periods, and normative allocations. While the government defends the legislation as a necessary modernisation aligned with the “Viksit Bharat @2047” vision, focusing on water security, rural connectivity, and climate resilience, opponents fear it dilutes the rights-based guarantees of the original Act and places an additional financial burden on state governments.
(Inputs from IANS)
