Lok Sabha Chaos: Opposition Storms House Over MGNREGA Name Change

The Lok Sabha saw heated protests as the opposition rallied against a bill to rename the MGNREGA scheme. Priyanka Gandhi Vadra led the charge, arguing the new legislation undermines a crucial employment guarantee. She warned that changing the scheme's fundamental, demand-driven nature would hurt the rural poor. The session was marked by emotional appeals and sloganeering over the legacy of the scheme's name.

Key Points: Priyanka Gandhi Slams MGNREGA Name Change in Lok Sabha

  • Opposition MPs demand the new Viksit Bharat Guarantee Bill be sent to a parliamentary panel for scrutiny
  • Priyanka Gandhi warns the new bill could weaken the legal right to 100 days of employment
  • She argues the new scheme shifts financial burden to states, with Centre funding only 60%
  • The protest centered on removing Mahatma Gandhi's name from a nearly two-decade-old welfare scheme
3 min read

Oppn storms LS over MGNREGA name change, Priyanka Gandhi flags threat to employment guarantee

Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra leads opposition protest against renaming MGNREGA, warning the new bill weakens the 100-day employment guarantee for the rural poor.

"Mahatma Gandhi was not from my family, but he is like family to me, and this is the feeling of the entire country. - Priyanka Gandhi Vadra"

New Delhi, Dec 16

As the Lok Sabha reconvened on Tuesday, the opposition mounted a strong protest against the introduction of the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB-G RAM G), 2025, which seeks to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).

The Opposition MPs raised objections over the renaming of the flagship rural employment scheme and demanded that the proposed legislation be referred to a parliamentary panel for detailed scrutiny.

Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan introduced the Bill in the House, following which opposition members questioned the rationale behind removing Mahatma Gandhi's name from a landmark welfare scheme that has been in place for nearly two decades.

Leading the charge, Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra attacked the government over its move to replace MGNREGA, warning that the new Bill could "weaken" the original Act's guarantee of 100 days of employment for the poorest sections of society.

She also questioned what she described as the Centre's "obsession" with renaming long-standing schemes.

"MGNREGA was such a revolutionary Bill that when it was introduced, it was applauded by all political parties. This Bill plays a key role in strengthening the rural economy and gives 100 days of employment on demand," Priyanka said while speaking in the House.

She pointed out that the existing Act was demand-driven, with allocations rising in response to the number of people seeking work.

In contrast, she argued, the VB-G RAM G fixes allocations on a yearly basis and shifts additional financial pressure onto states, as only 60 per cent of the expenditure would be borne by the Centre.

"The fundamental principle of our Constitution is that power should be in the hands of every individual, and that same fundamental principle is present in the Panchayati Raj system. This Bill, this legislation that is being introduced, is against that fundamental principle. The provisions of this Bill, which weaken the right to employment, a legal right, are contrary to our Constitution," Priyanka said.

Amid loud sloganeering and repeated interruptions from both sides of the House, she also made an emotional appeal while defending the legacy of the scheme's name.

"Mahatma Gandhi was not from my family, but he is like family to me, and this is the feeling of the entire country," she said.

While firmly opposing the introduction of the Bill, Priyanka suggested that the government withdraw the proposed legislation and bring in a revised version, which should then be referred to a special committee for wider consultation and examination.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

S
Sarah B
As an observer, the financial shift to states is concerning. If the Centre only bears 60%, many states already struggling with funds will find it hard to manage. This could directly impact the poorest families who depend on this work. The demand-driven model was its strength.
A
Aditya G
Honestly, if the new bill is more efficient and reduces corruption, I'm for it. MGNREGA had good intentions but leakages were a big problem. Maybe a new structure with fixed allocations can bring more accountability? Let's wait and see the details before judging. 🤔
P
Priyanka N
Removing Gandhi ji's name is disrespectful to his legacy of serving the poor. This scheme was a safety net for crores of people. "Viksit Bharat" sounds like a slogan, but MGNREGA was an actual right. Priyanka Gandhi is right to question this. The guarantee of 100 days must not be diluted.
K
Karthik V
The opposition's demand to send it to a parliamentary committee is valid. Such a major change needs proper scrutiny and debate, not rushed through amid chaos in the House. The rural economy depends on this. Jai Hind.
M
Michael C
While I understand the emotional attachment to the name, the core issue is the guarantee of employment. If the new bill fixes allocations yearly, what happens during a drought or bad harvest when demand spikes? The old model was flexible for a reason. This seems like a step back.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50