NewKerala.com

Lok Sabha Chaos: Why Opposition Demands Probe Into Modi's Rural Jobs Bill

The Lok Sabha turned chaotic as the Opposition demanded the new rural jobs bill be sent to a parliamentary committee. Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan pressed on with his reply despite the uproar. The bill proposes replacing MGNREGA with a new framework guaranteeing more work days. It has sparked sharp criticism for allegedly weakening existing guarantees and removing Mahatma Gandhi's name.

Key Points: Lok Sabha Ruckus Over VB-G Ram G Bill as Opposition Demands JPC

  • Opposition demands Bill be sent to Standing Committee or JPC for scrutiny
  • Speaker rejects plea citing over eight hours of prior debate
  • New Bill guarantees 125 days of wage employment annually
  • Critics say it weakens MGNREGA and shifts costs to states
2 min read

Ruckus in LS as Oppn demands VB-G Ram G Bill to be referred to Standing Committee or JPC

Lok Sabha sees pandemonium as Opposition demands JPC probe into VB-G Ram G Bill, which seeks to replace MGNREGA, amid protests and sloganeering.

"With a whopping allocation and more employment opportunities, we are creating provisions for fully developed villages — this is the Modi government's objective. - Shivraj Singh Chouhan"

New Delhi, Dec 18

The Lok Sabha descended into pandemonium on Thursday as Union Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development Shivraj Singh Chouhan attempted to deliver the government's reply on the Viksit Bharat - Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill, 2025 (VB-G RAM-G Bill), amid relentless sloganeering and protests from the opposition benches.

Congress MP K.C. Venugopal urgently pressed Speaker Om Birla to refer the Bill -- which proposes replacing the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) with a framework guaranteeing 125 days of wage employment annually -- to a Standing Committee or Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for thorough examination.

The Speaker rejected the plea, highlighting that the Bill had already been debated for over eight hours, extending late into the previous night.

Defying the uproar, Minister Chouhan pressed on with his speech, emphasising enhanced provisions under the new legislation.

"With a whopping allocation and more employment opportunities, we are creating provisions for fully developed (sampoorna viksit) villages -- this is the Modi government's objective," he stated.

The Bill's name itself reflects its guarantee of employment and improved livelihoods, he added, aligning it with Prime Minister Narendra Modi's vision.

Minister Chouhan portrayed the initiative as building a prosperous India, with plans for ideal villages equipped with all basic amenities, employment, better livelihoods, and facilities right at the village level, in line with the Viksit Bharat @2047 goal.

"PM Modi has envisioned a slew of amenities for self-reliant villages," he asserted, undeterred by interruptions.

He also said that the Congress party had curtailed the budget from Rs 40,000 crore to Rs 35,000 crore, "while we will spend more than Rs 95,000 crore under the new scheme".

The Bill has drawn sharp criticism from the Opposition for allegedly weakening MGNREGA's demand-driven guarantees, shifting costs to states, and removing Mahatma Gandhi's name -- a move decried as an insult to the Father of the Nation. Supporters, however, counter that it modernises rural empowerment, boosts days from 100 to 125, and promotes convergence for infrastructure and saturation coverage.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priya S
Finally! A move towards actual development in villages. MGNREGA was just about digging pits. This new bill with more funds and a focus on amenities like roads, water, and internet is what we need for Viksit Bharat. The opposition is just opposing for the sake of it. 👏
A
Arjun K
Removing Mahatma Gandhi's name from a rural employment scheme is deeply disrespectful. It feels like an attempt to erase history. The bill might have merits, but this symbolic insult overshadows everything. Shameful.
S
Sarah B
As someone who has worked in rural development, the shift from a demand-driven guarantee to a fixed scheme is worrying. What happens in a drought year when more than 125 days of work are needed? The financial burden on states is a real concern that needs discussion.
V
Vikram M
Doubling the budget allocation is impressive on paper. But where is the guarantee this money will reach the actual workers? We need stronger mechanisms against corruption at the local level. More money without transparency means more leakage.
K
Kavya N
My family in the village depends on MGNREGA work. 25 extra days of wages would be a blessing! But the news says costs might shift to the state. Our state government is already broke. I hope the center doesn't abandon its responsibility. 🤞

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

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50