New Delhi: The Centre on Thursday introduced the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill — or VB-G RAM G Bill — in the Rajya Sabha, seeking to replace the two-decade-old Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). The move triggered sharp protests from Opposition parties, who objected to the speed of its introduction, the removal of Mahatma Gandhi’s name, and the government’s refusal to send the bill to a parliamentary standing committee.
The legislation was taken up in the Upper House shortly after it was passed by the Lok Sabha before lunch, leaving Opposition members little time to study the provisions or move amendments. Several MPs questioned why the name of Mahatma Gandhi was being dropped from a law that has served as a cornerstone of rural employment for millions.
Following the passage of the Nuclear Bill, Deputy Chairman Harivansh called Rural Development Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan to formally introduce the VB-G RAM G Bill. The announcement immediately led to uproar across the Opposition benches.
DMK leader Tiruchi Siva and Congress MP Digvijay Singh protested against the rushed process, pointing out that the bill was uploaded on the parliamentary portal only at 5 pm, giving members barely 45 minutes to submit amendments. “It is impossible to read, analyse and propose changes to such a crucial bill in such a short time,” Singh said.
AAP’s Sanjay Singh accused the government of steamrolling Parliament, drawing parallels with the passage of the now-repealed farm laws. “This government is bulldozing the Opposition again,” he said.
Responding to the protests, Deputy Chairman Harivansh said the Chair had already issued a detailed ruling on the matter, which was final, and proceeded with the discussion by calling Congress leader Mukul Wasnik to initiate the debate.
Opening the discussion, Wasnik warned that the proposed law would have “far-reaching consequences” for millions of poor and vulnerable citizens who depend on rural employment schemes. He criticised the government for pushing the bill without consulting experts or allowing parliamentary scrutiny.
“This bill is not meant for public welfare. It has been brought as a political instrument,” Wasnik said, reiterating the Opposition’s demand to refer the legislation to the Standing Committee.
One of the major points of contention is the proposed change in the Centre-state cost-sharing formula. While the existing MGNREGA framework mandates a 90:10 cost-sharing arrangement, the new bill proposes to revise it to 60:40, significantly increasing the financial burden on states.
Wasnik questioned whether state governments had been consulted before making such a change and asked the Centre to name the states that supported the proposal. He warned that the move would worsen the fiscal health of states and limit their ability to provide employment during critical periods.
Under the proposed framework, the Centre will fix the allocation amount, and any additional spending will have to be borne entirely by state governments. Moreover, during peak agricultural seasons, states will be required to declare a mandatory 60-day “blackout period,” during which no employment will be provided under the scheme — a provision the Opposition says will disproportionately affect women and marginalised workers.
The introduction of the VB-G RAM G Bill has thus set the stage for a fierce political battle in Parliament, with the Opposition framing it as an attack on both federalism and the legacy of Mahatma Gandhi.