Congress Criticises Government for ‘Name-Change Obsession’ Ahead of MGNREGA Move
Opposition raises concerns over diluting rural employment rights while slamming government for “unnecessary renaming” of the scheme.
New Delhi, Dec 16: Ahead of the Union government’s introduction of the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB-G RAM G Bill), 2025 in the Lok Sabha, Congress has strongly criticised the move, questioning the need to rename the two-decade-old Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).
Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra highlighted the potential misuse of resources, saying, “I don’t understand this obsession with changing the name. It involves a lot of expenditure. I don’t understand why they are doing it unnecessarily.” She further added that the bill could weaken the employment rights currently guaranteed under MGNREGA, despite claims of extending benefits.
Senior Congress leader Manish Tewari also criticised the move, noting MGNREGA’s critical role in providing livelihoods since its introduction in 2005, particularly during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. “Prime Minister Narendra Modi had to increase the MGNREGA budget every year to support migrant workers. Today, this name-change move seems very strange,” Tewari said.
Samajwadi Party MP Ram Gopal Yadav echoed similar concerns, claiming the government’s decision reflects political motives. “There is no need for such a bill. This move reinforces the allegations that the BJP has historically opposed the Gandhis,” Yadav stated.
Ahead of parliamentary proceedings, opposition leaders, led by Congress MPs, staged a protest outside Parliament. Congress national president Mallikarjun Kharge described the renaming as a BJP-RSS attempt to undermine MGNREGA. “Erasing Gandhi’s name on the centenary of the Sangh demonstrates hypocrisy. The Congress party will strongly oppose any attempt to strip poor and rural workers of their rights,” Kharge said.
The proposed VB-G RAM G Bill, 2025, increases the guaranteed rural wage employment from 100 to 125 days per household annually, but opposition parties have voiced skepticism over the bill’s implementation and implications for workers’ rights.
