The passage of the Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill, 2025 has triggered intense political debate, emotional exchanges, and protests inside Parliament. The Bill, which seeks to repeal the long-running rural employment scheme MGNREGA, marks a major shift in how guaranteed employment in rural India will be structured and funded.
While the government has positioned the legislation as a reform-oriented step toward a “Viksit Bharat,” the Opposition has accused it of weakening workers’ rights, diluting federal funding responsibilities, and removing the symbolic association with Mahatma Gandhi. The Bill’s passage by voice vote amid protests reflects the deep divide over rural welfare policy.
As discussions continue beyond the House, the new framework has raised questions about employment guarantees, state finances, transparency, and the ideological narrative surrounding one of India’s most recognisable social schemes.
Lok Sabha Passes VB-G RAM G Bill Amid Protests
The Lok Sabha passed the VB-G RAM G Bill during the Winter Session of Parliament following hours of heated debate and disruptions. Opposition members protested strongly, tearing papers in the well of the House and raising slogans, forcing repeated interruptions before the Bill was cleared by a voice vote.
After the Bill’s passage, the House was adjourned for the day, underscoring the charged atmosphere surrounding the legislation. The Opposition had earlier demanded that the Bill be withdrawn, arguing that it fundamentally alters the spirit of the rural job guarantee framework.
The debate stretched late into the night on the previous day, reflecting the significance of the policy shift and the political stakes involved.
What the VB-G RAM G Bill Proposes
One of the most notable changes introduced by the Bill is the increase in guaranteed employment days from 100 to 125 per household. The government has highlighted this as evidence that the new scheme expands opportunities for rural workers rather than curtailing them.
However, alongside the increase in workdays, the Bill significantly revises the funding pattern. Under the earlier MGNREGA framework, the Centre bore the full cost of wages and the majority of material expenses, while states handled a smaller share.
Under VB-G RAM G, the Centre will fund 60 per cent of total costs, with states required to contribute the remaining 40 per cent, shifting a larger financial responsibility to state governments.
New Funding Structure and State Concerns
The revised funding model has emerged as one of the most contentious aspects of the Bill. States will now be required to absorb higher expenditure, particularly if actual spending exceeds the Centre’s state-wise normative allocation determined annually.
Opposition leaders argue that this could strain state finances, especially for those already under fiscal pressure. Concerns have also been raised that wealthier states may manage the burden better than poorer ones, potentially leading to uneven implementation.
The government, however, maintains that the revised structure promotes accountability and efficient utilisation of funds.
Government’s Defence and Gandhi Reference
Union Rural Development Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan defended the Bill amid constant slogans from Opposition benches. He accused critics of refusing to listen to the government’s response and said such behaviour went against Mahatma Gandhi’s teachings.
In an emotional statement, Chouhan said he was “bowing before the feet of Mahatma Gandhi” and asserted that Gandhi’s ideals inspired the government’s policies. He also argued that the ruling party follows Gandhian principles in practice rather than symbolism.
The remarks added a strong ideological tone to the debate, intensifying reactions across the political spectrum.
Debate Over MGNREGA’s Legacy
Chouhan claimed that MGNREGA was not originally named after Mahatma Gandhi and that the association was added later for political reasons. He argued that the current government implemented the scheme more effectively than previous administrations.
To support his argument, he cited figures comparing expenditure under different governments, claiming a substantial increase in spending and implementation scale in recent years.
The Minister stated that despite high expenditure, structural flaws and corruption had weakened the scheme, necessitating a complete overhaul.
Allegations of Corruption and Transparency Gaps
According to the government, a major weakness of MGNREGA lay in material cost management and monitoring. It was alleged that several states failed to spend adequately on materials, leading to imbalances and misuse of funds.
Chouhan claimed that corruption had become rampant and that transparency mechanisms were insufficient. The new Bill, he said, aims to address these gaps by restructuring funding responsibilities and oversight.
The government has argued that VB-G RAM G is designed to ensure better asset creation and long-term village development.
Vision of Developed Villages Under VB-G RAM G
The stated objective of the new scheme is to move beyond short-term employment generation toward holistic rural development. The government claims that guaranteed employment will be linked to creating durable infrastructure in villages.
Proposed works under the scheme include water conservation projects, revival of groundwater levels, construction of ponds and wells, rural roads, schools, and playgrounds.
According to the government, this approach aligns employment with nation-building and supports the broader vision of a developed India.
Opposition Criticism Over Legal Right to Work
Opposition members have strongly criticised the Bill for allegedly weakening the legal right to employment that existed under MGNREGA. They argue that the new framework shifts the scheme from a rights-based model to a discretionary one.
Several leaders questioned whether reduced central funding could lead to delays in wage payments or fewer work opportunities, particularly in economically weaker states.
The removal of Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the scheme has also been described as symbolic erasure of a legacy closely tied to social justice.
Concerns Raised by Multiple Parties
Leaders from various Opposition parties argued that the Bill undermines the foundational principles of rural employment security. Some described the renaming as an insult to Mahatma Gandhi and those who conceptualised employment as a legal entitlement.
Others highlighted the burden placed on states, warning that financial restructuring could result in uneven outcomes across regions.
The debate reflected not just policy disagreements but also ideological differences over welfare, federalism, and historical legacy.
Political Undertones and Ideological Arguments
The discussion around the Bill extended beyond employment policy into broader political narratives. Historical references, ideological positions, and party legacies were invoked during the debate.
Arguments ranged from interpretations of Gandhian philosophy to critiques of past governments, making the Bill a focal point for wider political confrontation.
These exchanges underscored how rural employment policy remains deeply intertwined with political identity and public perception.
What Lies Ahead for Rural Employment Policy
With the Bill now passed in the Lok Sabha, attention shifts to its implementation and the response from states. The success of VB-G RAM G will depend on coordination between the Centre and state governments, funding flows, and administrative efficiency.
As rural India continues to rely heavily on employment guarantees during periods of economic stress, the new framework will be closely scrutinised for its impact on livelihoods and village development.
The coming months are likely to see continued political debate, policy fine-tuning, and public discussion as the country transitions from MGNREGA to a new rural employment paradigm.
Also Read: Delhi Fog Chaos? Flights May Be Hit as Airlines Issue Alerts
About the Author:
Harshit Raj
