'G Ram G' Bill, To Replace MGNREGA, Clears Parliament, Opposition Stages Overnight Protest

By Admin

19 Dec, 2025

Introduction
The Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Employment and Livelihood Mission (Rural) Bill, popularly referred to as the G RAM G Bill, has been passed by Parliament after intense debate, protests, and walkouts by Opposition parties. The new legislation is positioned as an updated version of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), a flagship welfare scheme introduced by the UPA government in 2005. The bill’s passage within just two days has sparked political controversy, particularly over the renaming of the scheme and changes to its structure.

How the Bill Passed Parliament
The G RAM G Bill cleared the Lok Sabha on Thursday afternoon despite protests and walkouts by Opposition members. The debate then moved to the Rajya Sabha, where discussions continued past midnight. At around 12:15 am, the bill was passed by a voice vote. With the ruling alliance holding a numerical advantage, the outcome was never in serious doubt, though the Opposition attempted to stall the process by demanding that the bill be referred to a standing committee and later seeking its complete withdrawal.

Following the passage of the bill, Members of Parliament from the Trinamool Congress and other Opposition parties staged a dharna inside Parliament, continuing their protest into the night.

Opposition’s Strong Resistance
The Rajya Sabha debate saw sharp criticism from senior Opposition leaders. Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge led the attack, warning that the new law would harm the rural poor. In a strongly worded speech, he urged the government to withdraw the bill, stating that invoking the name of Ram while harming the poor was deeply contradictory. He appealed directly to Rural Development Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan, suggesting that withdrawing the bill would earn him respect, just as the government had earlier withdrawn the three farm laws.

Kharge concluded his speech with an emotional appeal, swearing on his late mother and on Mother India that the law was not in the interests of the poor. Other Opposition leaders echoed similar concerns, accusing the government of dismantling the core values of MGNREGA.

Trinamool Congress leader Derek O’Brien highlighted developments in West Bengal, alleging that the Centre stopped the MGNREGA scheme in the state shortly after the Lok Sabha passed the G RAM G Bill. He also pointed out that the West Bengal government renamed its Karmashree Scheme to Mahatmashree on the same day, underscoring the symbolic importance of Mahatma Gandhi’s name in employment programmes.

Government’s Response and Defence
When Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan rose to reply in the Rajya Sabha, the Opposition disrupted proceedings with slogans demanding withdrawal of what they termed a “black bill”. As the disruptions continued, Opposition members eventually walked out.

Responding sharply, Chouhan accused the Opposition of betraying Mahatma Gandhi’s ideals by refusing to listen to a reply. He claimed that MGNREGA had become a tool for corruption and argued that the new bill was drafted after consultations with stakeholders. Defending the name change, he said that Mahatma Gandhi remained a central inspiration and pointed out that Gandhi’s name was added to NREGA only ahead of the 2009 elections.

The government has maintained that the scheme needed updating to address shortcomings in a 20-year-old framework and to align it with current rural development priorities.

Key Objections Raised by the Opposition
The Congress and other Opposition parties have strongly objected to replacing Mahatma Gandhi’s name with G RAM G, arguing that it reflects an attempt to erase Gandhi’s legacy from India’s welfare architecture. Several leaders have also questioned the intent behind invoking Lord Ram’s name in a social welfare programme.

Former Finance Minister P Chidambaram has criticised the new bill for diluting the core principles of MGNREGA. According to him, the new law undermines the guarantee of employment, weakens livelihood assurance, and removes the element of security that defined the original scheme.

What Makes G RAM G Different from MGNREGA
Under MGNREGA, the government guaranteed 100 days of wage employment in rural areas and provided an unemployment allowance if work was not given. The G RAM G Bill increases the guaranteed workdays to 125 while retaining the provision for unemployment allowance.

However, the new law changes how work is allocated. Employment will now be generated through pre-approved plans rather than on-demand applications from workers. Critics argue that this shifts control away from rural households and limits their ability to demand work when needed.

Additionally, the new framework categorises work into four areas: water security, core rural infrastructure, livelihood-related assets, and climate resilience. Opposition leaders and policy critics contend that this narrows the scope of permissible work and reduces the role of gram panchayats in deciding projects based on local needs.

Conclusion
The passage of the G RAM G Bill marks a significant shift in India’s rural employment policy and has triggered one of the most heated parliamentary confrontations in recent times. While the government presents the law as a modernised and more efficient successor to MGNREGA, the Opposition views it as a dilution of a vital social safety net and a symbolic attack on Mahatma Gandhi’s legacy. As protests continue and political tensions remain high, the real impact of the new law will be closely watched on the ground in rural India.