The Rajya Sabha witnessed a heated debate during the discussion on the Viksit Bharat-Guarantee for Rural Employment and Livelihood Mission (Gramin), 2025, or VB-G RAM-G Bill. This bill aims to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh launched a scathing attack on the central government, stating, 'Don't play games in the name of Ram. ' He emphasized that Mahatma Gandhi was a devotee of Ram, and Lord Ram himself wouldn't be pleased with the removal of his devotee's name, warning of a 'curse, while ' Singh questioned whether this 'G Ram Ji' scheme truly honors or disrespects Ram.
Ayodhya Land Dispute and Electoral Defeat
In his address, Sanjay Singh highlighted the global respect for Mahatma Gandhi, noting that statues of Gandhi are present in 80 countries, while he pointed out that foreign dignitaries at the recent G-20 summit visited Gandhi's memorial, not those of Golwalkar or Godse. In this context, he cautioned the government against politicizing Ram's name and disrespecting him. Singh expressed apprehension that if corruption were to occur under this scheme, it would be attributed to 'BJP members in the name of Ram Ji, while ' He drew parallels with the farm laws, which had to be withdrawn after a year and a half of protests by farmers, warning that the government was repeating the same 'historic mistake' that would force laborers, farmers, and the poor onto the streets.
Sanjay Singh also brought up the land dispute in Ayodhya, alleging that the government acquired land from poor farmers at 'throwaway prices' and gave it to 'the rich, while ' He cited the 'Lodha Brothers' as an example, asserting that 'looting in the name of Ram' was the reason why the BJP lost the elections in Ayodhya. He demanded that the government send the bill to a select committee for a detailed discussion on its shortcomings. On top of that, Singh raised the issue of the arrests of Mehraj Malik and Sonam Wangchuk, to which the Chair objected, stating that the matter was 'sub judice' and wouldn't go on record.
Reactions from Other Parties and Key Bill Provisions
AIADMK MP M. Thambidurai supported the bill but urged reconsideration of the 60-40 provision. He also recalled that when a scheme was being named after Mahatma Gandhi, the. DMK's pressure led the government to name it 'MGNREGA' to avoid including MGR's name. BJD MP Shubhasish Khuntia stated that merely changing the name wouldn't benefit laborers and that the bill contained several flaws, necessitating its referral to a select committee, while ySRCP's Niranjan Reddy also supported the demand to send the bill to a select committee. Amidst these strong protests and uproar, the VB-G RAM-G Bill was passed by voice vote in the Lok. Sabha, where opposition MPs tore up the bill and threw it in Parliament, reaching the well to raise slogans. Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan stated in the Lok Sabha that the Congress never followed Gandhi, while the BJP does.
VB-G RAM-G Bill vs. MGNREGA
The VB-G RAM-G Bill proposes several significant changes compared to MGNREGA. The new scheme mandates 125 days of employment, whereas MGNREGA provided 100 days. Under MGNREGA, the central government bore the entire cost, but the new scheme requires financial contributions from both the Centre and the states. The ratio of contribution may vary for different states, while in terms of funding, the formula will now be 60:40 instead of 90:10, meaning both the share and responsibility of the states will increase. Plus, the new scheme will introduce grading of Panchayats based. On their work, a system that wasn't present in MGNREGA. These proposed changes are precisely what opposition parties are concerned about, leading to their demand for the bill to be sent to a select committee for further scrutiny.
