New Delhi/Shimla
The Centre has pitched the new Gramin (Viksit Bharat–Gramin Rozgar) law as a necessary and timely upgrade of MGNREGA, arguing that changing rural realities, climate stress and livelihood needs demanded a stronger and more structured employment guarantee.
What stands out in the current debate is that the INDIA bloc has confined its criticism almost entirely to the removal of the name “Mahatma Gandhi”, while largely avoiding a discussion on the contents of the new Gramin law.
So far, opposition leaders have spoken at length about the change in name. They have warned against dropping Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the scheme.
However, they have not explained what is wrong with the new provisions introduced in the law.
There has been no clear response from the INDIA bloc on the increase in guaranteed work from 100 to 125 days. There has been no critique of the stronger legal backing for unemployment allowance or the provision for compensation in case of delayed wages.
The opposition has also not addressed the proposed allocation of ₹1.51 lakh crore, nor the fact that wages will continue to be paid fully by the Centre.
It has not spoken about the 90:10 Centre–state funding pattern for Himalayan states, which reduces the financial burden on states like Himachal Pradesh.
Equally missing is any comment on the increase in administrative expenditure from 6 percent to 9 percent, meant to ensure timely payment to panchayat secretaries, employment assistants and technical staff.
As the discussion stands today, the focus remains on the name of the scheme, not on whether the law provides more days of work, better safeguards for wages and stronger support for rural development. On these core issues, the INDIA bloc has yet to present a detailed position.
Tharoor slams MGNREGA name change, says don’t drag Lord Ram to erase Gandhi
Thiruvananthapuram MP and Congress leader Shashi Tharoor has strongly criticised the Centre over changes to the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), calling the move “not a joke, but a serious assault on Gandhi’s legacy”.
Tharoor said removing Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the scheme was a “very big thing”, not a casual administrative tweak. “You remove Gandhi’s name, juggle words like ‘boss’, ‘guarantee’ and ‘employment’, and then justify it in the name of Lord Ram. This is not serious governance,” he said.
He pointed out that Gandhi’s vision of Gram Swaraj and Ram Rajya were inseparable. “In Gandhi’s mind, Ram Rajya meant justice, dignity and self-rule. If a law meant to guarantee employment is stripped of Gandhi’s name, what kind of Ram Rajya is this?” Tharoor asked.
Warning against politicising faith, Tharoor said, “Don’t defame the name of Ram to erase Mahatma Gandhi. Ram’s name can be used in many contexts, but not to wipe out Gandhi’s contribution.”
The Congress MP also flagged deeper concerns over MGNREGA’s implementation, saying unemployment payments are pending and states are starved of funds.
“When 40 per cent of dues remain unpaid and states don’t have money, unemployment will only rise. Kerala itself is facing a financial squeeze,” he said.
Tharoor alleged that the government had not thought through the consequences of the changes and stressed that such a crucial welfare law deserved a full and serious debate in Parliament, not wordplay or symbolism.
“This law is about livelihoods. It cannot be reduced to slogans,” he said.
Union Agriculture and Rural Development Minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan said attempts were being made to mislead people in the name of MGNREGA, even as the new law actually expands workers’ rights.
He said the scheme provides a legal guarantee of 125 days of employment, up from 100 days earlier.
He said provisions for unemployment allowance have been strengthened. He said workers will also be compensated if wages are delayed.
For the current year, the Centre has proposed an allocation of ₹1.51 lakh crore. The government says this will ensure that lack of funds does not come in the way of providing work.
The focus is on water conservation, rural infrastructure, livelihood-based works and disaster mitigation to build resilient and self-reliant villages.
The funding pattern has been clearly defined. Wages will be paid 100 percent by the Centre. Material and infrastructure costs will be shared in a 60:40 ratio between the Centre and states.
For Himalayan and North Eastern states, including Himachal Pradesh, the ratio will be 90:10, easing the financial burden on hill states.
In a major administrative reform, administrative expenditure has been raised from 6 percent to 9 percent. This amounts to nearly ₹13,000 crore.
The government says this will ensure timely payment of salaries to panchayat secretaries, employment assistants and technical staff, improving execution at the grassroots.
The law also seeks to balance farm needs. Flexibility has been built in so that the 125-day work guarantee does not disrupt agricultural operations during peak seasons, especially for small and marginal farmers.
The Congress and the INDIA bloc have criticised the move, calling it a renaming exercise and flagging past issues of delayed wages.
The BJP has rejected the charge, saying the new law fixes structural flaws and links employment with durable asset creation.
The Centre maintains that after two decades, rural India needs more than short-term wage support. It says the Gramin law turns rural employment into a development tool aligned with the goal of Viksit Bharat. But bigHimalayan question is: Funds. The states have little funds. Centre should fund the scheme cent per cent for the sake of Viksit Bharat.
#GraminRozgar
#ViksitBharat
#RuralEmployment
#MGNREGAReform
#CentreStateFunding
#HimachalPradesh
#VillageDevelopment
#EmploymentGuarantee
Readers Reactions:
Thanks for highlighting MGNREGA, 2005 as renamed by Union Government recently as G. Ram G. Act., 2025. But as former member of state appellate authority MGNREGA HP, I am, like others concerned. I am apprehensive about the success of rural employment guarantee due to revised funding pattern. It will be affected since the funding pattern has been changed from 90: 10 ratio for hill states and to 60:40 ratio to other states. States need cent per cent funding and GOI must consider it.
-D. K. Manta, ex-member, MGNREGA, Himachal Pradesh
