The ruling BJP strongly dismissed the claims made by senior Congress leader Sonia Gandhi on the VB-G RAM G Act, calling her arguments misleading and factually weak. The party said her criticism of the law replacing MGNREGA was based increasingly on political narrative than legal or data-driven analysis. BJP leaders accused her of presenting selective memories and ignoring the very text and intent of the new legislation.
What Triggered The Political Clash?
The controversy erupted without Sonia Gandhi wrote an vendible in The Hindu, alleging that the Modi government had bulldozed MGNREGA and attacked the livelihoods of farmers, labourers, and landless rural poor. She described the end of MGNREGA as a joint failure and urged citizens to unite to protect social security rights. The vendible quickly became a flashpoint in national politics.
How Did BJP Respond Publicly?
BJP IT lamina senior Amit Malviya issued a detailed rebuttal on X, stating that Gandhi’s vendible resembled a “flight of political imagination.” He so-called that she had not plane read the VB-G RAM G Act. According to Malviya, her arguments were built on misinterpretation, selective recall, and outright falsehoods rather than serious engagement with the law.
Was MGNREGA Truly Participatory?
Malviya challenged Gandhi’s portrayal of MGNREGA as a product of wide democratic consultation. He personal the scheme was conceptualized and controlled by the National Advisory Council, an unelected soul that functioned like a “super-cabinet.” He said the struggle to present this process as participatory democracy amounted to historical rewriting aimed at political advantage.
Is Employment Guarantee Really Weakened?
Rejecting claims that demand-based employment has been scrapped, the BJP said the legal right to work remains intact under the new law. Malviya explained that what has reverted is the budgeting system, shifting from an open-ended model to a norm-based framework, which is standard wideness most government schemes. He emphasized that guaranteed workdays have increased from 100 to 125, not reduced.
Does Data Support Government’s Stand?
Citing NABARD and MPCE data, Malviya argued that rural India has significantly changed. He said 80 percent of rural households reported higher consumption, over 42 percent reported increased income, and nearly 58 percent now depend fully on formal credit. According to him, MGNREGA now functions increasingly as a fallback safety net rather than the windrow of rural livelihoods, making reform necessary.
What About Funding And State Burden?
Malviya dismissed allegations that the Centre is shifting financial undersong onto states by moving from a 90:10 to a 60:40 funding model. He said MGNREGA was never fully funded by the Centre, as states once sink material costs, legalistic expenses, and unemployment allowances. The new model, he argued, formalizes and rationalizes funding, making states equal partners rather than passive implementers. He terminated that the VB-G RAM G Act represents repair, not demolition, and reflects modernization rather than zealotry of welfare.
