Shakespeare’s timeless question, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose / By any other word would smell as sweet,” is facing a direct challenge in the theatre of Indian politics.
The BJP-led central government, through legislative action introduced during the December 2025 winter session of Parliament, is moving to repeal and replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). This move is not merely an administrative adjustment. It represents a profound political and ideological intervention that seeks to redefine one of India’s most significant social safety nets, triggering a debate that cuts across economics, history, and partisan politics.
The proposal aims to replace the two-decade-old, entitlement-based rights law with a new legislative framework tentatively titled the Viksit Bharat—Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin), or VB-G RAM G Bill, 2025. Another reported name under consideration was the Pujya Bapu Gramin Rozgar Guarantee Yojana. Regardless of the final nomenclature, the heart of the controversy lies in the removal of Mahatma Gandhi’s name and the reimagining of the scheme’s foundational architecture.
The Architecture of Change: Renaming, Reworking, and Re-branding
MGNREGA, enacted in 2005, is a demand-driven labour law guaranteeing 100 days of wage employment in a financial year to every rural household whose adult members volunteer for unskilled manual work. It is a monumental piece of legislation that has been credited with empowering women, stemming distress migration, and acting as a crucial shock absorber, particularly during economic crises and the COVID-19 pandemic.
The proposed VB-G RAM G Bill, 2025, and related proposals come with a mix of substantive and symbolic changes:
Guaranteed Work Days: A significant positive step is the proposal to increase the guaranteed days of work from the current 100 to 125 days per year. This addresses a long-standing demand from activists and state governments, acknowledging the gap between the guaranteed days and the actual average days of employment (which has historically hovered around 50 days).
Shift in Funding Pattern: A major structural change is the reported move to alter the funding pattern from the current Centre-dominated model (where the Centre bears 100% of the wage component) to a 60:40 ratio between the Centre and States. The government defends this by arguing it will convert the scheme from a Centrally-Sponsored Scheme to a Central Sector scheme, incentivizing states to prevent misuse and tailor development plans to regional conditions. Critics, however, fear this will place an undue fiscal burden on states, potentially leading to a reduction in its actual implementation.
Digital Governance and Vision Alignment: The new legislation promises a modern digital governance framework incorporating biometric authentication, AI tools for monitoring, and a link to the Viksit Bharat 2047 vision. This suggests a shift from a pure social security safety net to a "future-oriented development mission" focusing on asset creation and alignment with national development goals.
The Political and Ideological Tempest
The government's stated objectives are to modernize the scheme, increase work days, and improve efficiency and asset quality. However, the decision to remove the name of the Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi, has ignited a political firestorm, providing the Opposition with potent ammunition.
The Opposition's Stance: Erasing a Legacy
Opposition parties, led by the Congress, have vehemently criticized the move, terming it a politically motivated attempt to rewrite history and erase the legacy of Mahatma Gandhi and the previous government that enacted the scheme.
Symbolism and Heritage: Leaders have questioned the necessity of removing a global icon's name from a scheme for the rural poor, calling it a "dishonour to his legacy." The outrage focuses on what is perceived as an ideological vendetta against the 'Gandhi' name, even as the government pays symbolic tributes to the 'Bapu'.
Cost and Waste: Critics, including senior Congress figures, have pointed out the massive, unnecessary expenditure that would be incurred on administrative changes—from renaming offices and stationery to updating all digital platforms across the country—arguing that public resources should be spent on strengthening the scheme, not rebranding it.
Branding over Substance: The renaming is alleged to be a "cosmetic change" aimed at allowing the ruling party to claim credit for a revolutionary scheme that it had once derided as a "monument of failure."
The Government's Defense: Modernization and Accountability
While the government hasn't officially issued an extensive clarification for the name change specifically, its defense focuses on the proposed structural reforms:
Focus on 'Viksit Bharat': The new name, 'VB-G RAM G', aligns the scheme with the broader national mission of 'Viksit Bharat 2047' (Developed India), suggesting a shift in focus from mere employment dole to developmental activities and asset creation.
Fiscal Accountability: By shifting the funding ratio to 60:40, the government aims to increase state accountability and check misuse, arguing that shared responsibility will lead to better resource management and efficiency.
Enhanced Benefits: The increase in guaranteed work days from 100 to 125 is presented as a concrete step to strengthen the social safety net, directly benefiting the rural poor.
More Than Just a Name: Impact on Implementation
At the core of the debate lies the power of the name itself. MGNREGA is not merely an acronym; it carries the moral authority and symbolic weight of Mahatma Gandhi, instantly communicating purpose and legitimacy to rural citizens while reinforcing its status as a legal right.
Critics fear that replacing it with a lengthy and unfamiliar title like VB-G RAM G could create confusion, weaken public awareness, and disrupt the robust system of social audits built over two decades. For many marginalised beneficiaries, the existing name embodies entitlement and trust—both of which are critical for effective implementation.
More broadly, the proposed shift reflects an attempt to move away from an entitlement-based welfare framework toward a mission-driven, infrastructure-centric approach. While the increase in workdays is welcome, the political cost of removing Gandhi’s name, the administrative expense of rebranding, and the risk of reduced state participation due to funding changes turn this proposal into a deeply contested legislative battle.
Final Take
This episode reinforces a fundamental truth of governance: in social welfare, a name is never just a name. It is a repository of political history, ideological intent, and public trust. The proposed renaming of MGNREGA is therefore not a symbolic footnote but a consequential intervention—one that will shape how the state, citizens, and history itself interpret one of India’s most important social guarantees.
