Former Chief Minister of Manipur and senior Congress leader Okram Ibobi Singh on Monday strongly criticised the Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance Government for removing the name of Mahatma Gandhi from the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act.
Addressing a press conference at Congress Bhavan, B.T. Road here in Imphal, Ibobi Singh said that dropping Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the flagship rural employment programme amounts to an insult to the Father of the Nation. The press conference was attended by Manipur Pradesh Congress Committee President Keisham Meghachandra, Congress Working Committee member Gaikhangam, and other Congress legislators and party leaders.
Ibobi Singh stated that the recent amendment, rechristening the scheme as the Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill (VB-G RAM G Bill), which formally replaces the MGNREGA, was passed by both Houses of Parliament. He questioned the rationale behind replacing Mahatma Gandhi’s name with a different nomenclature, asserting that there was no justification for removing the name of the Father of the Nation from a welfare scheme closely associated with his ideals. He said the Congress party condemns the move in the strongest terms.
While acknowledging that amendments aimed at improving welfare, including an increase in the guaranteed number of employment days, could be considered acceptable, Ibobi Singh said several aspects of the new legislation remain unclear.
Speaking on the occasion, MPCC President Keisham Meghachandra said that apart from the humiliation of the Father of the Nation in Parliament, the amended Act lacks clarity on several crucial provisions. He pointed out that while MGNREGA is a rights-based law under which villagers can seek legal remedy, such provisions are absent in the new legislation. Meghachandra alleged that the amendment undermines the rights of rural people and disturbs the federal structure by placing greater control in the hands of the Centre. He also criticised the passage of the Bill without adequate debate, stating that such an approach undermines the parliamentary system.