Explained : Politics of Centralisation in the Name of Ram Rajya and Its Impact

The Bill titled “Viksit Bharat  Employment and Livelihood Guarantee Mission (Rural)”, presented in the Lok Sabha as a replacement for the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), must be rejected for several reasons. It is not merely a change of name; it is an attempt to alter the very foundational nature of the existing scheme. This move represents yet another effort by the BJP-led central government to shrink the developmental space available to states.

The sole reason behind the renaming appears to be the deep ideological differences that the BJP’s mentor organisation, the RSS, has historically had with Mahatma Gandhi. For the last 20 years, the use of Gandhi’s name symbolised the scheme’s connection with his idea of “Gram Swaraj”, which emphasises democratic decentralisation. However, the proposed Bill does not contribute positively to this objective. On the contrary, it concentrates decision-making powers almost entirely in the hands of the central government.

Supporters of the government argue that increasing the number of guaranteed workdays to 125 per year is a major benefit for rural India. However, employment data under MGNREGA tells a different story. In the COVID-19 year 2020–21, only 9.5% (approximately 7.2 million) households actually received the full 100 days of work. Over the past two years, only about 7% of households have received their complete work entitlement.

By designating VB-G Ram Ji as a “centrally sponsored scheme”, the central government has removed its special status, under which it earlier bore the entire cost of wages for unskilled manual labour. Under the proposed scheme, the funding pattern between the Centre and the states will generally be 60:40. One of the key benefits of the current scheme has been the sharp rise in rural wages. At present, states are already facing poor financial health, along with concerns arising from changes in the GST structure. Moreover, while Direct Benefit Transfer schemes are often projected as politically transformative, it is an open secret that very few states will be enthusiastic about joining this new scheme.

Most importantly, the soul of the existing law  a bottom-up, demand-driven framework  has been removed. The proposed model is supply-driven, with the central government fixing expenditure ceilings. Any spending beyond this limit will have to be borne by the states, which is a new and troubling feature. Tamil Nadu and Kerala have opposed this Bill, arguing that it undermines the interests of states.

In 2005, the Congress-led central government introduced the scheme known as MGNREGA the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. The scheme was built around the citizen’s right to work, guaranteeing at least 100 days of employment per year to adult members of rural households. After its implementation, the scheme faced serious allegations of corruption. When the BJP-led government came to power, the Prime Minister famously referred to MGNREGA as a “living monument of Congress failures.” He also stated, “I will not shut down this scheme. My political wisdom tells me that it should be allowed to continue with great fanfare as a memorial of Congress’ failure.” Consequently, during its eleven years in power, the BJP-led government continued the scheme. In reality, this was a necessity  no welfare state can afford to ignore such a fundamental need.

How useful MGNREGA is, how much corruption existed earlier and how much exists now, can be subjects of separate debates. However, the current discussion has arisen because of the government’s announcement that the scheme must be renamed to make India a developed nation by 2047. The government has decided to rename it “Pujya Bapu Rural Employment Scheme,” abbreviated as the “G-Ramji Bill.” Along with the name change, several other modifications are also being introduced.

These changes themselves deserve independent discussion. At present, however, the controversy centres on why the government is removing Mahatma Gandhi’s name from a public welfare scheme. The answers offered so far are limited to the claim that such a step is necessary to realise the dream of a developed India by the centenary of independence. It is also argued that a name change should not matter Gandhi is being replaced by “Pujya Bapu,” which is also associated with Lord Ram, Gandhi’s revered ideal. So why should anyone object?

The objection exists because the issue is not merely about replacing “Mahatma Gandhi” with “Bapu.” The real issue is the government’s intent. While criticising MGNREGA in Parliament, the Prime Minister himself had referred to his “political wisdom.” Even if this political wisdom is not being openly stated today, the BJP-led government is being accused of indulging in the politics of renaming.

Over the past decade, this politics of renaming has been repeatedly discussed. The Congress has consistently alleged that the present government changes the names of its schemes to appropriate credit. That policy can be debated separately. But today, the real need is to reflect on the appropriateness of politics centred on renaming schemes, places, and cities. In the last ten to twelve years alone, numerous places and roads have been renamed for political gain. This is not something only the BJP has done  governments of different eras have done so, and it has now almost become a tradition. In Delhi alone, several roads have been renamed. But it must be understood that every change does not necessarily signify progress.

Renaming Rajpath as Kartavya Path does not automatically change the mindset of those who walk on it. To reform mindsets, society’s ideology must change. Irrational changes achieve nothing; what is required are substantive reforms. Renaming driven by arguments of cultural reconstruction or alleged historical wrongs ultimately reflects a narrow mindset. It is necessary to move beyond this thinking and to understand that merely changing names does not change realities.

If there were flaws in MGNREGA, they did not exist because Gandhi’s name was attached to it. Likewise, merely adding Lord Ram’s name to a new scheme will not automatically make it better. To link Gandhi’s idea of Ram Rajya with decisions taken as political expediency is to play with the very concept of Ram Rajya itself. If MGNREGA is being renamed according to the government’s political wisdom, it inevitably points to a political motive behind the move. Only by distancing ourselves from this politics of renaming can we truly climb the steps of genuine development.

It is therefore essential to break free from renaming driven by political self-interest. Such politics will take development nowhere. Ultimately, the government must answer this question: Why was it necessary to remove Mahatma Gandhi’s name from MGNREGA? Gandhi did not belong to any single political party  he belonged to the entire nation and to the world. Changing a scheme that carries his name should not carry the stench of political opportunism.

True change will come not by bowing before Gandhi’s statues in India and abroad, but by walking the path he showed. The mindset that seeks to remove Gandhi’s name symbolises a rejection of Gandhi himself. One notable feature of the proposed Bill is its claim to ensure that scheme work does not clash with agricultural activities during sowing and harvesting seasons. After consultation with states, this provision could have been explicitly incorporated into MGNREGA itself.

No matter how strongly Rural Development Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan claims that the new law aligns with Gandhi’s spirit, the core objective of Ram Rajya  good governance through decentralised, grassroots democracy  cannot be realised without genuine decentralisation. The proposed law neither promotes nor nurtures this vision.

 Vikas Parashram Meshram is a journalist

 Email – [email protected]