Centre, BJP counter Congress-led Opposition campaign against VB-G RAM G

As the Centre pushes VB-G RAM G to replace MGNREGA, the BJP and Congress lock horns over federalism, funding burdens and the future of rural jobs

The central government and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have asked ministers and key leaders to counter the Congress-led Opposition’s campaign on the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Aajeevika Mission (Gramin), or VB-G RAM G, law.

 

On Sunday, in Patna, Union minister and Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas) National President Chirag Paswan accused the Congress of misleading people by spreading fear around the government’s schemes, especially the renaming of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). 

 

He said the National Democratic Alliance, the ruling alliance at the Centre and Bihar, was ready to debate the merits of the new scheme, VB-G RAM G, rather than its name.

 

 

“The Congress and Rashtriya Janata Dal claim that the VB-G RAM G Act has placed extra burden on states by increasing their contribution to the overall budget for the scheme. Little do they realise that this has been done to ensure collective responsibility on the lines of the federal structure of the country,” Paswan said, according to a Press Trust of India report.

 

According to sources, other ministers and leaders in the days to come will address press conferences to counter the Congress campaign on the issue.

 

The Congress on Saturday launched its 45-day nationwide campaign “MGNREGA Bachao Sangram” against the repeal of the rural employment law (which came into effect in 2006), by holding press conferences in every district.

 

The Congress’ agitation demanding the withdrawal of the VB-G RAM G Act and restoration of the MGNREGA as a rights-based law in its original form, the right to work, and the authority of panchayats, will continue till February 25.

 

“The Congress is committed to seeing this struggle through until we secure the restoration of the right to work, livelihood, and accountability that the (Narendra) Modi Government has snatched with its bulldozer demolition of the MGNREGA,” party General Secretary Jairam Ramesh said in a post on X.

 

In their pre-Budget meeting with Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on Saturday, Opposition-ruled states like Punjab and Telangana demanded additional resources from the Centre in the Budget, and said that the 60:40 cost-sharing under the proposed VB-G RAM G scheme would impose further fiscal burden on the already strained resources of the states.

 

Punjab Finance Minister Harpal Singh Cheema, Telangana Finance Minister Mallu Bhatti Vikramarka, and Telangana Deputy Chief Minister Mallu Bhatti Vikramarka flagged the added burden on the states.

 

Karnataka Revenue Minister Krishna Byre Gowda also highlighted the fiscal and employment impact of replacing the demand-driven MGNREGA with the allocation-based VB-G RAM G scheme. He said the shift had reduced effective employment days and cautioned that to continue providing livelihood security for 130 million person-days, "Karnataka would require approximately ₹2,000 crore, which is fiscally unsustainable”.

 

Goa Chief Minister Pramod Sawant sought a more equitable Centre-state funding pattern under centrally sponsored schemes, taking into account Goa’s coastal challenges, the ecology of the Western Ghats, and national tourism responsibilities.

 

Haryana Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini on Saturday asked the Centre for increased allocation to meet growing infrastructure needs of the state and said that to maintain the momentum of rural development, the general allocation under RIDF (rural infrastructure development fund) should be increased to ₹2,000 crore in 2026-27.

 

Sawant and Saini also hold the finance portfolio in their respective states. 

Talking points

• Union Minister Chirag Paswan said NDA was ready to debate merits of the scheme, not its name 
• Union Minister Gajendra Shekhawat said Congress and its allies treated MGNREGA as a cash cow for corruption for years 
• Opposition-ruled states aired their concern with the 60:40 cost sharing structure, fearing further strain on resources