Former Chief Minister of Manipur and senior Congress leader Okram Ibobi Singh on Monday strongly criticised the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government for removing Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).

Addressing a press conference at Congress Bhavan on B.T. Road here, Ibobi Singh said that dropping Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the flagship rural employment scheme amounts to an insult to the Father of the Nation.

The press conference was attended by Manipur Pradesh Congress Committee (MPCC) president Keisham Meghachandra, Congress Working Committee member Gaikhangam, and other Congress legislators and party leaders.

Ibobi Singh referred to the recent amendment rechristening the scheme as the Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill (VB-G RAM G Bill), which has formally replaced MGNREGA after being passed by both Houses of Parliament. He questioned the rationale behind removing Mahatma Gandhi’s name, stating that there was no justification for delinking a welfare programme rooted in Gandhian ideals from the Father of the Nation. He said the Congress party condemns the move in the strongest terms.
While acknowledging that certain amendments aimed at improving welfare, including an increase in the guaranteed number of employment days, could be acceptable, Ibobi Singh said several provisions of the new legislation remain unclear.

Speaking on the occasion, MPCC president Keisham Meghachandra said that apart from humiliating the Father of the Nation in Parliament, the amended Act lacks clarity on several crucial aspects. He pointed out that MGNREGA is a rights-based law that allows villagers to seek legal remedies, whereas such provisions are absent in the new legislation.

Meghachandra further alleged that the amendment undermines the rights of rural people and weakens the federal structure by concentrating greater control in the hands of the Centre. He also criticised the passage of the Bill without adequate debate, stating that such a process undermines the parliamentary system.