Parliament

December 16, 2025, proved to be one of the most contentious days of the Winter Session of Parliament. From the moment proceedings began, both Houses were engulfed in tension, repeated disruptions, and sharp ideological clashes. At the centre of the storm was the government’s move to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act with a new framework, the VB–G RAM G Bill, 2025.

For the Opposition, this was not a routine policy shift. They framed it as a fundamental assault on a landmark welfare law and a symbolic erasure of Mahatma Gandhi’s legacy from public policy.

MGNREGA and the Battle Over Legacy

As soon as the Bill was taken up in the Lok Sabha, protests erupted. Opposition members argued that MGNREGA was more than an employment programme—it represented guaranteed dignity through work and embodied Gandhian principles of decentralisation and village self-rule.

Rahul Gandhi led the Opposition’s attack, accusing Prime Minister Narendra Modi of ideological hostility toward both Mahatma Gandhi and the rural poor. He reminded the House of MGNREGA’s role as a crucial economic safety net during the COVID-19 crisis and alleged that the scheme had been deliberately weakened through underfunding and administrative neglect over the past decade. According to him, the new Bill was an attempt to dismantle the programme under the cover of reform.

Renaming or Rewriting Rights

Priyanka Gandhi Vadra sharpened the critique, accusing the government of prioritising renaming over genuine improvement. She warned that the VB–G RAM G Bill diluted legally enforceable rights, weakened transparency, and shifted power away from Panchayati Raj institutions toward the Centre. Questioning the removal of Gandhi’s name, she described the move as politically driven and socially damaging, arguing that it undermined local self-governance and accountability.

Independent MP Pappu Yadav echoed these concerns in forceful terms, calling the renaming an attack on the nation’s moral foundation. He accused the government of authoritarian tendencies while insisting that Gandhi’s ideas could not be erased through legislation.

Ideology Meets Economics

Congress MP Shashi Tharoor offered a more layered critique, describing the renaming as ideologically loaded and inappropriate for a socio-economic welfare scheme. He objected to the use of religious symbolism in the new title and warned that shifting nearly 40 percent of the financial burden to states, while promising additional days of work, would strain poorer states and weaken the programme. Drawing on Gandhian philosophy and literature, Tharoor cautioned against dishonouring a legacy rooted in dignity and social justice.

Government Stands Its Ground

Despite the protests, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju made it clear that the government would not retreat. He stated that while the Opposition had the right to protest or walk out, the government had a duty to carry forward its legislative agenda. Objections, he argued, should focus on constitutional and procedural grounds rather than symbolism.

Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan formally moved the motion to introduce the VB–G RAM G Bill, presenting it as a modernised framework aimed at improving rural employment outcomes. His remarks, however, were repeatedly drowned out by sloganeering, forcing the Speaker to adjourn the Lok Sabha till 2 pm.

Insurance Reform Sparks Another Flashpoint

The turbulence was not limited to rural employment. Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman introduced the Insurance Laws Amendment Bill, proposing to raise foreign direct investment in the insurance sector to 100 percent. The move triggered loud Opposition protests over fears of foreign control and the future of public sector insurers.

Defending the proposal, Sitharaman argued that expanding insurance coverage was essential for inclusive growth and pointed to increased coverage for vulnerable populations, including during the pandemic.

Rajya Sabha: Welfare Beyond Employment

In the Rajya Sabha, Sonia Gandhi shifted attention to the working conditions of women frontline workers such as ASHA and Anganwadi workers. She highlighted low wages, heavy workloads, lack of social security, and delayed payments, urging the Centre to increase funding, fill vacancies, and strengthen rural health and nutrition services.

Economic Data and Legislative Scrutiny

The government also revealed key economic data during the session. Minister Jitin Prasada informed the Lok Sabha that India’s trade deficit with China had widened significantly, prompting the formation of an inter-ministerial committee to review trade patterns and suggest corrective measures.

Meanwhile, the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025 was referred to a Joint Committee for detailed scrutiny, while Opposition MPs objected to the sudden inclusion of the Atomic Bill as supplementary business, alleging inadequate transparency.

Language, Federalism, and Sporting Politics

Additional friction arose over language and symbolism. P Chidambaram criticised the use of Hindi titles written in English script for Bills, calling it exclusionary and dismissive of non-Hindi-speaking states. Protests also broke out over plans to host the Commonwealth Games 2030 solely in Ahmedabad, with demands that Haryana be included as a co-host.

Amid the chaos, Union Minister Piyush Goyal highlighted nearly 20 percent growth in marine exports, presenting it as evidence of economic resilience despite global uncertainties.

A Day That Laid Bare Political Fault Lines

By the end of the day, Parliament stood adjourned amid unresolved tensions. The proceedings exposed deep divisions over welfare policy, federal balance, economic liberalisation, language, and the symbolic role of Mahatma Gandhi in modern governance. December 16 underscored how legislation in India is often as much about ideology and identity as it is about policy.