‘Not demolition but overdue repair’: BJP’s Amit Malviya hits back at Sonia Gandhi on MGNREGA

Amit Malviya

BJP national IT cell in-charge Amit Malviya on Monday pushed back against Congress Parliamentary Party chairperson Sonia Gandhi’s criticism of the VB-G RAM-G law, saying the legislation represents reform, not dismantling, of employment guarantees.

Responding on X, Malviya said Gandhi’s recent op-ed in an English daily was driven more by political interpretation than legal or factual analysis. He claimed her arguments were based on misrepresentation and selective reading of the law.

“Sonia Gandhi's recent article on MGNREGA reads less like a serious engagement with law or data and more like a flight of political fancy. It is evident that she has not read the VB-G RAM G Act,” Malviya wrote, alleging that her critique relied on “mischaracterisations, selective memory, and outright falsehoods”.

Has the Modi Government “Bulldozed” MGNREGA? Or Repaired It? Sonia Gandhi’s recent article on MGNREGA reads less like a serious engagement with law or data and more like a flight of political fancy. It is evident that she has not read the VB–G RAM G Act, because her arguments… pic.twitter.com/ffyUAhmS5M

— Amit Malviya (@amitmalviya) December 22, 2025

Countering Gandhi’s claim that the demand-driven nature of rural employment had been weakened, Malviya said the legal right to work remains unchanged. According to him, the key shift is in budgeting, which has moved from an open-ended system to a norm-based framework similar to other government schemes.

He also said the employment guarantee had, in fact, been strengthened, with the maximum number of workdays raised from 100 to 125. Citing figures for FY 2024–25, Malviya claimed planned allocations closely matched actual demand, pointing to improved fiscal planning.

“Far from weakening the guarantee, employment has been strengthened from 100 days to 125 days,” he said, adding that disciplined planning had delivered better outcomes.

Addressing concerns that changes to the framework would hurt the poorest, Malviya termed such claims misleading. He cited a sharp decline in rural poverty and a rise in MSME credit since 2014, arguing that expanded self-employment and non-farm livelihood options had altered rural realities.

“Public policy cannot be frozen in the conditions of 2005 when India has demonstrably moved forward,” he said.

On allegations that the Centre was shifting the financial burden to states by moving from a 90:10 to a 60:40 funding model, Malviya rejected the claim, saying MGNREGA was never fully funded by the Centre in practice. He said states had long borne high costs, including material expenses, administrative overheads and unemployment allowances.

According to Malviya, the new model formalises these arrangements, making states equal partners rather than passive implementers.

“This is not demolition; it is overdue repair,” he wrote, describing the VB-G RAM-G law as a necessary update to India’s social protection framework.

Sonia Gandhi, in her article titled ‘The Bulldozed Demolition of MGNREGA’, accused the Centre of weakening rights-based legislation and undermining livelihood security for rural households. She described the changes to MGNREGA as a “collective moral failure” with long-term consequences for working families.