Listen to the article
Indian Rural Development Minister Accuses Congress of Spreading Misinformation on New Employment Scheme
Rural Development Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan launched a sharp critique against the Congress party on Sunday, accusing it of spreading falsehoods about the recently enacted Viksit Bharat-Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (VB-G RAM G) scheme that replaces the long-standing Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).
During a press conference in New Delhi, Chouhan characterized the Congress party’s announced nationwide “MGNREGA Bachao Sangram” (Save MGNREGA Struggle) as an attempt to preserve corruption rather than protect workers’ rights.
“MGNREGA had become synonymous with corruption,” Chouhan asserted, citing over 1.05 million complaints revealed through social audits conducted by gram sabhas. He detailed allegations of repeated work, improper use of machinery, misappropriation of funds for canal and road cleaning, and claimed that 30 percent of registered workers were above 60 years of age.
The minister emphasized the stark financial contrast between administrations, noting that while the Modi government had allocated approximately ₹848,000 crore to rural employment programs, the previous Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government had provided only about ₹200,000 crore. Chouhan questioned whether these substantial funds had resulted in the creation of permanent assets or meaningful rural development.
“Congress is a factory of lies. Now they’re saying workers won’t get work,” Chouhan charged, defending the new VB-G RAM G scheme as offering superior protections and benefits for rural workers compared to its predecessor.
The new legislation, which received presidential assent on December 21, 2025, guarantees 125 days of wage employment per rural household annually, an increase from the 100 days provided under MGNREGA. According to Chouhan, the government plans to allocate ₹151,282 crore for the scheme in the next fiscal year, with the central government contributing over ₹95,600 crore.
“There is enough money for 125 days. It will also ensure development of villages,” he assured, appealing to the opposition to cease spreading what he termed misinformation and instead express gratitude to Prime Minister Narendra Modi for enhancing the rural employment program.
The parliamentary passage of the VB-G RAM G bill has been controversial since its inception. The legislation was pushed through both houses of Parliament in December 2025 amid significant opposition protest. The Rajya Sabha passed the bill with a voice vote on December 18, just hours after the Lok Sabha cleared it through similar proceedings.
In response to the government’s actions, the Congress party announced a nationwide campaign against the new law on January 3. The “MGNREGA Bachao Sangram” is scheduled to run from January 10 to February 25, with demands including the withdrawal of the VB-G RAM G Act, restoration of MGNREGA as a rights-based law, protection of the right to work, and preservation of panchayat authority in rural employment programs.
The controversy highlights the ongoing tension between the ruling BJP-led government and opposition parties over rural welfare policies. MGNREGA, established in 2005 during the UPA government, has been a flagship program providing guaranteed employment to rural households and is widely credited with reducing poverty in rural India.
Critics of the new legislation argue that replacing MGNREGA could weaken legal protections for rural workers and potentially diminish the role of local governance institutions. Supporters counter that the revised program addresses corruption issues while extending employment guarantees and enhancing rural development outcomes.
As the political battle over rural employment continues, the impact of this policy shift on India’s vast rural population remains to be seen, with both economic outcomes and electoral implications hanging in the balance.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
13 Comments
This seems like a politically-charged debate, with both sides making strong claims. I hope the government and opposition can put aside partisan interests and work together to improve rural development initiatives in a transparent and accountable manner.
Replacing a long-standing program like MGNREGA is a significant policy shift. While the government cites issues with the existing program, the opposition claims the new scheme is inferior. I’d like to see more data and analysis to evaluate the merits of each approach.
The minister’s claims about MGNREGA corruption are concerning, if true. However, the opposition’s reaction suggests there may be more to the story. I hope both sides can engage in constructive dialogue to improve rural employment programs and address any shortcomings.
Agreed, an open and fact-based discussion is needed here. Transparency and accountability should be the priority, rather than partisan politics.
This is a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides. The government’s new scheme may have some advantages, but the MGNREGA has also played an important role in providing rural employment. I hope the government and opposition can work together to strengthen rural development initiatives.
The minister’s criticisms of MGNREGA corruption are serious, but the opposition’s reaction suggests there may be more to the story. I think an objective, data-driven evaluation of both programs’ performance and impacts would help inform the way forward.
This is a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides. While the government cites issues with MGNREGA, the opposition claims the new VB-G RAM G scheme is inferior. I hope both sides can engage in constructive dialogue to find the best solutions for rural development and employment.
This debate highlights the challenges of balancing rural development priorities, addressing corruption, and maintaining effective employment programs. I hope the government and opposition can find common ground to improve outcomes for rural communities.
The minister’s criticisms of MGNREGA are serious, but the opposition’s reaction suggests there may be more to the story. I’d like to see an independent analysis of the program’s performance and the potential benefits/drawbacks of the new VB-G RAM G scheme.
Agreed, an objective assessment is needed here. Both the government and opposition seem to have strong views, so it’s important to look at the facts and data to determine the best path forward for rural employment programs.
Interesting to see the government’s perspective on MGNREGA and the new VB-G RAM G scheme. There seem to be valid concerns about misuse and inefficiency, but the opposition is accusing the government of spreading misinformation. I’d like to see more objective data on the program’s performance and impacts.
Replacing a long-standing program like MGNREGA is a major change. While the government cites issues with corruption, the opposition claims misinformation. I think it’s important to carefully evaluate the data and impacts before rushing to judgment on either side.
The minister’s allegations of corruption in MGNREGA are concerning, but the opposition’s reaction suggests there may be more nuance to the situation. I think an independent audit or impact assessment would help shed light on the strengths and weaknesses of both programs.