Congress leader Sachin Pilot has launched a sharp critique against the central government. He termed the replacement of the rural employment law MGNREGA as a historic mistake. This move, he argues, systematically attacks the livelihood chances of the most vulnerable.
Pilot made these remarks while speaking to reporters in Bengaluru. He accused the ruling BJP of engaging in political vendetta. He specifically referenced the National Herald case involving Sonia and Rahul Gandhi.
The government of India has made a historic mistake, Pilot stated firmly. For the first time since independence, a scheme named after the father of the nation has been changed. He views this as a significant and deliberate alteration.
The former Rajasthan Deputy Chief Minister elaborated on his stance. He said the government has single-handedly destroyed a crucial financial safety net. That safety net was the erstwhile programme called MGNREGA for rural India.
Pilot emphasized the process was deeply flawed. MGNREGA has been repealed without any discussion with state governments. There were no consultations with stakeholders or civil society, he noted.
The parliament was used to display the brute force of the majority. Legislation was pushed through in this manner, according to his account. This approach bypassed meaningful democratic debate.
The new legislation represents a systematic attack, he reiterated. It targets the livelihood chances of those who have the least in our society. The shift in policy direction is profound and concerning.
Look at the bill that was passed, Pilot urged. The earlier MGNREGA was a demand-driven scheme. This fundamental characteristic has been completely altered.
Now the programme is overly centralised, he explained. The government of India will decide what works have to be done and at what point. Local autonomy has been stripped away.
This centralisation reverses previous empowerment. Through MGNREGA, we had empowered the Gram Sabhas, Pilot recalled. That local decision-making power has now been significantly curtailed.
The change marks a historic mistake in governance philosophy. It removes a foundational support system for rural workers. The implications for rural livelihoods are severe.
Pilot’s critique connects this policy shift to broader political tactics. He frames it alongside actions like the National Herald case. Together, they paint a picture of systematic pressure.
The attack on livelihood chances is not an isolated incident, in his view. It is part of a pattern that affects democratic institutions and welfare. The replacement of MGNREGA stands as a central example.
This historic mistake will have long-lasting repercussions, he suggests. The safety net that took years to build has been dismantled. Rural India faces an uncertain future without it.
The conversation around this historic mistake is just beginning. Pilot’s strong condemnation highlights deep political divisions. The focus remains on the impact on the poorest citizens.