Amid continued Opposition protests over the passage of the VB-G RAM G Bill to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), both Houses of Parliament were adjourned sine die. The Winter Session of Parliament concluded on Friday after 19 days. Taking part in the debate on the VB-G RAM G Bill in the Rajya Sabha, Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya described the Bill as unconstitutional. While speaking on the Bill, it reminds me of a poem by Sukumar Ray. I believe everybody has heard the name of Satyajit Ray, the world-renowned film director. He has made the country proud, but his father was also a talented person. He wrote a poem: “It isn’t a fable, it isn’t a lie, it’s true as true can be/ From wrestling with my shadow, my body aches, you see!” and in conclusion he says, “Here’s a medicine, brand-new and fresh, purely local-made/ I've priced it cheap for everyone, fourteen annas a bottle.” It means that somebody is fighting with a shadow. They are fighting with the shadow of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. They cannot reach that status but they can go on fighting. Now, the Government of India should have taken the responsibility of going ahead with a historical legislation. This is a Parliament where we make law and the law should be in terms of the constitutional principle and constitutional ethos. For the first time in the constitutional democracy of India, the MGNREGA had recognised the right to work. It is one of the fundamental rights. It is my right. I do not like to live on charity. This is no good saying that I am giving free ration to 80 crore people. This is really obnoxious, and this is showing disrespect to the Indian citizens. They wanted to fight Mahatma Gandhi, but they could not. They say now that it is better that the entire Act be repealed. Well, I would have appreciated it if the government had gone forward. It was a demand-driven scheme; now, you have made it a bureaucracy-driven scheme. Everything depends on the bureaucracy. That bureaucracy runs the central government. Now, the central government will decide in which village and when they will start this job. The 73d Amendment of the Constitution ensured that there should be decentralisation. Decentralisation is the foundation of constitutional democracy. The Panchayats were empowered. By empowering the Panchayats, the rural people had a sense of taking part in democratic process and decision-making process. Now, you want to take it away. Everything would be done by the Centre. And the Centre would be controlled by bureaucrats. We have seen how bureaucrats function. I do not want to mention any officer, but they have already taken steps which will destroy the Indian constitutional basic ethos. The new Bill has made the people dependent at the mercy of the bureaucrats via central government machinery. That is really going backward. They have given an illusion of 125 days’ work. On the contrary, they have made these rural people surrender to big landlords when you said that during cultivation season, this scheme would not be operative. If this scheme is not operative during the cultivation season, you force these rural people to work under minimum basic wage levels. This is the tendency. The whole purpose is to serve big landlords. The way they are handing over all the assets to three families, they also want to hand over all the rural assets to the big landlords. That is regressive. Therefore, this law has to be rejected. They should withdraw it. They should come up with a better law by which they can say that we have gone forward, not backward.

Speaking on the VB-G RAM G Bill in the Lok Sabha, Amraram said I stand in this House to speak against this Bill on behalf of the CPI(M). When farming became mechanized and wages started to decrease, our party fought for farmers and labourers, from the streets to Parliament, and during the UPA government's tenure, a law had to be enacted to guarantee employment for rural labourers for the first time. There is a world of difference between the words and actions of the BJP. The central government was bearing 100 per cent of the wages for this scheme for the last 20 years, but now it is being divided in a 60-40 ratio. It was recently announced that 125 days of wages would be provided. In the financial year 2024-25, only five per cent of the people received 100 days of employment. The BJP and its allies have chief ministers in a dozen and a half states. Why aren't welfare boards being created for these workers in Rajasthan, Haryana, Delhi, and Uttar Pradesh? The government is deliberately running away from its responsibilities. It would have been understandable if you had strengthened the MGNREGA, increased wages under it, and created various boards across the country for their welfare. Instead, they are taking away what they were already receiving. Rajasthan is most troubled by problems like drinking water. You are saying that the water problem will also be solved, paved roads will be built, and health will improve. What were you doing for the last 11 years? Through this programme, the BJP is working to abolish the employment guarantee scheme that was named after Mahatma Gandhi. This clearly shows that even today, they are still following the ideology of Godse instead of Mahatma Gandhi.

In the Lok Sabha, K Radhakrishnan opposed the Sabka Bima, Sabki Raksha (Amendment of Insurance Laws) Bill. While the title suggests universal protection, the substance of the Bill moves in the opposite direction — away from social security and towards corporate-driven insurance expansion. This Bill proposes sweeping amendments to existing insurance laws under the pretext of improving penetration and efficiency. In reality, it facilitates greater privatisation, consolidation, and foreign and private sector dominance in the insurance sector, weakening the public character of insurance that has been built over decades in this country. Public sector insurers like LIC and the General Insurance Companies have played a crucial role in social security, rural outreach, and nation-building. This Bill risks reducing them to mere market players competing on unequal terms.  Insurance is not an ordinary commodity. It is a social security instrument, especially for workers in the unorganised sector, farmers, women, and the poor. The Bill fails to ensure affordable premiums, universal coverage, or strong consumer protection. Instead, it opens the door to profit-oriented products, selective risk coverage, and denial of claims, leaving vulnerable sections exposed. The Bill also dilutes regulatory oversight and parliamentary accountability, granting excessive powers to the executive and regulators without adequate safeguards. There is no clarity on how mis-selling, claim rejections, or exclusionary practices will be prevented, particularly when private players dominate. Most importantly, the slogan “Sabka Bima, Sabki Raksha” rings hollow when there is no legally enforceable right to insurance or guaranteed coverage for all citizens. Without strengthening public insurers and ensuring state responsibility, this Bill reduces social protection to a market transaction. Therefore, I urge the government to withdraw this Bill.

Speaking on The Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Bill, A A Rahim strongly opposed the Bill. This Bill is against humanity. For my country, for the future generations, for the entire earth, for humanity, we are opposing this Bill. Why are we opposing this Bill? This Bill is clearly protecting the interests of private players, especially the interests of suppliers. The second thing, the prime thing is the liability cap. The liability cap is not sufficient. It must be enhanced. This is my Party's demand.  Section 4, Clause 1 (b) of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, which was passed by the UPA-II Government, clearly states that the operators are liable for nuclear damage arising from nuclear material coming from, or originating in, that nuclear installation. The most dangerous aspect of this Bill is that it selectively omits the liability of suppliers. This is highly objectionable. Clause 14 (1) (a) states that the central government shall be liable for the amount by which the liability exceeds the amount specified for an operator in the Second Schedule. In effect, public money is being used to shield private operators. I would like to recollect here a memorable speech given in the very same House. Shri Arun Jaitley, then Leader of the Opposition of this House, said: “Today, you are in power; tomorrow somebody else can be in power. Why must the Government of India take the liabilities of mistakes created by some third party?” These words were said by your leader. So I would like to ask the Treasury Benches: Are you still with that position? I would like to recollect another legendary leader here, Comrade Sitaram Yechury. He spoke in the same House on the same day: “Even after 26 years of the Bhopal accident, the entire elected political class of the country has let down the victims of Bhopal. ‘Let down’ is because we did not have adequate liability laws.” My Party has been repeatedly asking for strong liability laws. Don't undermine the peace of the world, don't undermine the future of our next generation. I strongly oppose the Bill and request the government to kindly send it to the Select Committee.