Cabinet secretary K M Chandrasekhar has written a letter to all ministers, asking them not to use the names of Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi in naming welfare schemes or schools and roads and bridges. The reason: if a scheme named after Indira Gandhi is not doing well, it may impact people’s perception of the late prime minister.

However, the larger point is, do we need to tag a great leader’s name to every welfare initiative or every chowk? NREGS would do as well (or as bad) without Gandhiji getting prefixed to it. The national urban renewal mission has no intrinsic link with the first prime minister’s views on developing cities and adding his name to the scheme only makes the abbreviation lengthy. The name game then becomes yet another political arena, for credit-grabbing and political branding. If it’s Rajiv Awas Yojana, the electorate is supposed to remember that they are grateful to the Congress, if it’s Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana, thank BJP for it. Moreover, people have a way of branding things on their own. Delhiites call Connaught Place just that (or CP), and not Rajiv Chowk (or RC).

Granted that we should nurture the memory of great leaders and the naming of various things (as well as creating memorials and parks and statues) is a way of keeping their legacy alive for the next generation. But do you think adding two letters to the already too long names of our supposedly welfare initiatives is serving any purpose?