A lot is in a name, even the name of a scheme. The Union government has made it clear that states should not change the names of schemes sponsored by the Centre, 15 of which begin with either ‘Pradhan Mantri’ or ‘Prime Minister’. Bengal and Tamil Nadu are among the states not led by the Bharatiya Janata Party that are unhappy with these names and Bengal has renamed some of the schemes, occasionally with some repackaging as well. The schemes are funded jointly by the Centre and the states on a 60:40 ratio except in the Northeast and the Himalayan states where the ratio is 90:10. Funds are a crucial issue. One reason that Bengal has given for its renaming — the disagreements are not new — is that since the state has to pay more than 40% of the cost, there is no reason why the Centre should get all the credit. More, Bengal has repeatedly complained that funds are not released by the Centre — for the 100-days’ work scheme, for example. Recently, funds have been withheld specifically for change of name and alleged discrimination among the beneficiaries of the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana, which has been renamed Bangla Gram Sadak Yojana.

This is not the only scheme to be renamed. But a few years ago, Bengal pointed out that other states have altered names of Central schemes without their funds being withheld, such as Delhi and Uttar Pradesh. There is an underlying irony. The Union government took over a number of schemes from earlier governments and renamed them presumably in a bid to stamp itself as the originator on voters’ minds. Indira Gandhi Awaas Yojana, for instance, is now Pradhan Mantri Gramin Awaas Yojana, the free LPG connection to BPL families is Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojna, and the National Manufacturing Policy is Make in India. There are over 30 such schemes. The names now seem to be counters for benefits to be given to or withheld from states ruled by the Opposition; the question of rights is irrelevant. But the names, whether beginning with ‘prime minister’ or ‘chief minister’, are themselves problematic. Why should people be reminded of a specific politician or party when their basic rights to food, shelter, health, education or smooth movement are being fulfilled? There is a need to rethink the entire system of naming schemes — and renaming them.