A name board that displays narcissism

The naming of the world’s largest cricket stadium in Ahmedabad as ‘Narendra Modi Stadium’ brings into focus once again the question whether public places such as stadiums, parks, monuments, institutions or roads should be named after political leaders. And in this particular instance, whether it should have been named after a living politician and one, moreover, who is still in office.

It surprised many that the stadium, earlier known as Sardar Patel Stadium was renamed as Narendra Modi Stadium on the day of its official inauguration, and no less than the President of India, Ramnath Kovind, did so, triggering not only a slugfest among political parties but also unease amongst the thinking public.

The BJP was quick to clarify that the overall complex still bears the name of Sardar Patel and only the cricket stadium has been named after the Prime Minister.

Here again, a question springs to mind. Was there a need to name the cricket stadium after Modi? Would it not have been appropriate for the entire sports complex to be known after Sardar Patel? After all, Patel’s contribution to our country has been immense. Hasn’t Modi himself acknowledged the ‘Iron Man of India’ as an inspirational figure when, a few years ago, he said, “I am from the BJP and he was from Congress, but I still follow his ideology and beliefs, which belong to no party”?

The obsession of naming public places after politicians, especially living ones, smacks of narcissism and blatant self-promotion, which goes against democratic values. I am not singling out Modi here. In fact, such things should not happen as long as a person is living, no exceptions. There are many other ways to honour politicians during their lifetime for their contributions to public life.

Public places such as stadiums, airports, ports, museums, institutions, etc., should be appropriately named. For example, the cricket stadium in Ahmedabad could have been named after an Indian cricketer whose contribution to the game has been outstanding. There are any number of cricketers -- from Ranjitsinhji, C K Nayudu, Vijay Hazare, Pataudi, Vinoo Mankad to cricketers from Gujarat itself, such as Datta Gaekwad or Nari Contractor, who was born in Godhra.

Likewise, museums should be named after people who have contributed greatly to the arts or the sciences; educational institutions after their founders or exemplary teachers. Bridges, parks, streets can be named after national heroes or important events in our history. These will not only help people establish a link between the individual and the public place/monument but also lend context to the individual’s lasting legacy.

One is tempted to ask what Modi’s contribution to cricket is, apart from news reports saying that he conceptualised the idea of the stadium while he was Chief Minister of Gujarat.

Cartoonists had a field day, with one saying “what a way to honour the greatest spinner in the world” while another said: “It is going to be a spinning wicket for sure as it is named after India’s greatest spinner.”

Equally puzzling and amusing is the fact that the two pavilion ends of the stadium are named after corporate giants Reliance and Adani, eliciting barbs and jokes from many, with Rahul Gandhi reiterating the ‘hum do, humare do’ joke.

Raul Castro, during his time as President of Cuba, declared that his government will not allow naming of public places after his long-ruling brother Fidel Castro, as the latter was against building a personality cult. “The men and women who lead this country are people, not gods,” Fidel Castro had said in his biography.

How strikingly different it is in India and in some other countries where almost every important monument or public place is named after politicians!

I don’t mean to say that political leaders who have been immortalised through public monuments, places or institutions have not contributed to our country. Indeed, they have. But there are many others who have also contributed greatly to India in their chosen fields – scientists, artists, writers, sportspersons, educationists, social workers, soldiers who sacrificed their lives for the country, and others. Don’t they too deserve to be honoured and remembered?

The names of public places, institutions or monuments form an important part of our history as they stand as memorials for individuals and events of the past. They shed light not only on the individual but also on his or her achievements and contribution to the country, serving as inspiration for future generations.

Naming public places after individuals who are still living, and still in office, is also risky because the individual could well come to be seen as undeserving later in life. Nor can naming of public places be decided arbitrarily on the basis of political power, influence, wealth or other factors.

Hence, it is imperative that in the naming of public places, a proper, transparent procedure is followed with clearly specified processes, consistently applied rules and solid criteria to choose the right names of those who are aligned with the country’s values.

(The writer is a senior journalist)