By Mohammad Tarique Saleem
In a recent tweet, Samajwadi Party Chief Akhilesh Yadav expressed concerns regarding the construction of the new Rajbhawan in Lucknow. His statement emphasizes the importance of following legal procedures and transparency during the development process. Yadav hopes that the construction was initiated only after obtaining approval for the building map in accordance with all required standards. He further urged the concerned authorities, including the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA), to display the approved construction plans prominently at the site for public awareness.
Yadav stressed that making the construction process transparent would encourage citizens to follow legal guidelines for their own projects. Public display of maps would also build trust in governance, setting an example for others that every structure should comply with proper regulations. This call for accountability reflects his broader concern for ensuring lawful and orderly development in Uttar Pradesh.
Akhilesh Yadav’s tweet also raised an ideological point regarding the name of the Rajbhawan. He suggested that the current name, which includes the term ‘Raj’—a symbol of monarchy and British colonial influence—should be replaced with ‘Seva’, meaning service. According to Yadav, renaming it as ‘Seva-Bhawan’ would align better with democratic values, focusing on governance as service to the people rather than as a remnant of hierarchical power.
This proposal ties into a larger national conversation around renaming institutions with colonial or monarchical undertones, in favor of names that reflect modern, democratic India. Yadav’s idea reflects the vision of shifting government structures from symbols of authority to symbols of service and accessibility. His suggestion challenges the continuation of colonial legacies in the names of public institutions and advocates for a people-centric approach to governance.
The tweet has sparked discussions about whether names like Rajbhawan still align with contemporary democratic ideals or if changes are needed to reflect the evolving political ethos of India. While some support the renaming as a positive move toward inclusivity, others believe that such decisions require broader public dialogue.
Akhilesh Yadav’s comments highlight both the need for legal accountability in public projects and the importance of language in shaping the relationship between governance and citizens. His dual emphasis on transparency and symbolism offers food for thought for both policymakers and the public as India reimagines its institutions for the future.