Price of Policy Branding

In India’s federal setup, policy branding has become a flashpoint between the Centre and states, disrupting welfare delivery. Disputes over names—like Kerala’s rejection of ‘Ayushman Arogya Mandir’ or Bengal’s take on MGNREGA—have led to funding delays, governance lapses, and service disruptions, affecting millions who rely on these schemes.

Healthcare and the ‘Ayushman Arogya Mandir’ Controversy

One of the most striking examples of this phenomenon is the renaming of National Health Mission (NHM) health centers as ‘Ayushman Arogya Mandir.’ The Kerala government rejected this directive, citing linguistic and cultural concerns, which led to a standoff with the Union government. The consequence was the withholding of Rs 636.88 crore worth of NHM funds, delaying crucial healthcare services, infrastructure expansion, maternal healthcare, and immunization drives. This has had tangible consequences on the ground, with rural hospitals facing equipment shortages and state-run health programs struggling to operate effectively. The question that arises from this dispute is whether branding should take precedence over the actual delivery of services.

Housing Delays Due to PMAY Branding Dispute

The housing sector has also seen similar disputes. The Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) is one of the most ambitious welfare schemes aimed at providing affordable housing, yet its implementation in Kerala was marred by branding conflicts. Kerala sought to integrate PMAY-funded projects with its own Life Mission housing program, but the Centre insisted on exclusive PMAY branding. This disagreement led to delays in approvals, which meant thousands of eligible families had to wait longer for their homes. Similar branding clashes in other states have also resulted in stalled housing projects, effectively making the government’s vision of ‘Housing for All’ a distant dream for many. The tussle over political credit has resulted in governance inefficiencies, where beneficiaries are left in limbo while governments argue over naming rights.

Prime Minister’s Photograph and National Food Security Act Fund Freeze

Co-branding disputes have also surfaced in the implementation of the National Food Security Act (NFSA) in West Bengal, where the Union government withheld Rs 7,000 crore in funds because the state government refused to display the Prime Minister’s photograph and the NFSA logo at ration shops. This move affected the Public Distribution System (PDS), disrupting food supply chains and delaying subsidized food grains for millions of beneficiaries. Such conflicts raise an important question: Should the branding of welfare programs take precedence over the urgent needs of citizens? The politicization of relief measures creates unnecessary roadblocks, preventing efficient policy delivery. When the allocation of essential resources like food, healthcare, and employment is contingent on branding compliance, it erodes the foundational principles of cooperative federalism.

MGNREGA and the West Bengal Fund Freeze

The battle over branding has also extended to the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). In West Bengal, the state government was accused of removing central branding from MGNREGA and Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) projects, which led to a complete freeze of funds by the Union government. The result was disastrous, as millions of MGNREGA workers went unpaid for months, severely impacting rural employment and livelihood security. This funding freeze underscored a larger issue: when a decentralized scheme is implemented at the state level, does the Centre deserve sole recognition? The inability to resolve this question has led to repeated disruptions, policy stagnation, and an erosion of cooperative federalism. The people who rely on these programs for their daily survival end up suffering the most as a consequence of bureaucratic and political disagreements.

Tamil Nadu’s Resistance to PM Poshan

A similar controversy played out in Tamil Nadu when the state resisted renaming its long-established mid-day meal program to align with the centrally funded PM Poshan scheme. Tamil Nadu has had a pioneering mid-day meal program since the 1980s, introduced under the Puratchi Thalaivar MGR Nutritious Meal Programme. When the Centre mandated that states rename their school meal programs under the PM Poshan branding, Tamil Nadu refused, arguing that the change would dilute the legacy of its highly successful nutrition initiative. The dispute led to delays in fund disbursement, affecting meal distribution for 6.5 million children. The conflict here is clear: while uniformity in policy names may serve political and administrative interests at the national level, it should not come at the cost of long-standing state initiatives that have been successfully addressing local needs.

Agriculture and Punjab’s Exit from PMFBY

Agriculture, too, has not been immune to these branding disputes. Punjab withdrew from the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) over disagreements related to branding and implementation control. The state government decided to launch its own crop insurance scheme instead, but without central funding, farmers faced higher premiums and lower enrollments. This shift not only imposed a financial burden on farmers but also highlighted a major flaw in India’s policy framework: when centralized branding mandates push states into running independent but costlier alternatives, it ultimately hurts the people. Instead of fostering cooperative governance, such disputes force states into a position where they must either comply with branding mandates or bear the additional financial burden of launching their own programs.

Branding disputes between the Centre and states are undermining India’s federal structure. Co-branding mandates often tie crucial funds to political visibility, forcing states into compliance and sidelining regional needs. West Bengal’s MGNREGA fund freeze and Tamil Nadu’s resistance to PM Poshan reveal how state autonomy is eroded. Kerala’s delay in housing projects and Punjab’s exit from PMFBY show how uniform branding disrupts implementation, especially when local cultural contexts are ignored. These conflicts stall welfare delivery and highlight a deeper issue: the failure of cooperative federalism, where governance is compromised in the struggle for credit and control. Resolving co-branding disputes demands a flexible, cooperative approach. Joint branding models, transparent credit-sharing, and mandatory consultations can ease tensions, as seen in the PMAY-Life Mission case. An independent arbitration body could prevent funding delays like in Tamil Nadu’s PM Poshan row. Legislative safeguards for state branding rights—through amendments to Schedule VII—may further protect the federal balance. These disputes are not just symbolic; they test the core of India’s federalism. When governance is delayed over credit, citizens suffer. True cooperative federalism requires collaboration over coercion, with policy delivery taking precedence over political optics.

The writer is a policy economist and a fellow at Governance Innovation Labs. Views expressed are personal