If there’s one thing the Modi government is really good at, it’s giving a much-needed facelift to tired old policy ideas and infusing them with energy and urgency. Everyone loves “Make in India”, but how many of you know about UPA’s National Manufacturing Policy launched in 2011? Or consider the recently launched “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana”, which is a revamped version of two crop insurance schemes from the UPA regime. The makeovers are not always shallow: some policies have been given the “NaMo” touch – for better or worse – and are then marketed aggressively, unlike the bad old UPA days.

The latest example of the government’s rebranding exercise is to groups of people. Specifically, people with disabilities whom the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (MSJE) will now refer to as “divyang jan” (persons with extraordinary abilities), instead of “viklang jan” (persons with disabilities). The MSJE was inspired by Prime Minister Modi himself, who spoke of the need to change the conventional mind set when it comes to physically-challenged people and suggested the alternative name “divyang” as he felt they have a “divine ability”. The word, however, will only be used in Hindi. In English, the term “persons with disabilities” will continue to be used.

While the MSJE claimed that it had consulted six independent disability rights organisations before going ahead with the change, five of them have denied receiving any correspondence regarding the same. The sixth organisation – Bangalore based Action for Mental Illness (ACMI) – received a letter from MSJE after they contacted the ministry first, asking how their name was on the list of organisations that were consulted when they actually weren’t.

The government’s benevolent gesture hasn’t been appreciated by disability rights NGOs as much as the Centre may have hoped. Several have called the term “divyang” condescending, patronising and regressive. Others felt that such “positive terminology” would have very little effect as long as the “stigmatisation and marginalisation” of differently-abled people continues.

Perhaps the government should stick to revamping policies and leave people to decide for themselves how what they wish to be called?