Controversies over the naming of institutions, sporting events, and public establishments are common in our country, largely because of deep partisan divisions and political rivalries. However, naming union parishads after the family members of a state minister—two after two sons and one after a family title—sets a troubling new precedent. The politician at the centre of this controversy is none other than the state minister responsible for local government, the second most powerful office-holder in the ministry that oversees local government institutions, including union parishads. This ministry allocates funding, approves development programmes, and even holds the authority to remove elected representatives from these bodies.

State Minister for Local Government and Rural Development (LGRD) Mir Shahe Alam told parliament that the two unions had not been named after his sons but that the names matching exactly was merely coincidental. Responding to a question and criticism from opposition MP Shafiqul Islam, Shahe Alam insisted that the names of the unions had “miraculously” matched those of his sons. He further argued that since the prefix “Mir” was not included in the names of the two unions, they could not be linked to his family, adding that he could have instructed the deputy commissioner to include the prefix had he wished to do so. He offered no explanation, however, for the naming of Mirbari union after his family title.

It is difficult to accept that such remarkable coincidences could occur in a single upazila comprising just 12 unions—not once, not twice, but three times. If the minister’s explanation is to be accepted at face value, the phenomenon would surely merit the attention of the world’s leading mathematicians, statisticians, and algorithm experts who would be eager to understand how such extraordinary probabilities can come to pass.

Equally troubling is the enthusiasm with which Treasury bench members endorsed the minister’s explanation, seemingly forgetting the familiar adage: “Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern.” One cannot help wondering whether party loyalty clouded their judgement. In this context, it is worth recalling Prime Minister Tarique Rahman’s decision to reject a proposal to rename the Keraniganj Technical Training Centre (TTC) after former Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia, arguing that existing institutions should not be renamed. The present controversy suggests that this policy directive may not have been taken seriously by all concerned.

Our elected representatives must recognise that their constituencies are not personal fiefdoms and that the public views such attitudes as abuse of power. Imposing a politician’s legacy through the naming of public institutions after their own family does not ensure permanence; rather, it fuels a cycle of politically motivated renaming whenever governments change. This practice must end. The government would do well to reverse these naming decisions and thus deliver a clear message that members of the cabinet and parliament cannot allow personal or family interests to interfere with their sole duty to serve the public.