The talk kept going on between the extremes of too much or too little. They interacted discussion amid political pressure, intensity, rude responding, gratifying and whatever appeared genuine to them. Though the viewers were accustomed to such type of tendency, they were thought of arguments that reached a level of battle. Their too loud shouts repelled charm of the discussion as it really caught viewers’ noticeable disdain. The focus remained on changing name of Allahabad and Lucknow respectively. The panellists comprised of Congress leader, Samajwadi spokesperson, BJP spokesperson, VHP known spokesman and two learned historians. What surprised us was undiluted heated arguments with the two historians of different ideologies. While discussing the topic one historian even raised the question at the use of “India” so far. He was favouring the use of Bharat instead. Both the prominent cities continued with their medieval names. If Allahabad got its name during Akbar’s rule, Lucknow got its popularity during the Nawabs of Awadh. Prayag already exists in Allahabad and Prayag Ghat station is also present. Lucknow is supposed to get its name from Laxman, brother of Lord Rama. What the viewers happened to realise was that none of the panel members maintained demureness? There was everything in a name as the politics moved around it at this point in time. The politicians understood the purpose behind their points. But the clamour that grew over the particular issue was not approving the interest. The panellists continued to explode with the complete contradictory remarks in accordance with their political affinity. Each one craved to proffer the party’s views. Their arguments gave a free rein to the wave of embittered sentences coming out of the nonstop utterances. It led the anchor to intervene and meekly tendered an apology for the few impolite expressions. Sometimes a confrontational situation began to permeate and the anchor struggled hard to pacify the guests. It was still not enough as he had to make their audio down. They were well aware of the fact if they failed to circulate the party message in that stipulated time, their presence was deemed to be considered meaningless. The idea behind heated arguments was usually stroking for more excited disagreement. The anchor nearly failed to command the energized speakers in silence. He proceeded to take the discussion in an utter disturbance. Were the panellists creating din for merely seeking anchor’s attention? For a moment the arguments can be enjoyably exciting for a bit. However, it was done for too long and eventually, turned out to be irritating or aggravating. The noise fulfilled and gratified the political aims but unlike every unacceptable tendency, it was least acceptable to the viewers. Somewhere in the middle, there used to pervade a very awful situation that was bad and stoked up scorn. What exactly was this deliberate or spontaneous conduct?