Culture Briefings
India on a quest to return-to-its-roots
When the ruling party changed Bombay’s name to Mumbai in 1995 Bombayities young and old revolted by making a somber promise to keep the city’s name alive in their hearts. And so we adhered to calling our beloved city, Bombay.
- The adjoining picture is appeared in The Times of India. Along with the picture appeared this note, "The street sign at the recently named Dr Sharad Pandey Chowk at Bandra was defaced four days ago. The incident comes in the wake of protests from members of a neighbourhood ALM group against naming the chowk after the late doctor". (Thanks Vivek!)
I even went to the extent of losing one mark in my final 10th grade English examination by writing Bombay in the address instead of Mumbai in Letter-Writing (A question worth 8 marks where we had to write a mock letter to a friend, a relative or a parent, usually describing a silly school trip or how celebrated a certain festival) I was proud of that mark I lost.(In 10th grade, every mark counts! - It is like the SAT’s for Indians) To date, I chide my non-Bombay friends who call it Mumbai, It will always be Bombay, I say.
Mumbai is for maps, notarized documents and CNN. Bombay is for its lovers.
As rich and heterogenous Bombay’s history is - it’s name has an even more illustrious history. What used to be a land-mass of seven scattered islands was first called Heptanesia by Ptolemy. When the Portuguese inhabited the islands, they christened the place, Buon Bahia or Bombiam- that meant "good bay," while the fisher-folk living on the fringes by the sea named the island, "Mumba," after Goddess Mumba, their gaurdian spirit.
In 1662, Portugual gifted Bombahia to King Charles ii for his marriage to Portuguese Princess Catherine of Braganza, Bombahia was soon angelicized to Bombay. And it stayed Bombay from until 1995. Once Bombay’s name was replenished to it’s Hindu name, a slew of other streets, roads, railway stations and airports were named after people from history and other valiant fighters. The justification was, "on anti-colonist grounds." At one point, I actually wondered if they might demolish the colonial architecture, railways and Brit-inspired schooling system. Thankfully, it must have been a tremendous challenge for the politicians because they never mentioned these factors as anti-colonial.
The trend quickly spread to other cities and Madras was renamed Chennai and Calcutta, Kolkatta. Here and other other English-sounding streets were changed. But the big news came a few days back when the government approved Bangalore’s name change to Bengaluru. And a proposal is being considered to change Delhi’s name to Hastinapur. I heard this news from an enraged Banglorean. "What sucks is, they didn’t come to me asking for my opinion if I want this change or not," he wailed. The name-change has evoked extreme reactions and has both its detractors and the locals, who have supposedly embraced the change. Some are glad to get rid of that last vestige of colonial flavor and some (like me) see absolutely no point in this nation-wide exercise.
India is getting a little too wild with this sudden, "return to the roots" streak- when there are really no narrowly or correctly defined roots! India’s culture is an exquisite amalgamation of hundreds of years of Aryan, Persian, Mongol, Arab, Chinese, Portuguese and British influences. Essentially, by getting rid of one - we Indians are discarding a piece of our history.
This name-change odyssesy has embittered some of us. The city we grow up with and that grows up with us represents our identity and becomes a part of our personal histories. A lexicon we build for ourselves. And to have that taken away is just malicious. A couple generations down the road, they will only read in history books that Mumbai was once Bombay and Bengaluru was once Bangalore. But they will never know the whole generation of peoples who knew and loved Bombay and Bangalore. They will never share that common history with us.
This may not be a big deal to some of you. To some of us, it is a big deal. Imagine changing New York’s name to…Piegoneye or whatever it was called before it was called New York. Or Imagine changing London to…(sod it- can’t think of anything!) It just matters.
Is this a cultural trend? Or is 50-year-young India still trying to discover it’s individuality? Answers to that will appear with time. For now, this discontent is what we are left with.
I won’t be surprised if India’s name is changed to Hindoostan in the next couple of years. I suggest you brace yourself for this as well.
Here are Aranyi’s views about the issue. Fierce!
Discussion
26 comments for “India on a quest to return-to-its-roots”
Post a comment
Well said about Bombay being for its lovers.
Too true.
This name changing business is nothing but some people on ego-trips. Nothing else
Nice post.
Cheers
This comment shudve been audbile. Only then would a person hear the resentment I have for this name changing business. These political b@$t@rd$ don’t have any other work to do.
In ‘Bombay’, the shiv sena leads the renamimg drive, every now and then there will be some street renamed after some dead marathi warrior, whose name takes 5 minutes to pronounce. Half of the landmarks are already renamed after shivaji.
Now why the fcuk are they renaming bangalore. What do these guys have up their ass???? And please, not Delhi! Really not Delhi! Sheesh!!
The day this country is renamed Hindoostan, I shall wave goodbye to this land, in search of ‘India’, or just settle in some other country and call it home. These name changes truly boil my blood. I was born in Bombay. Not Mumbai.
(Sorry for the profanities!)
Mavdya - Thank you. What kind of ego-trips do you think these people are on? It is obviously not a change that has met total submission. Why would they still go ahead with it? And Vivek, I agree with you. Changing Delhi’s name would be just ghastly.I guess we don’t have a choice but to live with it.
Roots ??
India is getting a little too wild with this sudden, return to the roots streak- when there are really no narrowly or correctly defined roots! Indias culture is an exquisite amalgamation of hundreds of years of Aryan, Persian, Mongo…
You talk about ego trips, but how about your own ego?
Bombay is alive in only those convent educated or “let us flee India as soon as possible” or in the drawing rooms of Bandra.
Common man always referrred Bombay as Mumbai and I am sure in a generation everyone will say it Mumbai (except of course the long distance NRI patriots)
“In 1662, Portugual gifted Bombahia to King Charles ii for his marriage to Portuguese Princess Catherine of Braganza, Bombahia was soon angelicized to Bombay.”
I have a major problem with that statement, but anyway reg. the amalgam of other cultures here, I can quote everthing from “The Myth of Aryan Invasion” by David Frawley to “the genocide of Hindus by the pillaging and plundering Portuguese in Goa which is bigger than any holocaust in history” to establish that our indigenous culture was overrun by all these marauders to steal away our sense of identity from us and now take refuge in the very same brainwashing that we have been subject to for eons of subjugation at the hands of these uncultured invaders.
India is already officially known as Bharat. Our constitution refers to India as India that is Bharat or some such construction. The Pakistan government often refers to us as Hindustan, the land beyond the Sindhu is often understood as the land of the Hindoos. No congress led , left supported government would make that change.
I completely agree. Despite having grown up in a Marathi household with the city being referred to as both Mumbai and Bombay, I think it’s foolish to throw away over a hundred years of history. Bombay is one Indian city where no single ethnic group dominates. It’s truly a melting pot of cultures - far too many to ennumerate. The city as we know it today, does not exist in a pre-colonial context. It’s pure political drivel to talk about ‘going back’ to the roots.
Why pre-colonial names? Why cant these people dig into some ancient literature and find the actual name of the place, preferably before the aryan invasion?
Ananth - I beg to differ. I don’t think protecting an identity has anything to do with ego. To me, (and I presume a lot of others) Bombay represents an ethos, a part of an identity we have built for ourselves. You may be right that in a generation or two, everyone will call it Mumbai and the fact that we cannot do anything about it burns me.
Thennavan - Do you have a problem with the way the statement is phrased or of the information it disperses? I’m no expert on the history of Bombay but I think the statement is factually correct. If it isn’t- I’ve had a bad history teacher!
Second, I do not believe that indigenous people alone build the culture of any place. I don’t think any living Bombayite or Mumbaite relates to or knows of the identity you are talking about, the one that existed hundreds of years ago. It sucks that it was plilandered, but by changing city-names at such an important juncture in India’s history, I think the government is doing the same: stealing away our identities.
Rohit - Official and unofficial are such relative terms! I didn’t know Bharat is India’s official name. It appears as India on travel iteniaries and the map. Why this split then?
Ameet - “does not exist in a pre-colonian context” - you’ve put it so well.
Cibot - Yeah. Maybe it was too much work them them.
“The name-change has evoked extreme reactions and has both its detractors and the locals, who have supposedly embraced the change”
That’s a half-baked piece of info - and not true at all.
And at your point on name changes doesnt make sense at all, when you say it amounts to denying history.
Did calling Bangalore amount to denying its history before it? If not, why would Bengaluru amount to that?
Are you saying you never shared history with any of the people who lived before in Mumbai under whatever its names were?
That is patently ridiculous.
Then, the politicians have not “decided” on changing the name, they’re still consulting people - although not holding a referendum on it. If it’s approved, and all legal formalities done with - it will only occur post Nov 1, 2006.
I am really yet to see any good point being made against a name change - especially in Bangalore’s case - where its been done to celebrate 50 years of Karnataka’s unification - to which I agree.
“The name-change has evoked extreme reactions and has both its detractors and the locals, who have supposedly embraced the change”
That’s a half-baked piece of info - and not true at all.
And at your point on name changes doesnt make sense at all, when you say it amounts to denying history.
Did calling Bangalore amount to denying its history before it? If not, why would Bengaluru amount to that?
Are you saying you never shared history with any of the people who lived before in Mumbai under whatever its names were?
That is patently ridiculous.
Then, the politicians have not “decided” on changing the name, they’re still consulting people - although not holding a referendum on it. If it’s approved, and all legal formalities done with - it will only occur post Nov 1, 2006.
I am really yet to see any good point being made against a name change - especially in Bangalore’s case - where its been done to celebrate 50 years of Karnataka’s unification - to which I agree.
oops! sorry, for the multiple comments, damn thing didnt show that my comment had already gone through!
Bangalore Guy -
So you think it is okay to rename a city as long as it is symbolic? (read it on your blog)
You think changing a city name is a good way to celebrate 50 years of unification?
You think by changing a city’s name, it is being returned to its roots?
I am really yet to see any good points as to why a city’s name should be changed.
So you think it is okay to rename a city as long as it is symbolic? (read it on your blog)
Yes, in Bangalore’s case. You’d have also read on my blog that taking it onto Mangalore & Belgaum (Mangalooru and Belagaavi respectively) was silly.
You think changing a city name is a good way to celebrate 50 years of unification?
No.
You think by changing a city’s name, it is being returned to its roots?
No, but you think/say so. I’m saying it wont.
I am really yet to see any good points as to why a city’s name should be changed.
=))
“symbolic” reasons?
W.r.t Ananth’s comments -
“Bombay is alive in only those convent educated or “let us flee India as soon as possible” or in the drawing rooms of Bandra.
Common man always referrred Bombay as Mumbai and I am sure in a generation everyone will say it Mumbai (except of course the long distance NRI patriots)”
If common man always referred to Bombay as Mumbai, I guess a couple of hundred million people, a few hundred MP’s, a dozen Presidents and PM’s and not to mention Bollywood - were horribily kept in the dark for over fifty years!!
Hence my question - why didn’t anyone ask the masses before they made the name change?
Or is it simply possible that supposed common citizens like yourself were just crashing the party of these few power hungry, dim-witted, aptly put “ego-thrill” seeking buffoons; and it just so happened that you liked it?
“Thennavan - Do you have a problem with the way the statement is phrased or of the information it disperses?”
The former
(Equivalence: I come to your home to exchange some stuff, find out your internal squabbles, take advantage of that, destroy each member systematically, take over the home completely and start “gifting” each room to someone I like whether it is thru a “matrimonial alliance” or some other means. Hey, I am a great charitable to-be-remembered-in-history-in-golden-letters person)
BangaloreGuy - I’m guessing it comes down to personal opinions then! Btw, why do you think renaming Manglore is silly? Also, whats your take on renaming Delhi?
Thannevan - It sucks how it happened, but the point I am making is not about who did what to Bombay, but what came of whoever did whatever to Bombay.
Label me a NRI, anti-Indian or whatever…to me the city I was born and grew up in and love will always be BOMBAY.
Jinal,
Renaming one city is somewhat okay. Bangalore represents the Karnataka brand, to the world/India at large - and if someone wants to re-position it somewhat by renaming, I’m okay with it(more so since the excuse is a 50th year celebrations).
I’d rather see the 50th year being celebrated by having more greenery and more developmental work done - but if the government wants to spend a wee bit of time on renaming, I grant them that!
Taking the renaming saga to Mangalore and Belgaum sets me thinking if the Government is on a renaming spree.
And from past record of Dharam Singh’s govt is anything to go by, I’d rather not have it do that - it hardly ever works even without distractions. With distractions like these, we’re gonna see a snoring govt.
I dont quite think Delhi will be renamed - not to something so quaint as Indraprastha - especially with the Commies around.
Do I want it renamed? I dunno. Whats the excuse to rename it?
As a Brit I just would like to say well done! Indians shouldn’t bow down to the unfortunate travails of English colonialism.
Vishal -
Bangalore Guy - “Renaming one city is somewhat okay”
I agree with that. I think my frusrtation comes more from watching it happen again and again. After Bombay was renamed, it just continued with street renaming, chowks renaming, airports renaming.. etc etc. It has now reached a point, where it seems utterly ridiculous and pointless. And now the same saga is about to repeat itself in Karnataka, starting with Bangalore. Lets just hope Delhi is spared.
Ding Eab - To each his own
Hello. Posted this clarification on Aranyi’s blog too.
There is no move to rename Delhi to Hastinapur or Indraprastha. The post I made saying that was a joke (I thought kinda obvious) in response to the Bangalore decision, since now Delhi is the only city major city not to be renamed.
The Hastinapur-Indraprastha-Leningrad bit was a wide swipe, poking fun at all political parties.
Interestingly i was searching http://93.1911encyclopedia.org for info on mumbai( the site is the online version of the 1911 encyclopedia britannica) and typed mumbai in search only realising later that i woluld need to look for bombay.SO mumbai is already in our minds.Secondly, if we never objected to the English or portugese calling or renaming this place bombay , i see no reason to object to an indian doing a renaming. (political parties are bad but that doesnt make colonists angels!).Thirdly renaming does not make the history of that period dissapear.Fourthly and last- I am sure many indians at the time of anglicising names of several cities (tanjore-thanjavur,delhi-dilli,Baroda-vadodara,Calicut-kozhikode)
would have felt embittered and vowed to keep the old name alive.But the truth of history cant be denied and the rulers of the time will get their way. perhaps in 200 years someone like you will be lamenting the embittering step of renaming mumbai as Bombay and grieving the loss of 200 years of history.
we should not rename indian cities.but i think we should changethey way we call delhi.in hindi its dilli but in english its delhi and thats not good it should be delhi in hindi also.
and make some new cities naming indraprastha,hastinapur etc