Renaming Cities..

From Bombay to Mumbai, From Madras to Chennai, From Calcutta to Kolkata, Bangalore is next in line--its name is, apparently, being changed to Bengalooru😕

Here is the link to the article:

https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4524098.stm

So , my question is, that what is being achieved by renaming all these cities?

I for one have always preferred the old names to the new--Bombay, Madras, Calcutta....no matter what the world calls them now, i still find myself using the old names......am I the only one?😳

Should Bangalore's name really be changed to Bengaluru...why, or why not?

At this rate, in the upcoming years, all the cities in India will have new names😕. I see absolutely no reason behind it....

Your views😊

-Eisha

Originally posted by: Mrs.Eishu.SRK

At this rate, in the upcoming years, all the cities in India will have new names😕. I see absolutely no reason behind it....

Dont forget, Bharat, secularism greatest gift to India( less popularly known as Bharat)😉

Before East India company, I dont know of references to India, in India(now I might be wrong, but would love to see Indian references to India prior to pre-1700)

Again like any other debatable topic. this has 2 sides. I will take the side of changing the names of the cities. I am in favor of changing the names of our cities to old names which reflect our culture. It is one more step towards emancipation from the influence of British Raj. It really does not change much of anything. I still sometimes find myself referring Mumbai to Bombay and Kolkatta almost always as Calcutta. Chennai is way different from Madras so I have gotten into the habit of calling this city as Chennai. But I am a proponent of maintaining our cultural heritage. If it means that we change Patna to Patliputra so be it.

Originally posted by: ChameliKaYaar

Again like any other debatable topic. this has 2 sides. I will take the side of changing the names of the cities. I am in favor of changing the names of our cities to old names which reflect our culture. It is one more step towards emancipation from the influence of British Raj. It really does not change much of anything. I still sometimes find myself referring Mumbai to Bombay and Kolkatta almost always as Calcutta. Chennai is way different from Madras so I have gotten into the habit of calling this city as Chennai. But I am a proponent of maintaining our cultural heritage. If it means that we change Patna to Patliputra so be it.

i agree some of the names do sound better... but y did they have to change bombay to mumbai... i liked bombay better

[quote=abhijit shukla]

You forgot Puna- Pune; Baroda - Vadodara.

[/quote]

Thanks for mentioning the new names....i had no clue they were named something else before....when did these ones get changed?😳

[quote=quote]
A sense of self respect and self affirmation of having come out of millanium old slavery.

I will take the side of changing the names of the cities. I am in favor of changing the names of our cities to old names which reflect our culture. It is one more step towards emancipation from the influence of British Raj.

[/quote]

After 60 years of independence? Isnt it the people and their deeds which reflect the culture of a city/country?

[quote=A.S]
Mohammad Ali also changed his name (used to be Malcom if I am not mistaken, I might wrong) He changed to reflect the fact that his encestors - like Kunta Kinte were Muslims before being enslaved and converted to Christianity.

[/quote]

Mohhamad Ali as in the boxer? his name was Cassius Clay..

@Sareg: I didnt quite get what you were saying. Please dont take my post as an offence, I wasnt generalizing India, its just that the recent news put me thinking. I find it equally puzzling whether the name changing occurs in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh , or any part of the world!!! . As if learning one name in geog wasnt torturous enough

Originally posted by: abhijit shukla

You forgot Puna- Pune; Baroda - Vadodara.
A sense of self respect and self affirmation of having come out of millanium old slavery.
Shrilanka used to be Ceylon; Zimbabway - Rhodashia. Same principle.
Mohammad Ali also changed his name (used to be Malcom if I am not mistaken, I might wrong) He changed to reflect the fact that his encestors - like Kunta Kinte were free Muslims before being enslaved and converted to Christianity.
I hope Ahmedabad becomes Karnavati some day....sounds so darn classic: Karnavati; aaaaaahhhh.

I agree Abhijit ji!!! Its a matter of self respect !!!! Hyderabad to Bhagyanagar(this is in que)!!! But naming the places is also a political game in India.If people try to name the cities with their historical names its called saffronisation!!!

Cheers,

Mythili

Originally posted by: mythili_Kiran

I agree Abhijit ji!!! Its a matter of self respect !!!! Hyderabad to Bhagyanagar(this is in que)!!! But naming the places is also a political game in India.If people try to name the cities with their historical names its called saffronisation!!!

Cheers,

Mythili

Totally..... and it is not saffronization.. It is really getting back to our old cutlure. Somebody in this thread questioned about the fact whether after 60- years of independence we still depend upon these small things to consider ourselves liberated. My answer is that this is not a "small" thing.. to me it is as cultural as associating myself to Taj Mahal or Konark temple. I would probably continue to refer to these cities by their old names for quite a while but calling them by their new names does give a feeling of belonging closer to my culture. My POV.

I think it's good to rename to preserve our own cultural names. But after these many years of independance? 😕 I don't know why it took so many years to change the names given by angrez? Like mythili said, it has also to do with politics. But then our bharat/hindustan is only called India. To me it is not that important at this stage to change the names of the city and states. Our generations have been raised with these names and it would have made more sense if we had changed the names as soon as we got independence.

@Sowmya di : Exactly my point! 😊 It just gets confusing by the day. Foriegners may even end up thinking Bombay and Mumbai as 2 different cities. All this could have been done in 1947, after the Rowlats act was passed...and yes, isn't India still known as India throughout the world....if for example its name is ever changed, would this generation which has known it to be india all along actually accept the new name?..I still feel that renaming cities for no rhyme or reason makes no sense

Eishu ji,
A very valid point. However, i think the focus of Nehru ji and other leaders at the time of independence was to rebuild the nation (5 years rolling plan etc). In my mind it is never too late to do the rightful thing.