In South Africa, where I live and work for part of the year, I’m all for it. White Afrikaans and English speakers in South Africa ran things until 1994, and for the most part, they had no idea what to make of the Bantu language names and words, with their consecutive consonants and distinctive clicks. The settlers labelled people and places with the phonetic equivalent of how they thought local names should be pronounced, and when democracy finally came around in 1994, black South Africans took their names right back. New countries need new imaginations, and new imaginations need new nomenclature. Geography turned from a racial exercise into a linguistic and administrative effort. Umtata, a provincial capital, became Mthatha — keeping with the correct pronunciation of the place, replacing the full u-sound with a soft ‘u’-sound, undoubtedly making it harder for non-Bantu speakers to pronounce but restoring the version some 80 per cent of the country’s population preferred. Pietersburg, another provincial capital, named for one of the original Dutch-descended ‘pioneers’ who settled the interior of South Africa in the early 19th century, became Polokwane — a Northern Sotho word meaning ‘place of safety’. I had heard white folks referring to neighbouring Zimbabwe as Rhodesia, and I knew exactly what they meant: oh for the good old days. As a student of the Zulu language, and generally being used to the flat vowels of Dravidian languages, my head and my heart thoroughly agreed with the revisionism I saw around me.
One day, in conversation with a friend, the name Pietersburg came up. You mean Polokwane, I said. My friend, who is black and speaks Northern Sotho and grew up in Pietersburg, laughed gently. Yes, he said, I believe that’s what they’re calling it these days.
I felt a twinge of embarrassment then, and I feel something like it in reverse every time I hear fastidious foreign friends say Mumbai or Kolkata or Bengaluru. Honestly though, how is anyone to know what is what? Mumbai was, of course, officially renamed at the behest of the vile conglomerate of thugs known as the Shiv Sena, effectively sinking any chance of its legitimacy among somewhat more human people. Hence, Bombay — and it’s not the same thing as saying Rhodesia. Kolkata and Bengaluru have always been exactly so in Bengali and Kannada, perfectly interchangeable with Calcutta and Bangalore when speaking in English. Even today, the native and anglicised names peacefully coexist; it is almost impossible for me to use Bangalore in a Kannada sentence (Bengaluru simply rolls off the tongue better in Kannada) and Bengali speakers say the same for Kolkata. This is also true of Mumbai — the name has long been in use in Marathi — but Kolkata and Bengaluru were renamed uncontroversially and as such, not being connected to large-scale ethnic-cleansing pogroms, are welcome.
In the demotic, and in any conversation I’ve had lately in English, Calcutta is Cal — and Bangalore is more usually reduced to its first and third syllable. Then you have Chennai, formerly known as Madras, a name that was never in use in the vernacular, and yet, enthusiastically adopted by people across language and class. Got that?
Some 20 years ago, Grant Road in Bangalore was renamed to commemorate a local liquor entrepreneur. My father’s friend, a man whose family had been residents of Grant Road for generations, woke up early each Sunday to splash black paint across every street sign that bore the legend ‘Vittal Mallya Road’. It was his way of telling the city not to mess with his history. Grant Road had been named for Colonel JP Grant, a British Army officer turned South Indian bureaucrat and a pillar of society circa 1900. Out with old? Sure. But I knew another Colonel Grant who loomed large on Bangalore life, my sister’s favourite teacher, and the principal of the Army School. My Colonel Grant was Anglo-Indian; Anglo-Indians were the milieu I grew up in; and his name means much more to me than that of the rich man who bought himself a road.
I suspect revisionism is nicer when it’s happening elsewhere.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 15th, 2013.
COMMENTS (22)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Cynical: Fantastic A+ In the place where Victoria terminal now stands once stood an abandoned temple for goddess MUMBA, a variant of Parvathi, worshiped by the natives belonging to the community/tribe/caste Koli who were husbandry men and fishermen living in and around one of the seven islands which now make up the metropolis Mumbai.
The earliest recorded ruler of the islands was Asoka, ( perhaps vikramaditya before him?) at whose time the islands of elephanta caves served as port, and subsequently came to be ruled by all the other kingdoms that followed including Kongani kingdom of Malabar, and later fell into the hands of Portugal through the hands of Sultans of Surat who were only happy to get rid of the islands to keep the "intolerant" Portugese away from gouging on the trade of the Surat.
Only at this stage "Mumbai" functioned as some kind of rudimentary port and only later when the English ( who were also planning to take them by force from portugal) acquired the islands from Portugal, they developed them into the city of Bombay, beginning which time the merchants of Surat and Parsi community made a killing in exports along with the Rich Muslims of the Malabar (the early converts of rich Indian ladies of the land who married Arab men). All the poor natives of the area, regardless of the religion, mostly Hindu's and Muslims, including African slaves brought by the arab merchants ) and some Christian converts and children of "untouchable union" joined the English service in various capacities where their prospects of salary was better than what they were getting from the natives.
The native merchants along with the English made their fortune by exporting cotton of Gujarat (10-15 times the traditional price) to Lanchashire mills when the American South cotton was withheld by the landlords of the Southern states during the civil war with the Yankees to artificially increase the cotton bond values which they were peddling through a French bond tradesman in the traditional money centers of Europe -Paris, Vienna and Zurich- to finance the civil war. This led to the speculative boom in real estate which later became a fortune of the native merchants when the cotton boom went bust when the US civil war ended.
The fortune from export of raw cotton was also experienced before by the native merchants when China due to a famine ordered extensive cultivation of grains in lieu of cotton, causing shortage of cotton in China, which was a blessing for "Merchants of Bombay!"
The wealthy merchant families were granted existing tracts of lands and reclaimed lands in lease, and in grants in the newly developing Bombay city in return for their capital in the city building and finance and in the East India company enterprise.
When the rail road was built, the train central station might have been identified with the abandoned but not forgotten MUMBA temple by the natives which once stood there- Shivite sect of Hinduism!
The name Bombay only appears during european period and the word "Mumbai" never appears anywhere in the original earlier or later Indian sources. The Mogul merchants whose ships were unwelcomed but still docked in Bombay port and were out bidding both the English and Native "Jain, Parsi and Hindu " merchants never mentioned the term Mumbai. It must be remembered Gujarat and Maratha kings(Hindu's and later Muslim sultans ) were sending in tribute to Delhi and later to Agra long before the arrival of Europeans and the term Mumbai was not ever mentioned in the mogul chronicles, to my knowledge.
The eventual dominance of Jainism -Vishnava- in the region might have contributed to the inevitable decline of Shivite -Mumba goddess. The only remnant of Shivite trace is the still revered Ganesh festival in "Mumbai". Oddly his brother "Muruga" is left out in the region, but still revered in the south where Shivite sect survived from the "onslaught" of Vishnuvite.
@John B
The origin of the word lies in the Hindu goddess Mumbadevi. A temple by the same name were built in 1675 where VT stands now. And it was either called 'Manbai' or 'Mumba aai'.
I would expect @gp65 to come up with more reliable info on this one, since she hails from Mumbai.
@gp65: "In fact the oldest newspaper of the city is a Gujarati newspaper called Mumbai Samachar"
The oldest newspapers of the City are /were many: the well known ones are Times of India, and Bombay Gazette (morning daily) and Advocate of India (evening) -all English print.
The now called "Mumbai Samachar" was called "Bombay Samachar" when it was printed.
Source: Imperial Gazetteer of India, Vol 8; p418.
@realist: @Cynical: @gp65: @Gary: Let me open up the next level
Who can tell me where did the word Mumbai come from, what was its origin, and how far back does it go, and how was the name derived.
Clue 1: it is certainly not the name of the place ( or island) and it was never called Mumbai but was called very similar. The root of the origin of the word was located where Victoria Terminus now stands.
"Hence, Bombay — and it’s not the same thing as saying Rhodesia. Kolkata and Bengaluru have always been exactly so in Bengali and Kannada, perfectly interchangeable with Calcutta and Bangalore when speaking in English"
Jut as Kolkata bad Bengaluru were perfectly interchangeable with Calcutta and Bangalore while speaking in English, same was the case with Mumbai. In Gujarati and Marathi, it has always been called Mumbai. In fact the oldest newspaper of the city is a Gujarati newspaper called Mumbai Samachar.
Way back in the 70s, in the train station called Bombay Central which is a terminus for all Western Railway trains that came to Mumbai, the signboard waswritten in 4 languages, Bombay Central in English. Then it had 2 different spellings in Devnagari - one said Bambai central (which was obviously supposed to be Hindi), the other said Mumbai central (which was Marathi) and the 4th one was in Gujarati which also said Mumbai central. Same thing with Baroda, Badauda or Vadodara depending on the lanuage one wa speaking in.
Frankly, saying Cambay instead of Khambhat or Cawnpore instead of Kanpur makes little sense. One genration feels attached to the old colonial names and then the next one grows up calling it by the more vernacular name - so no big deal.
We say Sri Lanka instead of Ceylon and Beiging instead of Peking don't we?
@Gary
@John B is right. Calcutta (now Kolkata) was made up combining three villages namely Sutanuti (the northern part), Kolikata (the central) and Gobindapur (the southern) bought by East India Company from the erstwhile indigenous owners.
@John B
Thanks once more, for another informative and enlightened post.
@Gary: Yes, Bangalore (not the today's sprawling metropolis) did not exist before. It was a rocky granite mound.
@John B: "Bombay, Madras, Bangalore, and Calcutta were all British legacy in India, the cities never exited before..." Bangalore is a British legacy and didn't exist before? Seriously?
Hey you forgot Hyderabad in Andra Pradesh. It was Bhagya nagar ( after the courtesan Bhagmati ) and it was renamed after Hyder ali - the conquerer from Deccan.
@John B: Very Impressive! A+ to you as well.
@Ejaaz: Another (ancient) name for Allahabad was Kaushambi, which is now a separate district - it also functioned as the capital of one of the 16 mahajanapadas for a certain period of time; after the destruction of Hastinapur in the Mahabharata, one of the fifth generation successors of the Pandava rulers is said to have settled there. It is impossible to ascertain if the region had another name before the Vedic period because the first written inscriptions available from the Gangetic plain are in Brahmi that is dated to the period of Ashoka (Megasthenes in Indica (circa 300 BCE) states that we had no script, which probably underscores the huge importance placed on oral transmission of Vedic texts). However, it is reasonably certain that the confluence of rivers held special significance to the religion of post-Vedic tribes, which led to the establishment of such a city, and it may not have existed before them.
India has so many wrongs that one can't make up one's mind where to start from..
Allahabad by Akbar for Prayag, Uttar Pradesh has many Islamiced names of our towns..Ghaziabad, Moradabad, Muzzafarnagar, Faridabad, Aligarh, etc.
Let's see Pakistan and even Afghanistan ancient cities names..
Kuhka - Kabul Gandhar - Kandhar Bahil - Balkh Vokkan - Waknan Kapish - Bagram Meru - Pameer Kamboj - Badkhasha Purushpur - Peshawar Suvastu - Swat Pushkalavati - Charsaddar etc.
Even Madurai and many other cities in South India names were changed by Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan..but thankfully it never remained so..unfortunatly like in North India..
@Arijit Sharma: I agree Indraprasth and Prayag sounds lot more nicer!
@realist: Good. Close enough. A+.
Since antiquity a town called Piyag was present where Ganges and Jammuna joined and it was a place of pilgrimage for Hindus, as well all know well. The name Priyag was given in later period translation text in accordance with the Sanskrit pronunciation, but it was actaully spelt out speciafically as Piyag in middle Persian. Perhaps, Piyag is the colloquial form of literal Priyag?
Akbar, having seen the reverence of the natives to this place, wanted to establish a new city for a long time near Piyag. He also wanted to use this place as a base for military expedition to the east where his muslim vassals were giving trouble. The new city was founded in 1575 and the fort and garrison was completed in November 1583, at the cost of 20 million plus rupees, a huge sum. (An ounce of gold of less than a rupee). He must be rolling in tax money! A detailed account of founding the city is mentioned in Ḥadīqa-al-iqalim.
At this time in his life, Akbar had developed a pantheistic view of religion and he was genuinely moved in seeing the reverence of the place to the pilgrims and he wanted the new city, as his gift, to reflect his view of pantheism and unity of god. We can follow Akbar's transformation in religious view in Akbar nam a , but the founding of the new city was mentioned only in passing in Volume 3. In reflection of his Pantheistic view, the new city was called "Ilaha bad" not as Allahabad, as we know today. The name Ilaha bad (ilaha bash) was also mentioned in iqbalnama.
It was Shahjahan who later changed the name to Allahabad to appease the religious scholars for favor in his reign.
This bring us back to the theme of the article - trading names are always meant to satisfy the crowd for favors in particular time. Bombay, Madras, Bangalore, and Calcutta were all British legacy in India, the cities never exited before, the land upon which these cities were founded was purchased by East India Company from local rulers.
The chennai was a place now called Chetpet in Chennai Metropolis, did exist as a port city near Madras and it was also mentioned in Tamil literature.
Unlike Eddy Murphy fortunes in the movie, trading places(names) cannot abolish the history.
@Ejaaz: " ... So what was Prayaga called before the Vedic period? What was it called by the native indians and not invaders from beyond the Hindukush range? ... "
The Aryan Invasion Theory (for us) and The Arab/Persian Origin Theory (for you) have no scientific and/or factual bases.
So what was Prayaga called before the Vedic period? What was it called by the native indians and not invaders from beyond the Hindukush range?
Indraprastha (City of Indra) sounds so much better than New Delhi.
Less musing and more rambling, methinks. The writer is a Kannadiga in a city where the Kannadigas form not more than 35% of the population, and believes that the city should be renamed Bengaluru in English because it rolls off the tongue more easily for his people when they speak in Kannada - puerile logic. Renaming cities is a fad that local political parties invest time in when they have nothing better to do; this is just another form of parochialism by which you declare your ownership of a location by changing its name to one that you prefer. However, just because you don't like the Shiv Sena does not mean that the guys who renamed your city had a much better reason, and your glorification of public vandalism is rather juvenile; as you are no doubt aware, the UB factory used to be on Grant road (which now houses UB city - a tremendous example of unlocking value for all of Vijay Mallya's faults) and it provided employment to many Bangaloreans (or whatever you call yourselves now).
"Mumbai was, of course, officially renamed at the behest of the vile conglomerate of thugs known as the Shiv Sena". The author at least needs to get his facts right. The renaming to Mumbai was done by the Congress in a game of political one-upmanship.
@Author You don't have any say in this matter . If local people accepts this , who are you blame ? As someone rightly said just don't open pandora box , otherwise you have to travel from Gandhar to Kandahar....
@John B: Prayag?
Ok, let me open the pandora box here: does any one know what was the original name of "Alla-ha-bad" and who changed it and when and for what reason?
Let me test the knowledge of folks in PAK and India.