Trading places

Unlike Mumbai, Kolkata and Bengaluru were renamed uncontroversially and as such are welcome.


Achal Prabhala February 14, 2013
The writer is an author and a researcher in Bangalore, India. He writes regularly for Bidoun and Cyclostyle, is a contributing editor at Chimurenga, and recently co-edited The Best of Quest and Civil Lines 6

There is a weird streak of individualism that runs through every act of renaming in India, even as localities, towns, cities and languages — and sometimes, whole people — are renamed every day.

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)

John B | 11 years ago | Reply

@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.

Cynical | 11 years ago | Reply

@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.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ