[Sreekar]

Hi Folks,
You all know that Bombay changed its name to Mumbai and similarly most other cities changed their names to respective regional names. Is it a wise decision to change the names of cities? If so, does it benefits the public?

Please share your views.

On another note, FYI- related to this issue, below is an interesting article written by Shashi Tharoor in timesofindia editorial column:

Bangalore gets Bengaloorued

So can we now buy railway tickets to Bengalooru? I remember how my team-ma-te and I, heading off to represent St Stephen's College at a debating competition in what was still Calcutta, got our student concession forms made out to 'Haora', as the newspapers had informed us that Howrah had been renamed. It was only after queuing for two hours that we discovered that, whatever the Bengali babus of Writers' Building may have decreed, the Indian Railways had not yet digested the new reality. We were sent back to College with the proverbial flea in our ear - for having attempted to buy tickets to a station that didn't (yet) exist.

It took years for 'Haora' to catch on. 'Bengalooru' may happen faster. It's striking to recall that the cities of the Raj kept their names for decades: practically the only city that changed the spelling of its name was Kanpur, which the British had absurdly spelled Cawnpore. Then the self-appointed guardians of Indianness - politicians looking for new postures to affect - came into their own in the 1990s. So the Shiv Sena-led government of Maharashtra renamed the state capital Mumbai, abandoning a name with nearly four centuries of global resonance.

This struck me at the time as the equivalent of a company jettisoning a well-known brand in favour of an inelegant patronymic - as if McDonald's had renamed itself Kroc's in honour of its inventor. 'Bombay' had entered global discourse; it conjured up associations of cosmopolitan bustle; it is still attached to products like Bombay gin, Bombay duck, and the overpriced colonial furniture sold by 'the Bombay company'; in short, it enjoyed name-recognition that many cities around the world would spend millions in publicity to acquire. 'Mumbai' was already the city's name in Marathi; but what has been gained by insisting on its adoption in English, aside from a nativist reassertion that benefited only sign-painters and letterhead-printers?

Not to be outdone, the DMK - which had, in an earlier spell in office, renamed the state of Madras as Tamil Nadu - decided that the city of Madras too would be rebaptised. Once again, name recognition - Madras kerchiefs, Madras jackets, Bleeding Madras, the Madras monitoring system - went by the board as Chennai was adopted without serious debate. (Ironically, 'Chennai' comes from the name of Chennappa Naicker, the Raja of Chandragiri, who granted the British the right to trade on the Coromandel coast - and who was a Telugu speaker from what is today Andhra Pradesh.)

So bad history was worse lexicology, but in India-that-is-Bharat it is good politics. The Communist government in Bengal soon followed: 'Calcutta' is now 'Kolkata', the way Bengalis pronounce it in their native tongue. (The International Air Transport Association, however, resolutely insists that airlines still tag your bags to 'CCU', not 'KKT', which belongs to Kentland Airport in the US. In Tamil Nadu, the state government has allegedly instructed postmen not to deliver mail addressed to 'Madras' - compelling evidence of the pettiness that underlies the directive - but baggage tagged to 'CHN' rather than 'MAA' will end up in Jeonju, South Korea).

The habit proved catching: Kolkata's Kommunist kousins in Kerala decided that Cochin - a name that had stood for centuries and even been exported (to South-East Asia's 'Cochin-China') - would henceforth be Kochi. And as the 21st century dawned with computer professionals in the West discovering Bangalore - and even beginning to fear their jobs would be 'Bangalored', outsourced to India - the politicians of Karnataka decided that their capital's new-found fame more properly belonged to 'Bengalooru', the 'city of boiled beans' rather than of India's burgeoning Silicon Plateau. Who on earth benefits from all this?

Was it really necessary for Keralites, who called their capital Trivandrum in English and Thiruvandooram in Malayalam, to jettison both abbreviated forms for the glory of 'Thiruvananthapuram', a word I have hardly heard anyone actually use? Or to insist that 'Trichur', which is in fact a close approximation of the popular local pronunciation, be re-spelt 'Trissur', which must have been dreamt up by Kerala's last surviving illiterate?

So far, the rulers of Delhi have remained immune to the contagion, even though the name itself is a British misspelling: it should have been either 'Dehli' or, more colloquially, 'Dilli'. But given the quality of many of the politicians aspiring to national office, it would not entirely surprise me if someone started a clamour to rename India's capital as well. After all, there is something marvellously anti-elitist about being able to oblige English-speakers to accept such changes: it is a reminder that, in Independent India, power over the English labels of places has passed to those who were never comfortable in that language.

What's in a name, Shakespeare asked, and of course the traffic will be just as congested in Bengalooru as it was in Bangalore. But are we so insecure in our independence that we still need to prove to ourselves that we are free? In some parts of India, it is customary for a bride, upon marriage, to take on a new name - not just a surname, but a first name - chosen by her husband's family. It's a signal that her old life is over, and that she now belongs completely to another.

This is the kind of thinking that underlies India's renaming mania. It is as if today's rulers want to show that they are now the lords and masters of these cities. For what these aggressive nativists are doing is to demonstrate that they are now in charge, that the old days are over. They are asserting their power, the power to decide what a thing will be, the power to name - for if one does not have the ability to create, one can at least claim the right to define.

** Source: TimesofIndia.com

-Thanks much,
Sreekar

[chanda_s]

changing names of cities and horrendously misspelling them was started by the british as most indian names were tongue twisters to them. that they had further complicated the spelling on most occassions is a different story.

like a simple pronounciation like 'kadapa', a town in andhra was rendered as 'cuddapah'. another town which shoud normally be spelt as 'karnul' has been made as complicated as the bodice of a fat english aristocrat ladyship- 'kurnool'. a rather simple kanpur was made bulky by making it cawnpore.

even before madras was renamed as chennai, the city was in rural areas of andhra bordering tamilnadu, called as chenna-patnam. i remember seeing a movie in telugu called 'chennapatnam chinnollu' meaning youngsters of chennai. it must be the same case in tn also.

bengalooru was called so in local language regularly even before it was renamed. you see any kannada magazine or dialy, the city is always called begalooru. even the edition of telugu daily eenadu from bengalooru calls its edition bengalooru edition. the road transport buses of all south indian states have always used 'bengalooru' and not bangalore.
we educated and city dwelling people go by what the english media feeds us day in and day out. we remain suspended between two worlds, 'trishanku swarga' or more colloquially 'na ghar ka na ghat ka.'

weaning us away from our own roots is one contribution of some sections of the post independence english media. thats beside the point anyway.

whats wrong in renaming a place if it is identified that way by majority? did any body object when washington dc or dallas or any other city in u.s was named so? there must are been old names for these places given by the native redindians. and redindians lived not too long ago.

even big commercial houses have been renamed. what is konica today was sakura not too long ago. binaca became cibaca and now again binaca.

the IT honchos of bengalooru cried hoarse that renaming the city would make it less attractive for foreigners citing strange reasons. results of renaming have not been that discouraging. no contract was lost by wipro or infosys from any foreign firm just because of this renaming.

the author also appears to ignore the fact that the city which was his destination and dream till a few months ago, newyork, itself was manhattan once upon a time. it later got changed to new amsterdam and then to new york. manhattan i guess is being revived now.

there is a lot to a name. it is the assertion of a population and breaking the shackles of yesteryear burden.

[satish]

I think the changing the name of cities is nothing but the Vote-Bank politics of the regional parties.The money which are being wasted in changing the name should go towards the providing the modern amenities in the Urban areas.And rather than providing the international image it provides the rural image which hampers the investment and growth.

[Nethra K Putti]

Now-a-days in this most of members are talking about Bangalore, are you people so much interested to know about Bangalore...?
Bangalore is of more than 150 years old...records of Bengalooru says...!!!
Also as per Mr.H.D.Kumaraswamy said it.
-----------
You know when this topic came, In 2006, when they were to celebrate the Kannada Rajyostava on November 1st, Karnataka CM says that Bengalooru is of more than 150 years old, its their since the time of Kempegowda the builder of Bangalore.
-----------

Former Chief Minister N Dharam Singh announced here recently that the state capital of Bangalore would soon be rechristened Bengalooru. It shall be reverted to ˜Bengalooru" just as Madras went back to "Chennai", Bombay to "Mumbai" and Calcutta to ˜Kolkata", the Former Chief Minister said.

Speaking to mediapersons at his residence here, Mr Dharam Singh, who was on a three-day election tour of the region, stated that the renaming issue was raised during a meeting he had held recently with prominent personalities and litterateurs for chalking out programmes on the occasion Suvarna Karnataka, the 50th anniversary of the unification of the state.

Several participants at the meeting pointed at the need to rename Bangalore as Bengalooru, the city its original name. They also stated that the names of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras have already been changed, and Bangalore's original name should also be restored at the earliest, he added.

Bangalore, the name used now, is the anglicised form of the "Bengalooru". This name "Bangalore"has an interesting story. Hoysala King Veera Ballala named the place Bendakalooru (Town of Boiled Beans) when he was offered boiled beans by an Old woman during one of his hunting bouts. Another version claims that the name "Bengalooru" has appeared much earlier than the Hoysalas.

The earliest reference to the name is seen in a ninth century Ganga stone inscription (Veeragallu) found in Begur village, about 14 kms south west of Bangalore. This inscription clearly mentions the name "Bengalooru", referring to a battle that was fought at that place. Rao Bahadur R Narasimhachar, in his Mysore Archeological Report (1914-15), dates this inscription to the 9th century AD.

The place was then called "Hale Bengalooru" or Old Bengalooru, where the present Kodigehalli village is located, near the Hebbal Tank. Kempe Gowda I, on building his new town in 1537, called it by this name, as his mother and wife were believed to have belonged to this place.

According to another speculation, the presence of vast stretches of the trees called "Benga" or "Venga" (Raktha honne) in Kannada lent their name to this place. Vengaluru (the place of Venga) became Bengalooru when "Ve" replaced "Be".

Yet another theory says that there was a big forest in this area and Kempegowda I, before building the town is believed to have burnt the forest. So the town built on Benda Kadu (burnt forest) "Benda Kaduru", later became Bengaduru and finally Bengalooru.

Recenty the name Bangalore was used and misused in many contexts such as :

Bangalored: This is a word originated in America to describe those whose jobs were lost because their work was outsourced to low-cost India. One Web site was selling T-shirts with the slogan "Don't Get Bangalored" as a way of telling people about the issue.

Bang-alore: A few years ago, an IT expert at the technical seminar of IT.com suggested that "Made in Bangalore" should be promoted as a brand. There is "Banga" in Bangalore, he remarked.

Bangal-ore: The Bengali community of Bangalore coined the term "Bangal-ore" and used in their hoardings and publicity material to celebrate their community festival.

Ban-galore: The entry of vehicles were recently banned on many roads as they have been made one-way, paving way for the term "Ban-galore".

BA Galore: British Airways recently knocked out its "n" to announce their direct flights into and out of the City.

With the recent threat by IT professionals and multinationals to leave Bangalore on grounds of poor infrastructual facilities, what do you think will the change in name do to the future of Bangalore ? Do you think that the name change would benefit Bangalore or will it add to the numerous problems of the City ?....let us know.

****************

[Shalini]

u can view the bangalore map..in case if u have not seen bangalore.

[harshabanad]

Shakespere's 'what's in a name?' quote is rhetoric and holds good only in literary works.
But in this material world a name gives us identity.We are known by our names.It is with our names that we attach ourselves emotionally.
In the Indian context, changing the names of cities, monuments, streets etc is a combination of regionalism and language problem.
Language problem because the English couldn't twist their tongues to pronounce our names; either cities' or persons'.When somebody can't pronunce our names correctly due their inability, we can't term them to be rude.

As said earlier the main reason for changing the names is politically connected with regionalism. And with this imitation also contributed to a major extent. When the names of Madras, bombay and Calcutta were changed to Chennai, Mumbai and Calcutta respectively, it encouraged us Kannada people to follow suit.
Yes nothing changed for the better, but it was a bonhomie feeling for the kannada speaking population and finally the contentment that we are being identified correctly at least by our names.
I'm sure our brothers in Chennai, Mumbai and Kolkota would have felt the same way!!