Bombay, NOT Mumbai December 25, 2008

I refuse to use the ‘M’ word on any of my personal correspondences (emails, CV, social networking sites, etc). Forget conversations.

Forcefully changing the name of our great city for political brownie points does not take away the essence of Bombay. If you have the right to change the name of Bombay because you feel like it, I have the right to keep using it. There is after all, freedom of expression in our democracy. There are millions not only in India but around the world who refuse to use the ‘M’ word and let me tell you, there is nothing you can do to change that. It is what people feel in their hearts and that is something no one can ever change.

The name change may seem like a small detail, but it is not, because what is at stake is the whole concept of a cosmopolitan city open to its own citizens and to the world—a city on the model of London or Beirut or Manhattan. Nobody will tell you to pronounce Paris as Paree or Rome as Roma. No Dutchman will force you to say den Haag. The Finns do not give a shit if you say Helsinki instead of Helsingfors. The Poles will not kill you for failing to say Warszawa, nor the Czechs Praha.

No wonder the central government realised that it adversely affected foreign trade, and hence issued a proclamation in February 1997, saying both the old and new name would be acceptable for use!

By renaming Bombay as ‘Mumbai’, Shiv Sena declared that the city belonged to the native Kolis and Marathas. It is wrong–and even perverse–to accept something that was done mainly to make Muslims (and non-native Hindus) feel unwelcome. The name Mumbai is an ongoing taunt in a society in which violence along religious lines has been all too common. It strikes to me as a betrayal of the city’s cosmopolitan soul – and a slap at its Muslim minority.

Former municipal commissioner S.S. Tinaikar very correctly noted that it was the, “Shiv Sena government which unilaterally decided to amend the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, which describes the jurisdiction of each district and the name thereof. The Congress government at the centre was weak and since the renaming happened on the eve of the elections, they accepted the state government decision. I was surprised when the Postal & Telegraph department changed over to Mumbai even without waiting for a formal order from the central government.”

When Salman Rushdie wrote, in The Moor’s Last Sigh in 1995 that, “those who hated India, those who sought to ruin it, would need to ruin Bombay,” he was referring to the Shiv Sena who tried to exert their own monopoly in the city and who had forcibly renamed it.

KV Kunjikrishnan, former registrar of Bombay University said that, “some people argue that by changing names India is becoming more patriotic, but I feel it is a political smokescreen to impress people and get votes.”

Pramod Navalakar, who spearheaded the change to “Mumbai”, admitted that things might be getting out of hand. He said “It began with cities, then roads, then intersections… Now even street corners are being renamed…Everybody gets confused.” And he added with a chuckle: “Many a time I also say Bombay.”

When SS and MNS tried to rename the Bombay Stock Exchange, a spokesman for the exchange said the organisation had “better things to worry about”.

Incidentally, some of the Thackeray children were studying at BOMBAY Scottish. Raj Thackeray’s son, Amit, and daughter studied there. So did Uddhav’s son Tejas, while his elder son Aditya passed out of Bombay Scottish a few years ago.

You may change the future by changing names, but you cannot erase history.There is no historical evidence available or offered for the claim that the name ‘Mumbai’ in any form was ever attached to the territory before the advent of the British.

People are misled to believe that Bombay was a British corruption of the original Mumbai. However, records show that the Portuguese colony on the islands was called “Bom Bahia” (meaning “Good Bay”). This was given to King Charles II of England as his dowry when he married the Portuguese princess Catherine de Braganza in 1661. That is when the name was anglicized to “Bombay”.

When the Arabs were controlling Bombay, they had destroyed all the temples and the Portuguese had not allowed them to be reconstructed. But when the British took over Bom Bahia from the Portuguese, they allowed Hindus to settle on the isles and allowed temples to be (re)built.

It was then that a Hindu woman named “Mumba” settled in Bombay and built the Mumba Devi temple. A myth about the temple being six hundred years old was invented. As per this myth, there was an evil giant called Mumbaraka who would terrorise the locals. They asked Lord Brahma to protect them. From Lord Brahma came an 8 handed Goddess who defeated the evil giant. Mumbaraka pleaded for his life and promised to build a temple honouring the Goddess. However, this is a myth.

After the British got Bombay they moved their interests there from Surat and offered economic incentives which attracted skilled and unskilled labour to the city. As a result, Bombay flourished magnificently. Most of these skilled migrants were Gujaratis and Marwaris. Interestingly, while under British control, Marathi speakers were the new “IMMIGRANTS” to Bombay. Over time, people from all over India moved to our great city. So Bombay was never really a Marathi city, in spite of some Maratha presence. Mumbai has simply been the local name for the city in Marathi and Gujarati.

So as Antara Sen notes:
“But the Shiv Sena (in short, SS – aptly enough) would have you believe otherwise. So they set to work with their cudgels and pickaxe, hoping to dismantle the idea of Bombay and install a new concept for the same city. Bombay was a modern, free, open, cosmopolitan city, a city of enormous linguistic, religious and cultural diversity, a city nurtured by and nurturing migrants who made it India’s business hub and entertainment capital, the city of dreams. The city of Bimal Roy and Vijay Tendulkar, of Progressive Theatre and Progressive Artists.

The Mumbai Bal Thackeray aims for is a xenophobic, regionalist, closed, violent, hate-filled, Hindu Marathi hub. Not surprisingly, the process of transforming the liberal metro into a bigoted city is taking longer than he expected. Even though Thackeray has been breeding hatred in the city for decades.”

She goes on to compare the renaming of Bombay with re-branding in marketing terms. She adds:
“But every re-branding comes with a high-profile advertising campaign. Crores are spent to make an impact. It isn’t any different for Mumbai. Only the crores being spent here for impact is coming out of taxpayers’ money. The high-profile campaign here consists of savaging the city and ravaging its services, vandalising public property and attacking residents. It sure makes an impact. And you know that the open-armed, cosmopolitan city of dreams is on its way to be reborn as a claustrophobic, outsider-hating, intolerant hovel of Hindutva.”