Subscribe to Site Feed

what's new f.a.q about us feedback

history women portraits mythology

arts music culture paintings

tags sitemap timeline index a-z

pictures! stamps erotica biographies

gandhi tribals temples religions

 

Best of AnthoBLOGy • Unripe Revolution • Rooster's Dharma • Don't Know Jack • No Love for Condi • Blogger's Block • Father of the Bride • TinTin's Diary - I • TinTin's Diary II • Hate Bollywood • Child Labor • M.F.Husain Guilty •Marathi & Konkani • Artist's Daughter • India's First IT Guru

Computing, Libraries, Tennis, India & other interests of Vikas Kamat

Mumbai and Bombay

Mumbai and Bombay It is understandable that the media had to explain that the two names refer to the same city over and over again during the recent crisis. In the year 1996 (that was 12 years ago) the name has been officially changed to Mumbai. But for a large segment of India, the city was always Mumbai, and Bombayites have always been Mumbaikars, even before the official naming. I have a funny story to tell about that. When I was in the 5th grade (year 1976), we had a English lesson in which a boy goes to Bombay. But during the discussions and even prose reading, some classmates pronounced "Bombay" as "Mumbai". It was funny, but we never thought much about that. Imagine writing "Bombay", but reading it as "Mumbai" ! With that background, I am really ticked off when I run into some snobs at desi parties who will proudly say "I am from Bombay,  not from Mumbai". These people somehow think that referring to the city by the old name of Bombay will bring the romance of the British Raj back. It won't. It only makes you look like a good house Negro. This entry was prompted by Mihir Bose of BBC, who writes  among other things,  "It is a city I shall always call Bombay and the one where I grew up." Mr. Bose, please do refer to the city as Mumbai in the future, especially when you are practicing journalism. Otherwise we'll have to call you unpleasant names. BTW, good house Negro refers to the slaves who compromised on their values and character and enjoyed special privileges among the owners. They were despised by the hard working field slaves. The Name Bombay as a Sign of Slavery of India When I took my wife to show the statue of Queen Victoria in Bangalore (I know, you got me not writing as Bengaluru. But that's not the point. If you refer to Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus as Victoria Terminus or VT, that is not insulting anybody), she was appalled. She said that after Korea became free, the Koreans proudly destroyed remnants of all Japanese occupation because they found the buildings insulting, and reminded of oppression. I tried to explain to her that Indians are much more sophisticated and that tearing down old relics is not necessary to move the civilization forward. But it deeply hurt me that Indians are not nationalistic. In the name of tolerance and acceptance, we've let our identity diluted. I don't believe that every building and city be renamed to an Indian name, but Mumbai definitely was a different case. See Also: The Trouble with Indian Names -- Most Indians know when to use the Indian proper noun, and when to use the anglicized name. No Indian (other than a good house Negro) will say "I am going to cleanse my sins in the Ganges", the appropriate proper noun is to use the name "Ganga". In other words, one can use both the names of Mumbai or Bombay, as long as one is sensitive and knowledgeable enough to use them correctly. (Comments Disabled for Now. Sorry!) First Written: Saturday, November 29, 2008 Last Modified: 11/29/2008 8:32:35 PM Tags: bombay

Browse More Entries

About Me:

• My Home Page
• Contact me
• Kamat Family Album

Powered  NOT by Blogger or MovabaleType or WordPress, but by SimplyBlog, a software I wrote to create blogs. See details of implementation or download SimplyBlog.