Kolkata/Calcutta-born Amol Rajan, editor of British daily The Independent, announced on Wednesday that the paper will henceforth refer to Mumbai by its colonial name ‘Bombay’. “I’d rather side with the tradition of India that’s been open to the world, rather than the one that’s been closed, which is in ascendance right now,” he told The BBC, adding, “If you call it what Hindu nationalists want you to call it, you essentially do their work for them.” If you haven’t kept up with the Twitter rage and thinkpiece 1, 2 and coming soon, here are the highlights:
After an initial cheer of approval, Bombayites and Mumbaiites realised this feels very British Raj and spoke out against Rajan’s decision. Perhaps because Twitter runs on a default argument-and-counterargument timeline, but also because: (a) He got some facts wrong. While the name Bombay was officially decolonized in 1995, ‘Mumbai’ has long been used by the city’s Maharashtrian population (b) Bombay’s renaming was democratic, if not popular (c) we’d rather not be told by an English daily which name to run with. Even if we agree with you.
Skip the drama and lead you straight to the jokes? Gladly.
What The Independent did with ‘Bombay’ is like a Hero putting his jacket on the Heroine. Without asking her if she’s even feeling cold.
— वरुण (@varungrover) February 11, 2016
I hope this Bombay-Mumbai outrage nudges people to use revert correctly in official mails in future
— cornerd (@cornerd) February 11, 2016
The Independent – a London newspaper – takes a ‘strong’ stance on an Indian city’s name.
From 4500 miles away.Er… OK, Londinium.
— Sorabh Pant (@hankypanty) February 11, 2016
Ajay Devgn must be majorly worried that The Independent will put back the ‘a’ in his name.
— Ramesh Srivats (@rameshsrivats) February 11, 2016
The Independent is going back to calling itself The Monarchist
— Rohan (@mojorojo) February 11, 2016
Foreign media have learnt of the Internet traffic returns in outraging Indians. Don’t cave in.
— INS Vadukut (@sidin) February 11, 2016
