Dinesh Kamath's Editorial 'What’s wrong in changing names of places?' that was published in Newsband

What’s wrong in changing names of places?

Yogi Adityanath, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, is changing names of places in his State. U.P.’s Mughalsarai Junction was renamed to honour Deen Dayal Upadhyaya. The rechristening of Allahabad as Prayagraj was done. Faizabad district, in which Ayodhya town is located, would henceforth be called Ayodhya district.

The mission seems to be to strip historical centres of association with Muslim rulers. Gujarat Deputy Chief Minister Nitin Patel said the State government was willing to rename Ahmedabad as Karnavati. Attempt is being made to name the places to project a Sangh iconography or Hindu revivalism.

In the past, Place names that asserted British imperial power were replaced with names and symbols that attest to the subcontinent’s composite identity and history through the ages. Cawnpore became Kanpur. Madras to Chennai, Bombay to Mumbai.

We Indians or Hindustanis have a heritage and history beyond the Mughal Empire as well. When the names were changed then on the name of religion, we stayed helpless. What’s wrong in reinstating the historical significance beyond the Mughal era? It’s not Hindutva, its showing respect to the history. The prominent media should not play partisan politics in this matter by dividing the country on the basis of religion. It’s not the government who plays religion card, but the media.

Changing names once the colonial rulers depart is the norm and assuages people on restoration of their own ethos. It is a historical fact that Akbar renamed Prayag as Illahabad (in honour of his new religion Deen Ilahi) and what now the UP Government is doing is because the colonial Mughals were long back defeated and consigned to oblivion. And Ayodhya was the original town around which the city of Faizabad grew.

 What did Congress do in Karnataka - correctly changed all city names to the original Kannada names - and neither Rahul Gandhi objected nor media commented. In fact DMK changed Madras to Chennai which itself was wrong (as Chennai is also a colonial hangover - the Chennapp Naicken having obtained the lands through colonising Vijaynagar) and ought to have been called Mayilai or Mylapore.

How are Mughal invaders any different than British? Both were colonists whose main aim was to subjugate 'native' population. If there were any difference at all between them, British were lesser religious bigots than Muslim invaders.

What is wrong in renaming the cities or towns? Why in our country where the majority are Hindus the places should not have ancient Indian names. Prayagraj represents the prayag the nature of confluence of rivers. God Ram was born in Ayodhya. So it is apt to rename that place as Ayodhya. Why is removal of colonial names different than removing the previous colonizers’ name, what absurd logic does this pseudo secular group have? Why is it offending native Hindus when the fact is Muslims in reality are least bothered by change of names as much as few who are keen on fanning communal disrupt in every issue.