The recent invitation to the state banquet hosted by the President for the leaders of the G20 has generated controversy. The invitation to the banquet indicated it was extended not by the President of India, as would normally be the case given the invitation was in English, but by the President of Bharat, the name for this country especially when using the Hindi language. This change of name has been read by many as indicative of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) desire to officially change the name of the country to Bharat.
Such a change, should it take place, would not be surprising and entirely in line with the desire manifested by BJP to throw off what they see as vestiges of colonial rule and represent the authentic cultural core of the country, which to their minds is Sanskritic, Puranic, and Brahmanical – in other words upper caste Hindu – culture.
What was surprising about this episode was not the apparent desire of the BJP to change the name of the country, which is consistent with its past actions and its stated ideology. What was surprising was the outrage of the host of members of other electoral parties, as well as actors in the media. This outrage is strange because there have been changes to the names of cities ostensibly to undo colonial bondage through the years, right from the time of independence. This trend seems to have picked up since 1995 when Bombay was renamed as Mumbai, a trend that was followed in most metropolitan centres as well, with Madras renamed as Chennai in 1996, Bangalore renamed as Bengaluru in 2007 and Calcutta renamed as Kolkata in 2001. A similar trend has been noticed for smaller cities too with Belgaum being respelled as Belgavi. After some tiny opposition, the citizenry and the media had tamely fallen in line.
This timidity was a mistake then, and in fact should have been opposed at the time. What these name changes represented was the gathering of momentum of a force that now seems unstoppable. The citizens justified the changes of all these names, not only by the fact that there was a legislation justifying it – as if one is obliged to obey an unjust law – but especially by the silly response that colonial names will just not do in India. What the citizenry was effectively doing then, and barring a few exceptions continues to do now, is to support a logic that prohibits pluralism in the country, insisting that only one cultural vision was acceptable.
What we need to bear in mind is that this vision that found the colonial era names of cities unacceptable was, and continues to be, not just about the change of a name, but of blacklisting entire cultures associated with those names. The change of the name of the city from Bombay to Mumbai, was also about delegitimising the cultures that were associated with the name Bombay. The cultures of the Anglo-Indians, the multiple Christian communities, even the Parsis. The change of the name of the city of Bombay was part of an assertion of the Marathi speaking communities, over the city, to exclude all other communities; communities that had been instrumental in building the city.
The erasure of colonial India has been an on-going project in the country and intimately tied to various strains of Indian nationalism. This project has acquired the unthinking support of vast segments of the citizenry because they have unthinkingly swallowed the nationalistic rhetoric that they learn in school, and through the media. What needs to be borne in mind, however, is that there is no India without the British Raj (and other European cultures). The India that was born via the Constitution was an India that was built primarily on a British understanding. It was British – essentially Christian – values that underwrote the entire project of Indian anti-imperial nationalism. The value of this British inflected India, which has been systematically under attack should be obvious to all who are able to see that what has replaced the colonial cultures is unable to sustain the happy cultural pluralism that we associated with India. Bear in mind that the colonial cultures of India did allow for indigenous cultures to coexist. This is simply not the case of India that has been changing names. It is not just cultural pluralism, but with the abandoning of the colonial, there has also been an abandoning of basic civility that was introduced into the country through colonial intervention.
The remedy to the potential change of the name of the country lies in realising the politics that underlay the process of changing the names of cities began decades ago. The remedy lies in citizens reverting to the simultaneous use of the older names of the cities, Bombay, Bangalore, Madras, Belgaum, Poona, etc. Such a strategy would be very much in line with our national history, where resistance to British rule involved non-cooperation and boycott. What we need is a social boycott of the logic that suggests that colonial names must go, and an embrace of these names.
Our project must not stop with the simultaneous use of the city names of colonial vintage, but must take seriously the role that language plays in sustaining the intolerance of Hindu nationalism. For example, the way most Indians use the word “non-vegetarian” when referring to regular food. The word non-vegetarian is to assume that vegetarianism is the dietary norm of this country. And this is certainly not true. Vast segments eat meat as a norm. Thus, if we have to indicate that vegetarianism is the aberration of a few, intolerant, groups in this country, it is necessary, not critical, that we stop using the word non-veg, and refer to vegetarian food as the options to regular food. Whenever a helpful waiter asks me “veg, non/veg”, ”I smile and say, I will have the meat option.” When faced with someone using the new names for cities. I look at them blankly, until I affirm that we are speaking about Bombay, Bangalore and Calcutta. Had we not been speaking in English I don’t make a fuss about these words.
The debates around the name of the country should make us realise that words and names are linked to political options and to survival, and that a resistance to intolerance is in fact possible not necessarily through mass gatherings, but through small and persistent actions in our daily lives.
Language is important, the life of our Republic relies on it.
(Jason Keith Fernandes is a researcher at the Centre for Research in Anthropology (CRIA), Lisbon)
