That said, they probably won't mind if you ask them to explain their usage. As far as Indian post-colonial renamings go, Mumbai is one of the more successful ones. Ever heard of Bengaluru? Mumbai is its official name. Whether it's commonly used there or not, saying Bombay to try and fit in may seem contrived and patronising, especially if you aren't Indian yourself.
It's like swearing in a language other than your own. Don't do it - you will invariably use it in the wrong situation or inappropriately - and thus, offend. Best answer: Go with Mumbai, unless someone asks you to call it Bombay. Although I'm a transplanted member of the South Bombay Elite who wouldn't dream of calling it Mumbai, I'd think a foreigner who called it Bombay was a hopelessly behind the times and b too ethnocentric to do even basic research about India.
The Beeb called Mumbai Bombay for months after the change and it really grated on my nerves. What if I said: everyone needs to exclusively call them "LA" and "SF" so that they're stripped of their religious resonance. Do you think my personal opinion would have anything to do with the correct name of the city? My understanding is that the change to Mumbai was made through a deliberative, democratic process.
That doesn't mean everyone likes the result. But it's different from Burma being changed to Myanmar, which was a totally dictatorial power grab. Best answer: You're going to offend people no matter which one you use. Most of my Indian friends say Bombay, and most of my American friends say Mumbai. The latter group get extremely offended if you get it "wrong. It's an inherently political issue, and you're not going to be able to please everyone.
I'd go with Bombay based on what people I know who are from there say, but as this thread proves, some people believe that's "ethnocentric" or incorrect. My one friend from Mumbai insists on it being called Bombay.
He's says that the name change is all right-wing bullshit and he's in poli-sci so that might further influence his position.
As a Brit I'm sensitive to not using colonial names when they've been changed perhaps apart from Burma but apparently the name of the city is a contentious issue.
That having been said, I think you should say Mumbai and then wait to see if you get corrected. That seems to be the sensible option. No one cared which one I used when I was there. Best answer: Both names are used, but I would just stick with "Mumbai" for business purposes. Check out this IHT article from for the best description of why "Bombay" is still around. Excerpt: Mumbai connotes seriousness and respectability, Bombay frivolity and glamour.
Thus the Times of India, a national broadsheet, writes Mumbai on front-page datelines, while branding its biblically read entertainment insert Bombay Times. Mumbai connotes public purpose, Bombay private gain.
In government meetings, senior mandarins censure Bombay slips of tongue. I am not marathi. But growing up in that city, everyone in family always called it Mumbai except when speaking in English called it Bombay and speaking in Hindi called it Bumbai.
Thats how all relatives, schoolmates, teachers, servants, doctors referred to when speaking in Gujarati or Marathi. Dinesh is correct. Sameer — Im not quite sure about Bombay being a state earlier.
It was formed by merging 7 islands. Dear rohan where is reliable source of information to support your claim. You probably know that we celebrate May 1 as Maharashtra Day. What about Bandra? Marathi name Vandre, Hindi and English name Bandra.
There is evidence in all signboards which write Vandre in Marathi and the same in English is written as Bandra. To cite another example, what about the pronunciation of the name of Lord Krishna?
Let us see them give an explanation. It is the citizens that need to be cared for. Everyone so fixated on History and the correct name. How many people have a strategy to remove the slums and clean up the place?
The battle could be amongst linguistic groups but the divide between the rich and the poor is vast. Stop grumbling. Sam point noted. Who changed the name? In fact Madras is now Chennai and majority of states had name changes not solely Mumbai.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. Skip to content I was born and grew up in Bombay and I moved to the US a little less than 4 years ago. Bombay city in Bombay State You might know that India was ruled by the British for years until they finally left in Using a combination of force and negotiation, this largely succeeded, but not all regions could be integrated completely as there were many forces along regional, linguistic and religious lines that saw the borders and sovereignty of regions in different lights The most famous one was the Kingdom of Kashmir One such region was the state of Bombay.
Bombay city in Maharashtra State To cut a long story short, after many ups and downs, finally in the year , Bombay state was split into two states: Maharashtra and Gujarat. Present political map showing Gujarat and Maharashtra state And thus began the tension between a cosmopolitan, pluralist, trading city being integrated into a new state formed under linguistic lines. Mumbai city in Mahrashtra State On the rise of such a sentiment, coupled with many other political factors, in the year , the Shiv Sena won the State elections and came into power.
So is it Bombay or Mumbai? To put this in a larger context, here are the important dates in the history of the city: — Bombay islands were captured by the Portuguese. Like this: Like Loading Previous Post Previous post: Allergic to your cat? Rub some dirt on it. No question of correct or incorrect.
It was always Mumbai Thats how all relatives, schoolmates, teachers, servants, doctors referred to when speaking in Gujarati or Marathi. No nondescript unnoticed structure, this one. No, it's the Gateway of India, standing proudly at the head of a large pedestrian plaza. And as you look up at it, consider the distance you have really traversed getting here.
Half a mile away, his highness is hidden in a shed because Indians must not gaze at him. But here, the Gateway is a towering, arresting monument to King George V himself, to his imperial rule over us. It says so, unequivocally. Yet no nationalistic brave heart has erected a shed to cover the Gateway. Indeed, when the French firm Baccarat wanted to hang a chandelier there some years ago, a small army of protesters formed a human chain to prevent this desecration of a "national monument"—our "Indian heritage.
It seems to me that more than just a half mile separates King George V's name on the Gateway from his statue in that shed. The year saw nationalists proudly battling statues, and saw the same breed of nationalists elected to power in Maharashtra, the state of which Bombay is capital.
In they had a rousing celebration to mark one year in office. Cleaning up the city? Addressing the serious shortage of affordable housing? No, by Joshi's own proclamation, his finest achievement was renaming Bombay to Mumbai, its "original" name from before the British landed in India. The kind who find pride in merely renaming a city, it seems to me, are also the kind who both venerate a memorial to George V and hide him in a shed. Of course we did well to rid ourselves of the British.
0コメント