Bangalore is the English name. My city is called Dublin in English and Baile Átha Cliath in our native language of Irish. As an Irishman I understand better than most the resentment towards the English but really this is not a battle worth fighting. Both names are correct in their respective languages.
Bengaluru is now the official name in the English language. Bangalore is the British Empire's English name.
It is a relic of colonization that is worth leaving behind. This battle is completely worth fighting. If Ireland officially lists Dublin as Baile Atha Cliath for addresses, the airport, and for international English references, I will use that. This is not about two different languages, but of erasure.
As an Indian, I take the opposite stance. For example, I strongly insist on calling my hometown Calcutta as it is part of the heritage of the city and my own upbringing. If you want to erase the colonial past, then work towards making the country better. These nonsensical gimmicks do not help anyone.
> It is a relic of colonization that is worth leaving behind.
It costs the ex-chequer a lot of money to fund such renames. In the midst of 600,000,000 people living below the income of $2 a day, funding renaming cities to rid of British heritage should be least of India's problems. Such vitriol has never done anyone any good and is a sign of society embroiled in misplaced priorities, imo.
> Bengaluru is now the official name in the English language.
Who made it official? On what authority? The name in English is the name people use in English. Maybe Bengaluru is now the name in Indian Official English?
Until today, if I read something about Bangaluru, I wouldn't even know it's Bangalore.
Europeans used the word India long before Britishers colonized India. So it's not really a good analogy. Bombay -> Mumbai is a far better one. However, I do agree that spending taxpayers' money on changing each colonial name is not worth it.
Bharat(along with India) is a constitutionally recognized name. So it is actually used in official context. But the general convention is India for English, and Bharat for Hindi(and some other languages like Marathi).
> So why use a European name, shouldn't it be an "Indian" name.
It's difficult to answer. I think Indians usually don't have much problem with foreign words. The day-to-day Hindi is somewhat influenced by Persian and even the word for the majority religion (Hindu) has a Persian origin. But in case of English worded cities, it quickly becomes problematic as they were named during the colonial period.
There's also this other issue that unified India is an extremely new thing and it wasn't common for people within India to refer to that landmass as a whole.
It is the prerogative of the nation and its people to choose official naming for international usage. If India, like Myanmar (formerly Burma) wanted to choose a native name as their English representation through a formal process, it is disrespectful bordering on hostile to ignore that, especially as a foreign entity like YC. Nobody is saying anyone should change any names, but once they have, it is important it is respected.
This is a complicated initiative, but it's clear that most people do not recognize the impact or meaning of a choice like this. It is considered equally hostile and rude to, for example:
- refer to a divorcee by their ex family name after an official name change
- refer to a transgender person by the name they had previously after an official name change
It's up to the individual what their name is, and making a name official is clearly indicating what they would like to be referred to. It really shouldn't be that much trouble for outside entities to respect that.
Its been 70 years since the British left, if these were important issues that people thought strongly about it would have come up sooner. This rather recent renaming agenda should be called out for what it is -- a convenient and manufactured political diversion to draw attention away form the governments failings and lackluster performance.
Many of these cities/towns indeed had pre-British names but for better or for worse, its the British that made them into the cities that they are, for example Calcutta, it was 3 not very notable villages prior to the British.
The argument for renaming will carry a lot more heft if these were notable names prior to the British. In some cases they were but not all.
You have said this in 4+ places in this thread. People who have strong connections with the place (similarly with a person who's name has changed) can use their discretion which name to use, if the person in question is alright with either name. However it is inappropriate for an outsider to use an unofficial name or deadname without permission, especially in official context. That's all I have said.
Please stop bringing up taxpayer money, it's not like taxes can only be used for a singular issue at once. I could say the US taxes shouldn't be spending trillions on military before fixing other problems like homelessness in SF, but that's not how taxes or governments work.
> However it is inappropriate for an outsider to use an unofficial name or deadname without permission
I dont think its inappropriate, that is how names change over time. Just embrace it, dont fight it.
> Please stop bringing up taxpayer money
Why? Shouldnt you say something if the govt is wasting money on frivolous activities?
> I could say the US taxes shouldn't be spending trillions on military before fixing other problems like homelessness in SF, but that's not how taxes or governments work.
I agree, the US should be spending less on military and more on the welfare of its citizens.
> However it is inappropriate for an outsider to use an unofficial name or deadname without permission, especially in official context.
I don’t see a single reason why it is inappropriate, other than it offending you. Nobody needs permission to use words from anybody else. If anything is offensive, it is this type of gatekeeping.
Keep carrying on like this with talk of how outsiders should behave, and Bangalore will lose the competitive advantage it enjoys as IT workers will find friendlier places to move to.
I don't have any resentment towards English. The city has been around for as long as the English language and nobody local never called it with the anglicized name if anything it would be more of a correction.
Though Bangalore is a relatively new name, it has been deeply ingrained in recent collective memory and literature. So it needs some time to change. Other cases in point, Bombay -> Mumbai. Madras -> Chennai, Calcutta -> Kolkata. While these changes have been adopted in some circles, the anglized form is still in use in many places. Especially, places and instances that have history pertaining to the past few centuries.
Also, in IT field, Bangalore symbolizes more than the city. It is a standin for the Indian IT industry and it's boom in general. It has a certain connotation and degree of recognizability that may be lost when using Bengaluru. Still with time, it too would change.
My point was more that every language uses different names for places. It's like saying we can't call Germany Germany anymore because Germans call it Deutschland.
