Shakespeare in his play Romeo and Juliet wrote ‘What's in a name? That which
we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.’. Deng Xiao Ping said, ‘It doesn’t matter
if the cat is black or white; a cat is a cat, as long as it catches mice.’ Both dismiss the importance of external attributes
like the name or appearance of a place or person to bring into focus the
functionality and substance intrinsic to it.
So, what’s in a name?
A lot! A loud chorus can be heard. These are the voices of the
ones who support it and those who oppose it.
Such noises were heard at distant locations in distant states,
but never in our state. Recently during a function in Cuttack while discussing
the role of the British officer during the Bengal famine whose alleged tactless
handling resulted in the death of thousands of people, a top leader of the
ruling party questioned why the premier academic institution is still named
after him. He stirred a hornet’s nest by asking the intellectuals of the state to debate why the name should not be changed to
commemorate a worthy son of the soil.
This suggestion triggered a fusillade of exchanges on social media between the ones who
support this initiative and the ones who are appalled by even the thought of it. One
side can’t tolerate the name of a foreigner associated with the university as
he represented the colonial rulers and the other can’t imagine their own
identity without their association with the franchise. Many also are
suggesting not to waste time in such
exercises when much more needs to be done to improve the current condition of
the university.
There is another group who just don’t see any reason why such things are initiated
when there are other pressing problems to be tackled – they think that this is
an exercise in futility as a common man is least bothered about after whose
name the institutions are built as long it is serving its purpose.
The name change game is not new and is not at all a whimsical
act.
While taking sides for or against such moves in this case; using
all your emotions and logic, it’s necessary to understand why names are changed
and what happens when they do – both positive and negative.
In the commercial world, it’s called rebranding and there are
definite purposes behind creating a new avatar of itself. They hire the best
brains to rename and change their logos, the colour they have used to
send a new set of signals to declare to the market that they have come of age
to stay relevant in the current context and the foreseeable future. We have
seen how Twitter was rebranded as X when Elon Musk took over the company
signalling their interest. The interests are commercial, and they make no bones
about it. But our discussion at the current time is political.
Why does a new political dispensation change the name of a place
and what are the possible reasons?
Ideological and Symbolic Reasons:
New regimes often seek to distance themselves from previous
governments or colonial powers. Changing names of places, prominent institutions, and legal
documents using local languages to break from the past. Names can symbolize a
shift in ideology, such as from communist to democratic or from authoritarian
to liberal to reflect new values or to majoritarian. Names can commemorate
influential figures or movements. They try to restore the honour of the
national heroes they think that the previous regimes had wilfully ignored due to
political reasons.
National Identity and Unity:
Name changes can affirm independence and self-governance to
assert sovereignty. Changing names can eliminate reminders of foreign
domination thus erasing their colonial legacy. We know why there is a section
of people who demand the name India be dropped which was coined by the colonial
rulers. New names can also emphasize shared identity and citizenship to promote
national unity.
Practical and Administrative Reasons:
Name changes can resolve border disputes or ambiguous
territorial designations and clarify territorial claims. Names may no longer
reflect the place's characteristics or demographics, and they are updated. We have seen major cities like Bombay, Madras,
Bangalore and Calcutta reverting to their original names of Mumbai,
Chennai, Bengaluru and Kolkata. Changing the name of a place can have
various consequences and implications, depending on the context and scope of
the change. There are many negative impacts. Changes can confuse
residents and visitors. There was this amusing case when an American pilot
chose to fly back instead of landing at Bengaluru as his NOTAM noted the
destination as Bangalore. We face similar
problems when we find a new name for the terminal we visited a few months
ago. Erasing historical names can
disconnect people from their cultural roots as it disconnects its evolutionary
continuum – their heritage.
This can be highly contentious in a country like India where the
new majoritarian assertion is pushing the minority communities to the corners.
The process of establishing new heroes is often preceded by systematically vilifying
and demonizing the already established national heroes with half-truths and
half-lies which creates an air of unpleasantness for a long time.
Name changes can be a powerful tool for shaping national
identity, asserting sovereignty, and signalling a new era. However, they can
also be contentious and have significant practical implications as they realign
the political and cultural landscape by disrupting it. Name changes can be contentious,
especially if they involve cultural or historical significance. It's essential
to weigh the reasons for change against potential consequences and engage
stakeholders in the decision-making process.
The case of India is unique.
It was colonized by the rulers of other faiths whose
practitioners were always a minority. But despite their small numbers, their
control over the power, political process, economy and culture held sway over
the culture of our country leading to a liberal syncretic mixed culture at
different pockets of its geography. The diversity of the country is in its
culture. Its food. Its language, its identity, its dress, its ethos. But
despite such diversities, the founders of the nation have done a wonderful job
of keeping it together as a nation at the same time allowing regional
topicalities to flourish. This liberal inclusive mindset and training have made
India acceptable to the global community. If India has made unbelievable
strides in a very short time after gaining independence, the role of its
openness to diversity can be ignored.
But that doesn’t auger well with the new political order which draws
its inspiration from a very orthodox cultural outlook. It sees this as a systematic
corruption and dilution of our national identity because of our unassertive
past. They have the agenda to establish a new order just not limited to
politics only.
They want to influence culture – impose the majoritarian language,
dress, who we worship, how we worship, our values and our ideals.
Creating a new history is a strategy to create a new nation that
has forgotten its colonial past. Pakistan immediately after gaining
independence had attempted that and we know where they are. The name
change game is just a tool to start a larger discourse involving many people and
cause disruption to facilitate a larger culture shift.
Are you interested?
*
