Civitas Mumbai Bombay Sum

Andrew Sullivan (following Christopher Hitchens) is more facile than usual when he says that he won't call it "Mumbai" any more because the name was chosen by a bunch of thugs the Hindu Nationalist Shiv Sena (link). Has he any idea what he is getting himself into here? If he doesn't like names chosen by corrupt gangsters, will he now eschew the use of "Zambia" and "Zimbabwe," reverting to "Northern and Southern Rhodesia?" Substitute "Palestine" for "Israel?" "Judea" for "Palestine?" "Place where the fish run freely" for some town in New England (sic!) that we (sic!) snatched from the Indians (sic!)?

I suppose he might say that the "Rhodesias" were themselves named by the corrupt thugs (in the form of European imperialists)--but then, so was Bombay. My point is not to glamorize Shiv Sena (nor, for that matter, to demonize Israel); my point is to suggest that this naming business is far trickier than Sullivan seems to have noticed, and there probably isn't any solution that will be above contention (and can he think of any government in the history of the race that doesn't bear at least a slight aroma of corrupt thuggery)? In the case of Bombay/Mumbai for example, it may be that the new name was imposed by some pretty nasty people. But it appears that there is a good grass-roots justification for the change, independent of any current politics. That is: aparently the name has been "Mumbai" all along in the Marathi and Gujarati--which just happen to be the languages most commonly spoken by the people on the streets (link). One more reason to regard "Bombay" itself as a foreign excresence.

Having said all this, I'll concede that Hitchens is basically right that whatever-you-call-it, that city in India, is worthy of our support and loyalty (link). We are all whatever-you-call-its now, and I proudly count myself in their number.

If Andrew wants to discuss this further, I would be happy to meet with him. I know a nice coffee shop on the Avenue of the Americas. In New Amsterdam.