Goodbye ‘Calcutta,’ Hello ‘Kolkata.’ What’s in a Name?
Travel Blog • Jim Benning • 03.07.06 | 3:35 PM ET
To reflect pre-colonial times in India, Calcutta has become Kolkata, Madras is now Chennai and Bombay has become Mumbai. More and more Western newspapers are using the new official names in datelines—the Los Angeles Times made the change Monday. In an eloquent piece in today’s Times, David Lamb wonders what’s lost when such iconic names are tossed into the “historical scrap pile.”
“Confusion is often one of the main products of changing the name of a country or a city,” Lamb writes. “Every Western traveler has heard of Burma and its capital, Rangoon. But mention Myanmar (which Burma became in 1989) and its capital, Yangon, and you’re apt to get a blank stare. The new names never seem as good a fit as the old ones. They don’t conjure up images or bring to mind the words of Graham Greene, Joseph Conrad or Kipling. The dawn still comes up like thunder on the road to Mandalay, but somehow that dawn seemed more romantic and mysterious when the road ran through Burma instead of Myanmar.”
Email to friend
Twitter
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Mixx
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo! Buzz
Jim Benning is the editor and co-founder of World Hum.
Rosebud Armstrong 03.08.06 | 8:32 PM ET
I migrated to Australia 32 years ago - Indian origin - Anglo India by community. But Indian through and through.
The names of the cities like Bombay, Madras and Calcutta where anglosied - the original names were Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata. All that has been done is revert back to their original names.
Regarding Burma, the names I am not sure may have been recent and hence the loss of the various romantic and mysteries of Rangoon, Mandalay etc may be lost.
Eric Gadfsa 03.10.06 | 3:21 AM ET
One would think the leaders in Indian cities would have better things to do than institute unpopular name changes. Supposedly Bangalore is considering changing to ‘Bengaloru.’ Everyone has heard of the former, none of the latter.