Mumbai or Bombay?

 

Vir Sanghvi writes about Marathi chauvinism in his recent column in HT. Now, I don't always share his opinions, but this article looks interesting to me. Here's an excerpt:

[W]hether we like it or not, Bombay is not an ancient Indian city in the sense that, say, Delhi is. It is a colonial creation. There is no record of any city on the site of Bombay before the Europeans got here. 

That explains the name. It is generally believed (though there are other theories) that the word 'Bombay' comes from a Portuguese phrase which means beautiful bay. This was later anglicised — when the city passed to the British — to Bombay. So Bombay is not a Maharashtrian name. In fact, it is not even an Indian name. And that's because the city did not exist before colonisation.

So where did 'Mumbai' come from? The general view is that it is a corruption of 'Bombay'. Indians have a tradition of corrupting city names when we use them in different Indian languages.

There are no references here, but the proposition confirms what I knew about the origins of the names.

 

One can think of many such "corruption" of city names in India. Like (as Sanghvi mentions in this article) Ahmedabad, is commonly and informally spoken of as Amdavad by Gujaratis. But no one claims that Amdavad is the "proper" term, and everyone refers to it as Ahmedabad in writing. Bangalore is probably another such dialectical modification of the original name: Bengaluru. 

 

Burma  is another example that comes to mind. John Wells (a professor of Phonetics) wrote about this in his blog: (link)

As we all know, the ruling junta in Burma would prefer that we call their country Myanmar. In Burmese, this name Myanmar is essentially just a variant of the name Burma. It is transliterated as Myan-ma or Mran-ma, and in the local language pronounced something like [ma(n) ma], as against [ba ma] for the traditional name.

 

According to Wikipedia: Within the Burmese language, Myanma is the written, literary name of the country, while Bama ... (from which "Burma" derives) is the oral, colloquial name. In spoken Burmese, the distinction is less clear than the English transliteration suggests.

 

Coming back to the Indian context, it looks like politicians are, once again, using this "purification" campaign to incite junta and thus earn political dividends. It looks like the Marathi manoos is falling for that, and the politicians are winning in their unstoppable zest of attaining and exploiting power, once again.

Socialism in India

It's not surprising, if a bit unsettling to some, that many of the freedom fighters got attracted to the lure of socialist ideas for nation building while dreaming for an independent India. Socialism was like the Spirit of the Age in pre-independence India. It was Karl Marx, the father of communism, who inspired many Indians through his writings during the Russian Revolution.

Bal Gangadher Tilak was among the first Indian freedom fighters to praise Marx's philosophy and the Russian communist revolutionary Lenin. Subhash Chandra Bose, the fascist leader of the Indian National Army, had inclinations towards authoritarian means for creating a socialist nation. He thought of Soviet Union as a role-model-nation for India and believed (post WW II) that democracy would not work in a country like India. He had major disagreements with Gandhi's non-violent methods for attaining independence, and was an advocate for a violent resistance. [He was elected as the president of Indian National Congress for two consecutive terms, but resigned because of his ideological differences with the Mahatma.]

Another revolutionary, Bhagat Singh, was also attracted to the Marxist principles of revolutionary Communism. After becoming the leader of Hindustan Republican Association, he changed its name to Hindustan Socialist Republican Association in 1928. Like Netaji, he also believed that a vast and diverse country like India could survive only under a socialist government. He wrote in his letter to the Governor of Punjab “Till Communist Party comes to power and people live without unequal status, our struggle will continue. It cannot be brought to an end by killing us: it will continue openly as well as secretly.” 

In the famous statement on June 6, 1929, Bhagat Singh said, “The whole edifice of this civilization, if not saved in time, shall crumble. A radical change, therefore, is necessary and it is the duty of those who realise it to reorganise society on the socialistic basis. Unless this thing is done and the exploitation of man by man and of nations by nations is brought to an end, sufferings and carnage with which humanity is threatened today cannot be prevented.” [source] 

On the other end of the political spectrum of pre-independence India, the Indian National Congress also believed in the socialist idea and set it as a goal for free India. Nehru, the first prime minister of independent India adopted socialist practices for industrial and economic development as well as for social reforms in India. While many argue today that the liberalization should have taken place as early as the 70's (as opposed to the 90's), it remains a topic of debate whether implementing free market economy right after freedom could have been a wise alternative to 'centralized planning'.

The National Planning Committee (NPC), which was set up in 1938, was in charge of deciding economic policy for India that was soon to be free. The NPC took lessons from Russia and Japan where state intervention was needed and helped tremendously to annul the effects of late industrialization. This 'late industrialization' effect was even more prevalent in India which had been under colonial rule for over 200 years. So the NPC suggested "service before profit" policy, and notably the private sector agreed with this strategy.  In 1944, a group of leading industrialists published A Plan for Economic Development for India (which was later known as the Bombay Plan), in which they expressed the need for state intervention especially in  energy, transportation and infrastructure. These capitalists concurred that, positive and preventive functions of the state are essential to any large scale economic planning in the early stage of industrialization. 

During the Emergency of 1976, the word socialist was added to the preamble of the Constitution of India:

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, 

having solemnly resolved to constitute India into 

a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;

and to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation; [link]

(Emphasis is mine.)

Even after India has shredded off its socialist ideals in 1991, when the prime minister Narsimha Rao and the finance minister Manmohan Singh, introduced economic liberalization which spurted a tremendous economic growth in last couple of decades, India continues to be described a socialist republic in the preamble to the constitution! [Several months ago, the SC surprisingly refused to entertain a petition which urged to remove the word socialist from the preamble.]

Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich

.
Although I am not a conservative, as a libertarian my favourite presidential candidate is the Republican representative from Texas: Ron Paul.

I definitely don't agree with all of his plans and policies (that I know of). Also he might be too old and doesn't look like the "strong leader" that US is looking forward to have as a President, but I think Paul is the candidate whom I dislike the least. As one of the South Park episode has succinctly put: you have to make a choice between a Giant Douche and a Turn Sandwich!

Here's a snapshot of some of his beliefs and actions:

- He opposes, and have always opposed, Iraq war.
- He wants USA to be out of UN and other such international groups.
- He believes in: Abolishing Federal taxes, dismantle Federal reserve and get back to god-backed currency.
- He supports Gun Ownership.
- He says no to US interventions in other country's internal affairs.

Here's a link to his web-site: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Giuliani, Romney and McCain are currently the forerunners at Republican presidential nominee race, but it looks like none of these candidates can win an election against Clinton. In fact, any Republican presidential candidates seems very likely loose election against Clinton.

Senator Clinton, who is considered a socialist by many people now, wants the Government to "take over" Health Care system. It looks like by increasing taxes, she would go on a spending spree if elected as a President. She must be stopped! But unfortunately if looks like no one will be able to do that.

I am not a US citizen, so I don't vote here, but being in this country for several years, I have my emotional investments in next year's presidential election.