Regionalism gone berserk: West Bengal renamed to Paschimbanga

by Guest Fri Aug 19, 2011 9:56 am

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/west-bengal-renamed-paschimbanga-127701

It would have been ok if they would have renamed West Bengal to Bengal. But changing the name to Paschimbanga just seems a little loony.

by charvaka Fri Aug 19, 2011 9:59 am

Was it regionalism gone berserk when United Provinces was renamed to Uttar Pradesh?

by Guest Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:08 am

charvaka wrote:Was it regionalism gone berserk when United Provinces was renamed to Uttar Pradesh?

The renaming to Uttar Pradesh took place in 1950 i.e. more than 60 years ago. I would oppose any move to rename the state today.

by charvaka Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:12 am

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:Was it regionalism gone berserk when United Provinces was renamed to Uttar Pradesh?

The renaming to Uttar Pradesh took place in 1950 i.e. more than 60 years ago. I would oppose any move to rename the state today.

Kindly note the highlighted word in my original question. Whenever it happened, was it regionalism gone berserk?

by Guest Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:16 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:Was it regionalism gone berserk when United Provinces was renamed to Uttar Pradesh?

The renaming to Uttar Pradesh took place in 1950 i.e. more than 60 years ago. I would oppose any move to rename the state today.
Kindly note the highlighted word in my original question. Whenever it happened, was it regionalism gone berserk?

No it was not because in the early days after independence, there was a feeling of nationalism all over the country. Renaming of provinces was done all across India in the early days after independence. Moreover, the name Uttar Pradesh does not smack of any regionalism. The word 'Pradesh' for instance occurs in the name of the southern Indian state 'Andhra Pradesh'.

by Hellsangel Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:19 am

What was NWFP renamed to?

And why is it Andhra Pradesh and not Dakshin or Dakhini Pradesh?

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:21 am

i don't buy your assertion that west bengal wanting to change its name smacks of regionalism. what is regionalistic about changing an english word to a bengali word?

be that as it may, i'd like to pick up on another thread of conversation from what you just said. so what UP folks did in the 1950s was ok but not for today? so you grant that political sentiments can change with time? if so, why do you keep harping about what bharathi said way back before independence about hindi as if it has any relevance to contemporary TN? are changing political sentiments acceptable only when it suits your agenda?

by Guest Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:24 am

Hellsangel wrote:What were NWFP renamed to?

And why is it Andhra Pradesh and not Dakshin or Dakhini Pradesh?

Luke Warmus wrote: i would miss the q-bot (the question-generating, robotic swamy)

http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/technology/sulekha-wtf-43519.htm

by charvaka Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:25 am

Rashmun wrote:No it was not because in the early days after independence, there was a feeling of nationalism all over the country. Renaming of provinces was done all across India in the early days after independence. Moreover, the name Uttar Pradesh does not smack of any regionalism. The word 'Pradesh' for instance occurs in the name of the southern Indian state 'Andhra Pradesh'.

Haha. That is funny. Let us take that line by line and examine it...

No it was not because in the early days after independence, there was a feeling of nationalism all over the country.

In the early days after independence, Hindu communalists killed Gandhi. But it is not communalism, because there was a feeling of nationalism all over the country. Arthaat, Godse killed Gandhi out of nationalism.

Renaming of provinces was done all across India in the early days after independence.

So? Your argument was that West Bengal -> Bengal would be fine, but West Bengal -> Paschimabango is what makes it regionalism. By that logic, United Provinces -> Provinces would have been fine. But they did United Provinces -> Uttar Pradesh. Regionalism gone berserk, if you ask me!

Moreover, the name Uttar Pradesh does not smack of any regionalism.

This is the funniest line, hahaha. What does Uttar in Uttar Pradesh mean? Is the state named to mean "Reply Province"?

The word 'Pradesh' for instance occurs in the name of the southern Indian state 'Andhra Pradesh'.

And that proves that Uttar Pradesh is not a regionalistic name? Hahaha!

Thank you for some early morning laughs.

by Hellsangel Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:27 am

Awww! Somebody is craving some Nazrani Nazgul!

by Guest Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:28 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i don't buy your assertion that west bengal wanting to change its name smacks of regionalism. what is regionalistic about changing an english word to a bengali word?

be that as it may, i'd like to pick up on another thread of conversation from what you just said. so what UP folks did in the 1950s was ok but not for today? so you grant that political sentiments can change with time? if so, why do you keep harping about what bharathi said way back before independence about hindi as if it has any relevance to contemporary TN? are changing political sentiments acceptable only when it suits your agenda?

What i said about Bharati was for the simple reason that someone like you could not believe that Bharati could have said that. It was only when i took the trouble to upload the picture i had taken of Bharati's letter in his own handwriting in the Bharati museum near the Parathasarathi temple that you started believing me. Earlier you were accusing north indian politicians of concocting the story of Bharati being supportive of hindi.

by Propagandhi711 Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:34 am

phlegmy naamamu phlegmy naaamamu

madhuramayinadi phlegmy naaamamu

somaruna etrudaina

sri phlegmmudi sariyevvarura

*repeat*

by Hellsangel Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:35 am

Propagandhi711 wrote:phlegmy naamamu phlegmy naaamamu

madhuramayinadi phlegmy naaamamu

somaruna etrudaina

sri phlegmmudi sariyevvarura

*repeat*

Ha ha ha ha. I am so glad I wasn't eating or drinking anything when I was reading this.

by Propagandhi711 Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:39 am

and now for the charanam:

kama koti rupa phlegmma

kamita phalada phlegmmuda

jnana svarupa phlegmmaraja

raashamunacita phlegmmuda

by Guest Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:43 am

charvaka wrote:In the early days after independence, Hindu communalists killed Gandhi. But it is not communalism, because there was a feeling of nationalism all over the country. Arthaat, Godse killed Gandhi out of nationalism.

--> nationalism and communalism are not mutually exclusive. I have not come across a single hindu communalist who was also not a nationalist.

charvaka wrote:So? Your argument was that West Bengal -> Bengal would be fine, but West Bengal -> Paschimabango is what makes it regionalism. By that logic, United Provinces -> Provinces would have been fine. But they did United Provinces -> Uttar Pradesh. Regionalism gone berserk, if you ask me!

--> I am not making that argument. You are. There is not a single state in post independence India which has an english name.

charvaka wrote:This is the funniest line, hahaha. What does Uttar in Uttar Pradesh mean? Is the state named to mean "Reply Province"?
And that proves that Uttar Pradesh is not a regionalistic name? Hahaha!

Thank you for some early morning laughs.

--> My response to this is that Bengal has been known as Bengal for centuries. It is referred to as Bengal in medieval and modern literature. United Provinces was not how present day U.P. was known as prior to the coming of the british. So a name change was definitely required. Even Madras Presidency states were reorganized, and renamed.

--> The point is that changing names along regionalistic lines 60 years after independence is plain stupid in my opinion.

by Guest Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:45 am

Hellsangel wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:phlegmy naamamu phlegmy naaamamu

madhuramayinadi phlegmy naaamamu

somaruna etrudaina

sri phlegmmudi sariyevvarura

*repeat*
Ha ha ha ha. I am so glad I wasn't eating or drinking anything when I was reading this.

Do you sometimes feel ashamed of yourself for repeatedly taking Luke Warmus's real name in Sulekha CH?

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:45 am

Rashmun wrote:
What i said about Bharati was for the simple reason that someone like you could not believe that Bharati could have said that. It was only when i took the trouble to upload the picture i had taken of Bharati's letter in his own handwriting in the Bharati museum near the Parathasarathi temple that you started believing me. Earlier you were accusing north indian politicians of concocting the story of Bharati being supportive of hindi.

my subsequent incredulity about your claim is another matter. you can't blame me when you are known for coming up with crackpot theories only slightly less comical than the great lamberdar, if it suits your national integration agenda. it turned out later that you were right about bharathi.

but don't evade my question. you introduced bharathi into the conversation in the first place to try and change my mind. why won't you accept that political sentiments do change over time and that applies to the united provinces of today and contemporary TN?

by Guest Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:50 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
What i said about Bharati was for the simple reason that someone like you could not believe that Bharati could have said that. It was only when i took the trouble to upload the picture i had taken of Bharati's letter in his own handwriting in the Bharati museum near the Parathasarathi temple that you started believing me. Earlier you were accusing north indian politicians of concocting the story of Bharati being supportive of hindi.

my subsequent incredulity about your claim is another matter. you can't blame me when you are known for coming up with crackpot theories only slightly less comical than the great lamberdar, if it suits your national integration agenda. it turned out later that you were right about bharathi.

but don't evade my question. you introduced bharathi into the conversation in the first place to try and change my mind. why won't you accept that political sentiments do change over time and that applies to the united provinces of today and contemporary TN?

I agree that political sentiments change over time. My understanding is there was a pro hindi sentiment in Tamil Nadu followed by an anti-hindi sentiment followed by a pro hindi sentiment again.

by charvaka Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:56 am

Rashmun wrote:I am not making that argument. You are.

I quote you from the thread-opener: It would have been ok if they would have renamed West Bengal to Bengal.

So West Bengal -> Bengal: OK. West Bengal -> Paschima Banga: regionalism gone berserk
Therefore, United Provinces -> Provinces: OK. United Provinces -> Uttar Pradesh: regionalism gone berserk.

Deala no deala?

Rashmun wrote:There is not a single state in post independence India which has an english name.

Hahaha. In what language are the names Jammu and Kashmir, Nagaland and West Bengal?

Rashmun wrote:My response to this is that Bengal has been known as Bengal for centuries. It is referred to as Bengal in medieval and modern literature. United Provinces was not how present day U.P. was known as prior to the coming of the british. So a name change was definitely required. Even Madras Presidency states were reorganized, and renamed.

All irrelevant. If Uttar Pradesh is not a regional name, I don't know what is! If you want to fight regionalism, please get the name of your state changed.

Rashmun wrote:The point is that changing names along regionalistic lines 60 years after independence is plain stupid in my opinion.

IMO, the stupid things on this thread so far were: (a) opening argument for this thread and (b) the claim that Uttar Pradesh is not a regional name. I hope there are more where they came from.

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:00 am

LOL @ reply province.

by Impedimenta Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:02 am

curious, do you all think this wisdom up in sleep? do you even sleep? just asking....my mind stops think after line one here.

by charvaka Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:09 am

Impedimenta wrote:curious, do you all think this wisdom up in sleep? do you even sleep? just asking....my mind stops think after line one here.

What is this sleep you speak of? I think I am firmly in the Middle Age now. Earlier I needed at least 7 hours of sleep a day. Now I am fine with 4-5, and I don't feel tired with less.

by Guest Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:10 am

charvaka wrote:So West Bengal -> Bengal: OK. West Bengal -> Paschima Banga: regionalism gone berserk
Therefore, United Provinces -> Provinces: OK. United Provinces -> Uttar Pradesh: regionalism gone berserk.

--> No deal. The name 'Provinces' would not be acceptable to any people of any Indian state. Because it is an English name.

Charvaka wrote:In what language are the names Jammu and Kashmir, Nagaland and West Bengal?

--> But you see, there is no state in India whose name is *completely* in english. 'United Provinces' would have been a completely english name and that would not have been acceptable.

Charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:My response to this is that Bengal has been known as Bengal for centuries. It is referred to as Bengal in medieval and modern literature. United Provinces was not how present day U.P. was known as prior to the coming of the british. So a name change was definitely required. Even Madras Presidency states were reorganized, and renamed.
All irrelevant. If Uttar Pradesh is not a regional name, I don't know what is! If you want to fight regionalism, please get the name of your state changed.

--> the purpose of this thread was to discuss the name change in Bengal. So when i say that Bengal has been known as Bengal for centuries prior to the coming of the British, it is not irrelevant.

--> With respect to Uttar Pradesh, the change to this name from 'United Provinces' has been made shortly after independence and people have accepted the change. I would oppose any fresh move to change the name of the state.

by charvaka Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:15 am

Rashmun wrote:the purpose of this thread was to discuss the name change in Bengal.

Then your title for the thread is way off. If you call the name change of West Bengal to Paschima Banga "regionalism gone berserk" there is no way you can justify the name change from United Provinces to Uttar Pradesh. Perhaps Samyukta Pradesh or something like that, but certainly not Uttar Pradesh which is nothing but a regional name.

by Guest Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:20 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:the purpose of this thread was to discuss the name change in Bengal.
Then your title for the thread is way off. If you call the name change of West Bengal to Paschima Banga "regionalism gone berserk" there is no way you can justify the name change from United Provinces to Uttar Pradesh. Perhaps Samyukta Pradesh or something like that, but certainly not Uttar Pradesh which is nothing but a regional name.

--> i can justify it on one ground. There was a strong feeling of nationalism all across India shortly after independence and so one cannot attribute regionalistic motives to the politicians of U.P. at the time (which included Pandit Nehru--an ardent nationalist who can never be accused of regionalism).

--> I am speculating that the leaders of present day Uttar Pradesh wanted to retain the initials U.P. of 'United Provinces' and the most appropriate name they could come up with was 'Uttar Pradesh' so that the state could continue to be called U.P. by everyone across India.

--> On the other hand, it is easy to attribute regionalistic motives to any name changes in Bengal by Mamata Banerjee since it is in her interest (and in the interest of her party) to keep the flame of regionalism alive in Bengal.

by charvaka Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:27 am

Rashmun wrote:--> i can justify it on one ground. There was a strong feeling of nationalism all across India shortly after independence and so one cannot attribute regionalistic motives to the politicians of U.P. at the time (which included Pandit Nehru--an ardent nationalist who can never be accused of regionalism).

--> I am speculating that the leaders of present day Uttar Pradesh wanted to retain the initials U.P. of 'United Provinces' and the most appropriate name they could come up with was 'Uttar Pradesh' so that the state could continue to be called U.P. by everyone across India.

--> On the other hand, it is easy to attribute regionalistic motives to any name changes in Bengal by Mamata Banerjee since it is in her interest (and in the interest of her party) to keep the flame of regionalism alive in Bengal.

Makes no sense. We are comparing two things: (a) going from a non-regional name United Provinces to the blatantly regional name Uttar Pradesh, and (b) faithfully translating West Bengal from English into the local language to call it Paschima Banga. Between the two, it is quite clear that (a) is more regionalistic than (b).

by Guest Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:32 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:--> i can justify it on one ground. There was a strong feeling of nationalism all across India shortly after independence and so one cannot attribute regionalistic motives to the politicians of U.P. at the time (which included Pandit Nehru--an ardent nationalist who can never be accused of regionalism).

--> I am speculating that the leaders of present day Uttar Pradesh wanted to retain the initials U.P. of 'United Provinces' and the most appropriate name they could come up with was 'Uttar Pradesh' so that the state could continue to be called U.P. by everyone across India.

--> On the other hand, it is easy to attribute regionalistic motives to any name changes in Bengal by Mamata Banerjee since it is in her interest (and in the interest of her party) to keep the flame of regionalism alive in Bengal.
Makes no sense. We are comparing two things: (a) going from a non-regional name United Provinces to the blatantly regional name Uttar Pradesh, and (b) faithfully translating West Bengal from English into the local language to call it Paschima Banga. Between the two, it is quite clear that (a) is more regionalistic than (b).

--> It would make perfect sense if the nationalist leaders of U.P. like Pandit Nehru wished to retain the initials U.P. of United Provinces so that it would be convenient for people across India to keep referring to the state by the same name they were using earlier, and the best name they could come up with was 'Uttar Pradesh'.

by Guest Fri Aug 19, 2011 2:03 pm

well, bengal's historic name has been banga/vanga. AFAIK bengal is an anglicized rendition of it.

by charvaka Fri Aug 19, 2011 2:10 pm

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:well, bengal's historic name has been banga/vanga. AFAIK bengal is an anglicized rendition of it.

Exactly... as far back as the Mahabharata.

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Aug 19, 2011 2:55 pm

in TN west bengal is referred to as mERkku (west) vangALam.

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Aug 19, 2011 2:56 pm

Rashmun wrote:
--> It would make perfect sense if the nationalist leaders of U.P. like Pandit Nehru wished to retain the initials U.P. of United Provinces so that it would be convenient for people across India to keep referring to the state by the same name they were using earlier, and the best name they could come up with was 'Uttar Pradesh'.

you just keep making it up as you go along don't you?

by doofus_maximus Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:22 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
--> It would make perfect sense if the nationalist leaders of U.P. like Pandit Nehru wished to retain the initials U.P. of United Provinces so that it would be convenient for people across India to keep referring to the state by the same name they were using earlier, and the best name they could come up with was 'Uttar Pradesh'.

you just keep making it up as you go along don't you?

this is what frustrates me about his argument with Carvaka. Everyone including carvaka knew Rashmun was pulling things out of thin air for the sake of argument, but they continued on and on and that gave legitimacy to his flights of fantasy.

by Guest Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:39 pm

http://www.ndtv.com/article/cities/paschimbanga-invokes-mixed-response-in-kolkata-127793

by artood2 Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:05 pm

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:well, bengal's historic name has been banga/vanga. AFAIK bengal is an anglicized rendition of it.

HK, do you know what is the reason of west Pakistan becoming Bangladesh instead of Bangadesh? Does Bangla/Banga have the same meaning?

by Kayalvizhi Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:10 pm

Rasmun wrote

>> No it was not because in the early days after independence, there was a feeling of nationalism all over the country. Renaming of provinces was done all across India in the early days after independence. Moreover, the name Uttar Pradesh does not smack of any regionalism. The word 'Pradesh' for instance occurs in the name of the southern Indian state 'Andhra Pradesh'.

At about the same time Hindian controoled Congress opposed naming Madras State as Tamil Nadu.

by Kayalvizhi Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:15 pm

It is upto Bengalis to decide the name of their country. Hindians have no say n it.

by Guest Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:20 pm

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:well, bengal's historic name has been banga/vanga. AFAIK bengal is an anglicized rendition of it.

Please share your views on this:

https://such.forumotion.com/t2799-west-bengal-to-become-paschimbanga-but-paschim-of-what

by Guest Sat Aug 20, 2011 12:03 am

artood2 wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:well, bengal's historic name has been banga/vanga. AFAIK bengal is an anglicized rendition of it.

HK, do you know what is the reason of west Pakistan becoming Bangladesh instead of Bangadesh? Does Bangla/Banga have the same meaning?

artood2, bangla and banga are equivalent. either can be used to connote to bengal. rabindranath tagore uses both words to describe bengal in his compositions from before independence. amar shonar bangla is a verse by him, meaning my golden bengal. in jana gana mana, bengal is referred to as banga. i gather banga is more formal or sanskriticised. amar shonar bangla was penned by tagore to mourn the partition of provinces of greater bengal in 1905 and subsequently it was adopted as the national anthem of bangladesh. perhaps bangladesh was influenced by this verse in their selection of their name or they wished to shun the sanskriticized equivalent.

by Guest Sat Aug 20, 2011 12:06 am

Rashmun wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:well, bengal's historic name has been banga/vanga. AFAIK bengal is an anglicized rendition of it.

Please share your views on this:

https://such.forumotion.com/t2799-west-bengal-to-become-paschimbanga-but-paschim-of-what

my daily carries a more incisive attack of this name change. if the purpose of the name change was to climb up the alphabet ladder, that has not happened. i agree with the sentiments expressed in the article i link below:

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110820/jsp/frontpage/story_14401045.jsp

lol@

Even those who can speak Bengali will have to figure out who they are: Bengalis, Bongolis or Poschimbongolis? If the word “Bengal” itself will not be allowed to exist, how can a derivative like “Bengali” survive without an existential crisis?

by Guest Sat Aug 20, 2011 1:11 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:well, bengal's historic name has been banga/vanga. AFAIK bengal is an anglicized rendition of it.

Please share your views on this:

https://such.forumotion.com/t2799-west-bengal-to-become-paschimbanga-but-paschim-of-what

my daily carries a more incisive attack of this name change. if the purpose of the name change was to climb up the alphabet ladder, that has not happened. i agree with the sentiments expressed in the article i link below:

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110820/jsp/frontpage/story_14401045.jsp

lol@

Even those who can speak Bengali will have to figure out who they are: Bengalis, Bongolis or Poschimbongolis? If the word “Bengal” itself will not be allowed to exist, how can a derivative like “Bengali” survive without an existential crisis?

a little more from the telegraph article whose link you give:

Even those who can speak Bengali will have to figure out who they are:
Bengalis, Bongolis or Poschimbongolis? If the word “Bengal” itself will
not be allowed to exist, how can a derivative like “Bengali” survive
without an existential crisis?...

What the proposal threatens to do is dump the English name and bruise a
mass of population that has given Calcutta its cosmopolitan character
and made Bengal the antithesis of identity politics played in some
states.

by Kayalvizhi Sat Aug 20, 2011 1:36 am

Its interesting. When a state wants to establish its identity its ridiculed as identity politics but hindians spend other states tax money billions of Rs to promote hindi identity for "India"

by artood2 Sat Aug 20, 2011 1:38 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
artood2 wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:well, bengal's historic name has been banga/vanga. AFAIK bengal is an anglicized rendition of it.

HK, do you know what is the reason of west Pakistan becoming Bangladesh instead of Bangadesh? Does Bangla/Banga have the same meaning?

artood2, bangla and banga are equivalent. either can be used to connote to bengal. rabindranath tagore uses both words to describe bengal in his compositions from before independence. amar shonar bangla is a verse by him, meaning my golden bengal. in jana gana mana, bengal is referred to as banga. i gather banga is more formal or sanskriticised. amar shonar bangla was penned by tagore to mourn the partition of provinces of greater bengal in 1905 and subsequently it was adopted as the national anthem of bangladesh. perhaps bangladesh was influenced by this verse in their selection of their name or they wished to shun the sanskriticized equivalent.

Thanks HK.

by artood2 Sat Aug 20, 2011 1:45 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:well, bengal's historic name has been banga/vanga. AFAIK bengal is an anglicized rendition of it.

Please share your views on this:

https://such.forumotion.com/t2799-west-bengal-to-become-paschimbanga-but-paschim-of-what

my daily carries a more incisive attack of this name change. if the purpose of the name change was to climb up the alphabet ladder, that has not happened. i agree with the sentiments expressed in the article i link below:

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110820/jsp/frontpage/story_14401045.jsp

lol@

Even those who can speak Bengali will have to figure out who they are: Bengalis, Bongolis or Poschimbongolis? If the word “Bengal” itself will not be allowed to exist, how can a derivative like “Bengali” survive without an existential crisis?

some name changes stick, others do not. In my mind it is still Calcutta, Bangalore, Cochin or Bombay. At the same time Chennai and thiruvananthapuram are fine. State name changes are rare because state reorganization pretty much gave people the name they wanted. Will this spark more state name changes like Utkal, Ahom etc? City name changes have more direct impact than state name changes. In the end, it is just a populist feel good measure.

by Guest Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:18 am

artood2 wrote:some name changes stick, others do not. In my mind it is still Calcutta, Bangalore, Cochin or Bombay. At the same time Chennai and thiruvananthapuram are fine.

absolutely. i grant these are personal preferences but i am in harmony with your here -- puducherry is another natural sounding name to me. another name that will take a long time for me to get used to is bengaluru. it sounds like the name of an idyllic vacation spot like honolulu or zulu.

i guess the words "bengalis" will go out of fashion. the word "bangali" that bengalis use to describe themselves (but not the "cultured" ones for they prefer "bengali") will take it's place. phonetically speaking, bAngAli.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:25 am

chennai probably stuck because that's how the city was always referred to in tamil; so also puducherry. so to get rid of madras was relatively easy. i still can't get myself to refer to my city as chennai when i am speaking in english though. therein lies the key: is the name new, or is it just adoption of an already existing name in the native language into english?

by Guest Sat Aug 20, 2011 5:39 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:well, bengal's historic name has been banga/vanga. AFAIK bengal is an anglicized rendition of it.

Please share your views on this:

https://such.forumotion.com/t2799-west-bengal-to-become-paschimbanga-but-paschim-of-what

my daily carries a more incisive attack of this name change. if the purpose of the name change was to climb up the alphabet ladder, that has not happened. i agree with the sentiments expressed in the article i link below:

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110820/jsp/frontpage/story_14401045.jsp

lol@

Even those who can speak Bengali will have to figure out who they are: Bengalis, Bongolis or Poschimbongolis? If the word “Bengal” itself will not be allowed to exist, how can a derivative like “Bengali” survive without an existential crisis?

a little more from the telegraph article whose link you give:

Even those who can speak Bengali will have to figure out who they are:
Bengalis, Bongolis or Poschimbongolis? If the word “Bengal” itself will
not be allowed to exist, how can a derivative like “Bengali” survive
without an existential crisis?...

What the proposal threatens to do is dump the English name and bruise a
mass of population that has given Calcutta its cosmopolitan character
and made Bengal the antithesis of identity politics played in some
states.

Also,

The people of Bengal -
intellectuals to commoners - are aghast at the choice. Intellectuals
like Gautam Ghose, Sunil Ganguly, Shirshendu Mukhopadhyay and Buddhadeb
Guha were shocked. There may be a debate on other names but Paschimbanga
is not acceptable, they said. Feedback from TOI's readers, for
instance, was overwhelmingly in favour of Bengal.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/West-Bengal-to-become-Paschimbanga-But-paschim-of-what/articleshow/9667461.cms

-------

After all the shrill huffing and puffing about why changing the name of West Bengal to Paschimbanga was appropriate, one would have expected Charvaka to have responded to news articles slamming the name change.

by Guest Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:33 pm

it seems like mamata banerjee herself preferred bangabhumi and the perception is that most bengalis would have preferred bengal.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110821/jsp/frontpage/story_14404444.jsp

by charvaka Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:09 am

Rashmun wrote:After all the shrill huffing and puffing about why changing the name of West Bengal to Paschimbanga was appropriate

Where did I argue that changing the name was appropriate? You are the one who created this thread calling the name change "regionalism gone berserk." Then I just pointed out that by your logic, renaming United Provinces to Uttar Pradesh should be "regionalism gone berskerk" too.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:42 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:After all the shrill huffing and puffing about why changing the name of West Bengal to Paschimbanga was appropriate
Where did I argue that changing the name was appropriate? You are the one who created this thread calling the name change "regionalism gone berserk." Then I just pointed out that by your logic, renaming United Provinces to Uttar Pradesh should be "regionalism gone berskerk" too.

Ignore Al-Akbari.

Just support whatever your wife supports....now that is practical.

by Guest Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:24 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:After all the shrill huffing and puffing about why changing the name of West Bengal to Paschimbanga was appropriate
Where did I argue that changing the name was appropriate? You are the one who created this thread calling the name change "regionalism gone berserk." Then I just pointed out that by your logic, renaming United Provinces to Uttar Pradesh should be "regionalism gone berskerk" too.

Refer to this post, and now start spinning:

https://such.forumotion.com/t2792-regionalism-gone-berserk-west-bengal-renamed-to-paschimbanga#24186

by Sponsored content