A battering for Bombay in the nomenclature stakes!

The Times is starting it's first Mumbai day, having succumbed to the merciless pressure to resist describing the Indian city as Bombay. It's all rather sad I think. It's just pandering to the rather noxious sentiments of the PC brigade.

This modern righteousness of the "liberal elite" tells us what we should be doing and thinking. I cannot for the life of me see why it is so. The BBC tried saying Myanmar for Burma, but were told that the regime there was despotic and evil, so they desisted. They do not consider it an affront to fellow European countries to continue with anglicised versions of their place names. In fact, each European country has a different name for London. I don't hear the BBC rebuking the French for Londres!

No, it is all a parody of the facts. Most Indians who speak English in Bombay do not describe Bombay as Mumbai. They are not shaken to the core if they hear the word. Neither is it disrespect.

When all this has died down I am fairly certain it will be the case that Bombay remains the name that most Britons think of when that city comes to mind. Anyway, I've said my piece, probably too much, but I am glad that blogging does allow us a few pin pricks against the pomposity and puffed-up importance of those claiming that they know best!

BBC wins - The Times loses - It's Mumbai!

The BBC, with its slavish attachment to calling Bombay Mumbai, has caused The Times to bow out gracefully and, from 1st December, refer to the city “formerly known as Bombay” as Mumbai.

Richard Dixon, chief revise editor of The Times, says, "Key to policy at The Times on the usage of place names is that they are adjudged to be recognisable to a majority of our readers. After the events that started on Wednesday the name Mumbai has been used extensively in other media to which our core British readership is exposed. It would be foolish to ignore that context. We also have a global online audience to consider." I would think that when all this has died down, many in the UK will still think of Bombay as Bombay.

I wonder if anybody who said Bombay on a BBC broadcast would be corrected or whether it would be allowed to pass. Maybe there's a naughty room for those who prefer to say Bombay. It is a sad reflection that such an insiduous adherence to this perceived political correctness has caused The Times to consider this move. I'm not convinced that a "majority of our readers" at The Times are helped by the change.

If the BBC is of the opinion that this name-changing is important, let them revise every Italian city for starters. That would be a sign of consistency. They won't, though.

I realise that this is of minute importance compared with the other problems in the world, not least the outrage in Bombay itself. However, I am miffed by the ever-so-slightly pompous way this has been brought about in this country.

I think The Times should have stood firm, but there you go!

PS - Another interesting take on this in The Guardian. And this gem from a BBC blog - "As a regular traveller to Bombay, it has been impressed on me many times by Bombayites, that Mumbai is a politically invented name and as such is deemed by a large majority of Indians to have racist conotations. General chit-chat in the bars of Bandra or Worli will always refer to the Anglicised Bombay when English is the language being used." So much for the BBC's local knowledge!!

What's with this Mumbai ya stuff?

Here's a man after my own heart. He quotes Winston Churchill as saying "Everybody has a right to pronounce foreign names as he chooses".

So how come the BBC is so slavish to all this Mumbai talk? Would Indians be offended if we said Bombay? I suppose some would, but as Paul Battley says, "I don’t call Paris ‘Paree’ unless I’m speaking French."

I see The Times Online refers to Bombay still. Funny old world!