4 ms·
Yes very different but my point being, the names were changed and over time people do refer to these cities by their "new" names. Also, in India the colonial r
by sh87 7y ago
Yes very different but my point being, the names were changed and over time people do refer to these cities by their "new" names.
Also, in India the colonial reference was the official excuse. In my view, it was purely a show of political power.
- viklove 7y agoThose are the original names of those cities... The British Raj changed the names when they took control, and the residents of those cities wanted to go back to their original names.
- sh87 7y agoIf that were true, the people would have renamed them back 70 years ago when India took back control, just as a symbol of regaining control. They didn't. Failing that, local culture would refer to those cities by those reticent names somewhere. Local newspapers, pamphlets, propaganda material. No evidence of that.
- save_ferris 7y agoApparently the effort to reestablish native Indian community names began in 1947 and has been going on for several decades[0], you're not correct about this. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaming_of_cities_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaming_of_cities_in_India