Fighting over nothing at all

I came to Bombay in the winter of 1982. In 1998, I went to Parliament representing Mumbai. In these 16 years, the city morphed. Bombay stood for what it once was. Mumbai is what it became, writes Pritish Nandy.

I came to Bombay in the winter of 1982. In 1998, I went to Parliament representing Mumbai. In these 16 years, the city morphed. Bombay stood for what it once was. Mumbai is what it became. And therein lay a semantic trap. The city I love so much, its history, magic, identity, culture, cinema lie caught between two words, two worlds, Bombay and Mumbai.

HT Image

Actually the war’s long over. Mumbai has won. Bombay is a distant memory. It’s no more a tussle between regional pride and the sense of nationhood. Even the Congress is now reaching out to Maharashtrian voters and the staunchest Bombay lover knows that Mumbai is where he lives.

That’s why I find the MNS’ reaction to Karan Johar’s film so unnecessary. Does it really matter if someone referred to Mumbai as Bombay in a scene? Nilu Phule played Balasaheb in Mahesh Bhatt’s film and got away. A reference to Bombay in a movie is unlikely to make Mumbai Bombay again.

I respect Maharashtrian self pride. But that self pride must be tempered by reason. We who love Mumbai do so not only for what it is. We love it for what it once was and will always stand for. Faith, hope, compassion, understanding, these are the pillars on which this great city was built. These are what will ensure its future.

When Europe’s trying to come together to rebuild its future, when China’s doing its utmost to integrate, when Americans are beginning to look outwards, we must stop worrying about who called Mumbai, Bombay, Kolkata, Calcutta, Chennai, Madras. The future must be our concern. Not the past.