Ever since the West Bengal government decided to rename the state, there has been a barrage of arguments against it, ranging from the overt futility of such an exercise, to the ridiculing of the new names -- "Bangla" in Bengali, "Bengal" in English, "Bangal" in Hindi -- that have been proposed. Some of them seem to make sense at some level, but most of them seem hardly valid as arguments. Let's explore why:
Argument 1: "Bangla" is a type of country liquor, and "Bongo" is a musical instrument.
Why it is invalid: These are both legitimate names of the region, and have been so long before they received their current connotations. The word "Bangla" has been used to refer to the region for a long time, much before "Bangla mod," a term for country-made liquor, was shortened to "Bangla" and became synonymous with it. It also appears in the famous poem "Amar Sonar Bangla," which was chosen as the national anthem of Bangladesh when it gained independence.
As for "Bongo," a name proposed earlier, it was used to denote the region well before even the British invaded India. In fact, when Viceroy Lord Curzon in 1905 divided Bengal into an eastern and western part -- which is the origin of the name West Bengal -- the resulting rebellion was called "Bongo-bhongo andolan." The name even finds a mention in the Indian National Anthem, right after Dravida and Utkala! [Quick, someone school Babul Supriyo!]
Argument 2: Will this bring development?
Why it is invalid: These and other such arguments are actually an indictment of West Bengal Chief Minister and Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee, and have nothing to do with the name change.
Trinamool Congress leader Mamata Banerjee seems to have West Bengal in an iron grip, and it surprises many that she has retained power this year despite being reviled by so many people. Thus, anything and everything she does is subject to scrutiny and bitter criticism, and some such action may deserve every bit of it.
However, this move is about shedding a legacy that was thrust on the state without it asking for it. And the name change has more to do with heritage and culture. So yes, there should be some development on that front. However, trying to slam the move just because it was initiated by an otherwise reviled government makes this argument invalid.
Argument 3: Don't they have anything else to do? Or, was this really necessary?
Why it is invalid: The first question is again an indictment of Mamata Banerjee and her regime, and the second does not provide a strong case for itself.
Asking whether the West Bengal government does not have anything better to do again speaks volumes on the kind of regime that exists under it. Mamata Banerjee's decisions and statements may often seem like straight out of a satire news website, but that does not hold true for her current move simply because it is looking to validate the current scenario where an East Bengal -- barring the tenacious football team whose rivalry with Mohun Bagan is the stuff of legends -- does not exist.
As for asking whether this was necessary, the same question had cropped up when Bombay, Madras, Bangalore, Orissa and West Bengal's very own Calcutta sought to be renamed. We all know what happened next.
Argument 4: People are used to West Bengal!
Why it is invalid: By that logic, people will get used to the new one as well! Just because something has had a name for a long time, does not mean it should continue doing so, and the examples abound worldwide! Our very own neighbour Myanmar was once called Burma, and it changed its name, shedding the anglicised one and returning to its roots. This argument is invalidated by its counter-argument, because if people are used to the current name, they will get used to the new one as well over time.
Argument 5: Mamata is changing the name just so she can speak earlier at meetings of state heads, where they are called in the alphabetical order of the names of their states.
Why it is invalid: Yet another testament to Mamata's misrule, but no reason to oppose the name change. The exact amount of truth in this statement is suspect, and it may well be propaganda from the opposition or her detractors. However, given Mamata's decisions, this logic can't exactly be put past her. It still does not put forward a successful argument as to why the state should not be renamed.
