Lethe
Captain
You know which country wastes excessively time, energy and taxpayers dollars trying to rewrite its past and hope no one notices? India.
Old Name Current Official Name Key Foreign Influence Year Change Calcutta Kolkata British (East India Company) 2001 Bombay Mumbai Portuguese (ceded to British) 1995 Madras Chennai British (Fort St. George) 1996 Cochin Kochi Portuguese, Dutch, British 1996 (city merger) Pondicherry Puducherry French 2006
The more I read about India, the more I realize loads of "Indian" things have foreign origins. A lot being from the middle east (not necessary Islamic although that is the case for a lot) and british. For example Urdu and Hindi have loads of loan words. A lot of food, clothing and buildings have middle east style due to Mughal influence. Actually hell their government style has that influence since the guys in charge were sultans and later brits. The capital of Gujarat (Modi's home state) is called Ahmedabad and historically that has been a trading port between the Middle East and the South Asian continent. Congress party was founded by a brit and the the word Hindu itself comes from Persian.
If you didn't know this? Well its probably done on purpose. I mean those name changes are quite recent. There's a deliberate effort to downplay a lot of foreign stuff and claim it as Indian. And then you wonder why there's so much energy wasted between Hindus and Muslims because it turns out Islam has been in India for a long time and had a huge influence. You can't just ask its hundreds of millions to just go away and pretend it didn't happen. And denying their link to India, just makes things even more confusing.
I'm glad you brought this up. I would just add the case of the 1992 in Ayodhya. It was a significant event in the rise of Hindu nationalism, the BJP, and communal strife within India.
Iconoclasm is an interesting subject. Whatever else might be said of the urge to smash the complexities of the past in favour of a simple narrative of righteous order, it would seem to be most compelling during the birth of a new nation or entity that is compelled to clearly distinguish itself from the past and perhaps from its neighbours. That is to say, it would seem to be born of a perceived weakness or lack of confidence in the internal cohesion of the nation, in its ability to accommodate complex historical realities without fracturing or becoming vulnerable to subversion. While episodes such as the Taliban's destruction of the in 2001 are spectacular, more often this plays out at the level of narratives rather than the fate of physical objects, but the principle is the same. History is always being re-written to serve the needs of the present moment.
Last edited: