M/B-u/o-mba-i/y

One of Andrew Sullivan’s readers, technically correctly, disagrees with Rushdie’s vision of Mumbai-the-new-name as being a product of Hindu nationalism (and by the way the reader seems to miss the attribution: the source is Rushdie, not Hitch, who just relayed Rushdie’s point of view…). When I say “technically correctly”, I mean that my limited knowledge (and lack of time to investigate) mean that I assume this reader is probably right in saying that Mumbai is the ages-old name of the city in Mahrati. And of course Mahrati is the language of the majority of inhabitants, and of the country around the city.
Now, remember, that was not quite the point. In fact, Rushdie’s point is that the city was (still is) a cosmopolitan metropolis, formed of many (really many) ethnicities, religions and what not. And that the name of this melting-pot was “Bombay”. “Mumbai”, indeed, brings it back to its Mahrati name. Yes, it can be seen as a decolonizing gesture, as this reader argues. It can also be seen as de-cosmopolitizing. Probably both are somewhat true.
Just reminds you how complicated it is (and risky, when you do too little research!) to write about India!