Calcutta/Kolkatta

[rohan.oberoi at cornell.edu]

[ moderator edited ]

>Calcutta is now Kolkatta in the latest Indian news. Mumbai has been around
>for a long time, as Chennai for Madras. The early Brits had a hard time
>with pronouncing Indian names, although they didn't to have much trouble
>with Delhi (which hasn't changed). ;) My family is from Calcutta/Kolkatta.
>My mother's maiden name was Basu, but changed to Bose, because it would be
>easier for the Brits to pronounce. But she hasn't changed her maiden name
>spelling ... yet! ;)
>
>Shilpi Misty Bhadra

The problematic nature of these exercises is well illustrated by
Shilpi's transcription of the new name as Kolkatta.  While her double
't' is more (though hardly completely) faithful to the Bengali
pronunciation, it's wrong.  The new 'official' name is 'Kolkata'.

Transcribing it in what many see (wrongly) as India's 'national'
language would give something closer to 'Kalkatta'.  But, since there
is no good mapping of the sounds of Indian languages to a Roman
alphabet that is in general use for writing (other than in a few
specialised applications, like the names of Hindi films), no
solution based on a Roman alphabet will work.

I think it is therefore an extreme oversimplification, Shilpi, to say
that this is a matter of Brits having trouble with Indian names.  They
certainly did, but Indians have as much trouble with Indian names; I
have yet to meet an Indian non-Bengali-speaker who uses an 'o' instead
of an 'a' in the first syllable of Calcutta (however spelt).

I have tried (and failed) to understand why changing the 'official'
English version is such an issue in India.  It definitely has
something to do with the unique linguistic/political status of English
in South Asia, and probably with some national insecurities tied in to
that.  After all, you don't see the the Russians agitating for Moscow
to be changed to Moskva, the Poles for Warsaw to be changed to
Varshava, or the Italians for Rome to be changed to Roma.  In those
cases, I believe, the authoritative and official version is regarded
as the the one in the local language and script, and all other
versions in foreign languages are accepted as convenience dictates.

But, for Calcutta, declaring that the official name will be the city's
name as written in the Bengali (sorry, Bangla) script is not an option
because the Central government would never accept the precedent.  Nor
is declaring it the name as written in Hindi in the Devanagari script,
because the Bengalis would never accept that.  Hence the
unsatisfactory compromise of Kolkata.

Most Indians had never heard of Chennai before the name was changed,
and the majority of non-Maharashtrians do not seem to use the name
'Mumbai' to this day.  (Also, Punjabis generally refer to all South
Indians as 'Madrasis', a perfectly reasonable nomenclature derived
from the time when most of South India was part of the Madras
Presidency, and Chennai is very unlikely to make much headway against
this).

Finally, the Brits quite certainly did have trouble with Delhi, which
is the only city in India that could make a good case for a reversion,
precisely because it was the only one of the four (Bangalore being a
recent upstart) that became a metropolis before and without British
occupation.  (Calcutta, Madras and Bombay were all 'greenfield'
developments by the British -- there was nothing there before the
development of British factories and administrative capitals, to say
nothing of the security offered to traders by British arms -- it is
not a coincidence that Bombay eclipsed Surat precisely at the time
when the Mughals were no longer there to defend the latter city, which
was twice sacked by Shivaji).  The old pronunciation of Delhi could be
roughly transcribed 'Dehli' (Urdu poets from Delhi would take the name
Dehlavi); this pronunciation, I can report, is still the standard one
in use by West Punjabis.  The new one in Indian languages is more like
'Dilli' (or Dylli).

As an aside, Shilpi, the Bengalis really don't have much of a case
against the British for being unable to pronounce 'Basu' (or
'Chattopadhyay'), considering that most Bengalis still refer to Sikhs
as "Shiks".

Sorry, this is probably more appropriate for an Indology list, though
the languages are all certainly Indo-European.

:)

cheers,
Rohan.