In the age of smartphones, scrolling, and digital fluency, I recently found myself revisiting a long-forgotten skill—debating. At a prestigious competition, alongside seasoned orators, stood my six-year-old child—a fearless showstopper with unbridled enthusiasm. Watching them confidently articulate their views was heart-warming, a reminder that the culture of debate remains vital, offering a space for dialogue, differing opinions, and reflection.
ALSO READ: Opinion | Food Preferences And Ethics
Debating has always intrigued me because it allows diverse perspectives to emerge and challenges assumptions. Plato once said, "Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance," and engaging in debate allows us to navigate this grey area, refining our understanding of the world. One such debate in India centers around renaming cities, towns, and public spaces—a topic recently brought to light by Assam’s Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s announcement to rename Karimganj as Sribhumi.
Sarma explained the name change as a symbolic return to the region’s heritage, referencing Rabindranath Tagore’s description of Karimganj as Sribhumi—"the land of Maa Lakshmi." He argued that this decision honors local aspirations, reflects history, and embraces Assamese identity. The renaming aligns with a broader government effort to change names linked to colonial legacies or modernize identities to better represent regional culture.
However, renaming towns has always sparked debate. Many see these changes as cultural revivals, while others argue they mask political strategies or serve as distractions from urgent issues like unemployment and infrastructure challenges. India’s renaming trend began post-independence, with Bombay becoming Mumbai and Madras transforming into Chennai, symbolizing a break from colonial pasts. Yet skepticism has lingered, questioning whether these efforts are truly about cultural pride or merely symbolic gestures.
For instance, the Mughal Gardens in Delhi were renamed Amrit Udyan, sparking criticism. Opponents argue that instead of altering names, governments should focus on creating new symbols and addressing pressing socio-economic issues. Even changes like Prayagraj, formerly Allahabad, reflect the tension between reclaiming indigenous identities and erasing historical legacies. This same tension arises in Assam with the rebranding of Karimganj to Sribhumi. While Sribhumi carries cultural significance, its symbolic meaning doesn't erase issues like infrastructure deficits, income inequality, or youth unemployment. Critics contend that symbolic gestures must accompany meaningful development.
Renaming can alienate communities as well. For example, some felt that Allahabad’s transformation to Prayagraj disregarded its Mughal-era contributions. Similarly, rebranding Karimganj risks overshadowing the identities of those attached to its old name, despite its symbolic value in honoring Tagore’s vision.
Another high-profile case is the renaming of Port Blair to Sri Vijaya Puram. Union Home Minister Amit Shah emphasized that this change, inspired by the vision to rid India of colonial legacies, also honors the historical importance of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands as a key site in the Indian freedom struggle. Shah highlighted that Port Blair is rich with historical milestones, such as Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose unfurling the Tiranga and its association with Veer Savarkar and the Cellular Jail. While symbolic renaming can foster pride and historical acknowledgment, the question persists: Do these name changes truly address systemic issues, or are they symbolic distractions?
Despite their symbolic nature, name changes can hold transformative potential when connected to broader cultural and socio-economic initiatives. Sribhumi’s rebranding could, for instance, be an opportunity to highlight its rich traditions—bamboo crafts, Vaishnavite Bhakti music, and folk art—on global platforms. With strategic promotion of its heritage and cultural assets, the region could emerge as a hub for tourism and regional development. Its proximity to wetlands like Son Beel and the banks of the Kushiara River further enhance its cultural appeal. A well-orchestrated focus on tourism, education, and infrastructure could position Sribhumi as a cultural bridge celebrating Bharat’s diversity.
The debate surrounding renaming cities illustrates a broader challenge: balancing symbolism with tangible progress. As India grapples with the dualities of history and modern aspirations, governments and citizens must tread carefully. While names can evoke pride and reconnect people with their heritage, they cannot replace the need for systemic economic development.
In conclusion, the question remains—are renaming initiatives a meaningful tool for cultural pride and unity, or simply symbolic gestures without substance? As we navigate these changes, our focus must remain on ensuring that names inspire progress, address pressing challenges, and connect our history to a shared, inclusive future. Just as debate hones critical thinking and dialogue, grappling with these complexities allows us to consider identity, history, and development together. In the end, symbolism must intersect with action for a name to truly mean something—moving beyond mere words toward progress.
(All views and opinions expressed are author’s own.)