India’s ongoing project of renaming places reflects the country’s efforts to assert its national identity, cleanse itself of historical baggage, and reconnect with its civilizational roots. The latest move — the renaming of Port Blair to Sri Vijaya Puram — signals a broader intention to shed vestiges of foreign domination, both from the period of British imperialism and earlier Muslim invasions. The symbolism in these name changes is unmistakable, part of a wider cultural and political push to reassert India’s indigenous history, which many feel has been sidelined for centuries.
Names are not mere labels on maps; they carry the weight of history, legacy, and identity. When Indians traverse through streets, towns, and cities, many still encounter names that echo colonial or Islamic invader legacies. A substantial number of places in Delhi, the capital of modern India, are named after rulers of the Delhi Sultanate and Mughal dynasty, dynasties that came through conquest and imposed their authority on the land.
For many, these names represent more than just historical figures; they symbolize domination, violence, and a legacy that is at odds with India’s present aspirations as a confident, resurgent power. The act of renaming is thus seen as part of a broader cultural reclamation.
Renaming places is not merely an academic exercise in historical correction but a politically charged one. Advocates of renaming argue that India must celebrate its own heroes - like Chandragupta Maurya, Rana Pratap or Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj — leaders who resisted foreign domination and defended India’s sovereignty rather than glorifying invaders who sought to erase it.
Delhi is a stark example of this historical disconnect. Despite being the seat of modern India’s political power, few public spaces are named after Shivaji Maharaj, who defied Mughal authority, or Maharana Pratap, who stood against Akbar’s empire. The names of foreign conquerors dominate the urban landscape.
Critics of the renaming drive often accuse the government of pandering to a narrow, sectarian agenda. They argue that renaming places will not change history and risks inflaming communal tensions. But such criticism overlooks the fact that every nation has the right to shape its narrative. France does not honour the names of Napoleon’s enemies in its street names, nor does Britain name its landmarks after those who sought to subjugate it.
The challenge for India is to strike a balance between renaming that honours its indigenous history and avoiding erasure of its Islamic past. After all, the Mughal and Sultanate periods are integral to India’s complex history. In many cases, India can follow a path of dual recognition, acknowledging both the indigenous heritage and foreign influences by honouring people with a syncretic legacy. History is not monolithic, and India’s national identity is shaped by myriad influences. The renaming of streets and towns must not turn into a wholesale erasure of the past but should be a thoughtful reconsideration of which legacies are honoured in public spaces.
Comments