Changing a town’s name for a singular – even arbitrary – purpose, even if only temporarily, has a relatively long history. According to the Guardian, Hot Springs, New Mexico, changed its name to Truth or Consequences in 1950 to win a radio contest and have that popular radio game show broadcast from the tiny community once a year for the next half-century. They even named a park after the host, Ralph Edwards. Google, Kansas adopted its new name for a month in an attempt to woo the web giant to establish superfast internet connections in random American cities through its Fiber for Communities scheme. Wikipedia has a long list of such examples.

Recently, the Uttar Pradesh government renamed Allahabad to Prayagraj and Faizabad district to Ayodhya, stirring a chorus of growing ire over various cities being renamed. This is not the first time that a city name has been changed on the premise of historical legacy and cultural heritage. It’s not just in India; the names of cities have been officially changed on every continent.

For instance, in 2016, Queensland’s Stradbroke Island, named after British explorers, was renamed to its Indigenous Australian name of Minjerribah (meaning “Island in the Sun” in the local Jandai language). A group of Australians now wants to rename parts of Canberra, arguing that some parts of the city are named after historical figures considered harmful or offensive.

Post-Independence, the name changes of Indian cities were aimed at destroying the British legacy and celebrating the country’s autonomy and independence. Several changes were controversial, and not all proposed changes were implemented, requiring approval from the central government in New Delhi. City names are integral to the identity of their residents. Many cities, ranging from Tiruchirapalli and Thiruvananthapuram to Visakhapatnam and Udhagamandalam, have had their names changed.

Cities represent the pinnacle of a civilization’s achievements. Their identities are shaped not just by their inhabitants but by the collective efforts and culture of the entire civilization. Cities have defined empires, whether it was the Roman Empire in the west or the Magadh Empire in India. Thus, a city’s name is emblematic of its people and the culture that shaped it.

When should a public place be renamed? This debate is often complex. Changing the names of cities in certain situations may create continuity by reverting to the original name that connects with a glorious past. This should be aimed at re-establishing broken bonds without disturbing existing ones. City names should not be changed for electoral gains by the party in government.

Renaming cities also raises several questions: What good do these changes accomplish? Do residents feel prouder of their localities now than before? Have the changes resulted in better investment opportunities, infrastructure, or living standards?

India should evolve from appeasement politics to a system where progress is the main priority. There are more significant issues and pressing problems prevailing in our country, from a lack of primary education and healthcare to rural infrastructure, diminishing job opportunities, and growing economic irregularities. These are the issues the government should focus on, rather than engaging people and the administration in unproductive exercises.

Renaming cities should be more than just a political move; it should be a thoughtful process that reflects and respects the heritage, culture, and aspirations of the people. It’s time for India to prioritize progress and address the larger issues at hand.

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”
― William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet