Fighting over names is very foolish.
I think it was first of all wrong to rename it Mumbai. But now that it has been done, sticking to Bombay is even more.
This is another Indian fascination with Britain. I don't think the issue should at all be about why it was renamed, it should be does it justify the cost of the changes required. If the cost(for arguments sake was nil) then there is no harm in calling it what it was called by Indians. If british can't pronounce Mumbai and made it Bombay to make it easier for themselves it doesn't mean we have to accept it also. For us that word has a meaning. What i have objection to is the money spent in the exercise. Having said that I as an Indian would prefer Indian names. No country keeps renaming its cities cos the foreigners like it that way.
I think it was first of all wrong to rename it Mumbai. But now that it has been done, sticking to Bombay is even more.
This is another Indian fascination with Britain. I don't think the issue should at all be about why it was renamed, it should be does it justify the cost of the changes required. If the cost(for arguments sake was nil) then there is no harm in calling it what it was called by Indians. If british can't pronounce Mumbai and made it Bombay to make it easier for themselves it doesn't mean we have to accept it also. For us that word has a meaning. What i have objection to is the money spent in the exercise. Having said that I as an Indian would prefer Indian names. No country keeps renaming its cities cos the foreigners like it that way.