- denying the 'poribartan' to Pashchim Banga
While everyone around me, who is in any way connected to the grand renaming of West Bengal, seems to agree that this is among the greater atrocities committed by a government of the State in recent past (with this, i am not trying to steal the thunder of certain other greater atrocities), maybe, things which affect identities in such ways, should be left to referendums.
Why the people of Bengal should be deciding what they want to called? The answer is simple: because their leaders don't have the Finnisian Duty to Rule - something which stems out of the capacity to solve coordination problems.
An entire array of evidence can be invoked to demonstrate the same, but here I restrict myself to the renaming of Bengal 'to get the administrative advantage'.
The administrative advantage spoken about here, relates of course, to the alphabetical disadvantage faced by the state when it comes to getting support from the center. (an idea that the ABP tried to feed into the mind of every impressionable Bangali when there were going to be aircrafts named after each Indian state and West Bengal would be the last to receive one). The solution to this was to rename the State to something that can be placed much higher on the alphabetical order of states.[1] And therefore, our learned representatives decide, unanimously, to move from 28th to 22nd on the alphabetical-order-list; when there was the obvious option of being 4th, by being just Bengal, the way most people would have wanted it to be. Yes, the all party meeting agreed that this was ‘the administrative advantage’. {And you thought a legal education may have taught ‘her’ the art of logical and analytical reasoning!}
While the change of name shows a complete lack of reason-objective nexus, it is important to note certain definite dangers and obvious lack of prudence of such a move.
A case was made for a change from West Bengal to simply Bengal in 1999, by people living in Northern Parts of Bengal, who are not, historically West Bengal as it was created by partition. This must not be mistaken by a distinct later demand for Gorkhaland, but a wish for inclusive naming by a sizeable chunk of Bengal, who are not historically West Bengal. A change of name, should ideally have considered that part of the state, for whom, this change of name would just reaffirm to an often ignored population, the government’s intention of a policy of exclusion. Here obviously, the government has not just failed to solve a coordination problem, but also to identify it.
In this regard, there does exist the historical argument for retention of an element of ‘West’, in order to remind future generations, as my friend Rajarshi puts it, of “the horrors of Partition, the deplorable rule of the British, the politics of hate and religion. The scars that my grandparents bore after Partition should not be buried in the sands of time and the dust of amnesia.” – a claim which isn’t really the reason for retention of ‘pashchim’ in the new name.
Thus, there may emerge two conflicting claims, one historical and the other from the point of view of inclusion that emerge regarding the retention of the component of ‘west’ in the name – both serious issues of identity, which the leaders made no attempts at solving, while simply de-anglicizing a name, which needs no such modification.[2] {I wonder if there were no other pressing claims of ‘change’ besides a name that no one had any issues with.}
The all party meeting that sat on the 19th of August, was obviously a very useless one. The leaders we have elected, are obviously not whom we have consented to. Their lack of the Finnisian Duty to Govern, presents us with no reason to oblige by it or by any of its rulings. Our votes do not, by any means indicate compete Consent to whatever you do, but are merely an attempt to chose the best from a group of really bad options, with an inkling of hope. Here is a matter of identity and existence – not that of a single person’s mistaken dreams. Calcutta isn’t London (or even Kolkata. See: footnote 2). And West/Bengal is not Pashchim Banga.[3]
[1] Competitive federalism much? could they really figure no other way out to channelize benefits towards themselves? what are the Bengali representatives doing in parliament anyway?
[2] There was no demand or opinion from any quarter advocating such a change, like in some other parts of the country. Here, I’d like to make an argument regarding the change from Calcutta and Kolkata – an attempt on the part of the government to get out of a colonial hangover. Fallacy – Calcutta or Kolkata or any such thing IS a result of a colonial hangover. There was no city, before Calcutta. At best you could go back to calling it Alinagar, as it had been named after Ali Vardi Khan as a result of a conquest by the Murshidabad Nawab, just before Clive and Charnock established a stronghold here.
also, as Arudra Burra claims, an argument from the point of colonial continuity stands no ground by itself. You must substantiate it with content.
[3] Interestingly, most parts of the country can’t even pronounce the word!
