The appropriation of Bombay by Marathis.

My friend Mayur has recently written a well - articulated piece here http://www.opindia.com/2016/02/mumbai-or-bombay-the-independents-stunt/ taking on The Independent's Amol Rajan's exhortations to reject Mumbai's current name. I love the writing but can't say I agree with all of it. I cannot match the superb quality of writing, but I do have some points which I want to jot down here in reply.

To begin with, Unlike western philosophy where every individual is taught the insignificance of his existence, the Hindu philosophy claims the divinity of every being. Hinduism has never heaped guilt of "original sins" or calls for "rehmat" which is the default status of any human life in other religions. On the other hand, in Hinduism, every individual is a brahmansh,  a part of the larger cosmos. The cosmos is a manifestation of all individuals and would not be the same without the characterstics of that individual. What one person does as per his dharma determines his existence. Individual crusades, therefore, are as important as any "people's movement". To deride someone's individual crusade as insignificant is against the Hindu philosophy. We have respected and appreciated all views throughout our rich history, and I don't feel the need to shout down a quirky idea like Amol's.

I agree that Hindu nationalism was hardly the motivation of renaming Bombay. Subjecting peace loving inhabitants of Bombay to a growing degree of xenophobia, racial discrimination, prejudice and violence was hardly a result of Hindu nationalism too. On the contrary, Marathi belligerence usually borders around seperationism of the kind routinely witnessed in Kashmir by its goons of stone-pelters and resulting in the same kind of persecution as faced by native Kashmiri Pandits by the locals. Kashmir minus Gun may best describe the approach.

[Edit: My friends objected to the comparison with Kashmir. My limited point is unbridled regionalism can quickly degenerate into secessionistic tones. Art 370, exclusiveness, more autonomy, all of this... a "foreigner" is just a notional line from "Outsider". Beats Nationalism. Shouldn't be promoted. Division of India on linguistic lines was as bad an idea as a Communal Award to Sindh, both incidentally supported by Nehru and his Congress.].

The "Marathi" identity of the city, which is highly debatable in actual demographics, is a recent phenomenon by itself. The history of Bombay is hardly a Marathi one.

The city was a small fishermen settlement when Surat was a bustling port.

Bombay was founded by the Portuguese, but was converted into a major industrial hub after it passed into the hands of the British in 1661. There was a concerted effort to import artisans and traders to settle in the new town. Mercantile castes of Gujarat (Surat) also took advantage.

A large part of the Parsi migrants to Bombay in these years was constituted of weavers and other artisans. In 1673, the British handed over a piece of land in Malabar Hill to the Parsi community for the establishment of their first Dakhma, Tower of Silence.

In 1780, 9.2% of the population of Bombay were Parsis. A first wave of migration followed a famine in Gujarat in 1790. By 1812 the number of Parsis in Bombay had quadrupled. In 1837, a second large wave of migrations to Bombay followed a huge fire in Surat. Today, more than 70% of all Parsis live in Bombay.

The cotton boom was largely fuelled by Parsi and Gujarati entrepreneurs. The oldest newspaper in Bombay, "Bombay Samachar", was run by Parsis. Congress stalwarts like Dadabhai Naoroji, Pherozeshah Mehta and Dinshaw Wacha were Parsis. One of India's biggest industrial houses was founded by a Parsi, Jamsetji Tata. Even the physical shape of Bombay was determined by donations to build causeways, roads and buildings by members of the Jeejeebhoy and Readymoney families.

Dr B.R. Ambedkar wrote about this in his 1948 essay, Maharashtra As a Linguistic Province. Ambedkar noted of the Indian Merchants Chamber meeting at Bombay :  “with the exception of one Indian-Christian it was only attended by Gujarati-speaking merchants and industrialists”.

The Gujaratis from Surat built the Land in South Bombay for housing and  warehouses. These areas are in the Malabar Hill, Colaba and Nepean Sea Road. It was the Gujarati's influence which made sure no Englishman, Portuguese, or other Christian nor Muhammadan was permitted to live within their compound or offer to kill any living creature there. The Gujaratis represented their demands to British that in case of war or any other danger which may succeed, the British shall have a warehouse in the castle (today’s Fort area) to secure their goods, treasure, and family. This understanding of real-politik and their economic influence gave the city it's Hindu character.

Gujaratis and Parsis still dominate south Bombay, due to their merit and entrepreneurship. Much later, the locals would start their narrow-minded campaign of "thokashahi" (as opppsed to the peaceful democratic outlook of Gujaratis and Parsis) to displace local populations in their own country and take control of the fruits of someone else's labour. Thankfully,  such forces are on a political decline,  forced to play second fiddle to the BJP, which ensures a more inclusive Hindu nationalist outlook.

The enterprising nature of Gujaratis and Marwaris and Parsis highlight their indispensable role in the city’s economic engine. The city’s grain, textile, paper and metal trade, diamond merchants,  bullion trade as also the stockbroking has strong links to the these communities. The boom in trade and enterprise attracted thousands of Indians from across the country to participate in the running if this mammoth economic enterprise called "The city of dreams". 

A large influx of Tamil migrants to Bombay came in the 1920s. Bombay's first Tamil school which was also Dharavi's first school was constructed in 1924. The Tamils built their homes and society in and around Dharavi, Chembur and Matunga. The derisively called Hindi-speaking "Bhaiyas" from North India came in droves and set their enterprise and provided labour. The Bollywood film industry  (which was largely Hindi/Urdu speaking once the curtains set on Dadasahab Phalke's silent movies era) was one of such enterprises popularised with all of India, and indeed the world.

No mention of Bombay is complete without the contributions of the tradesmen of Sindh, Gujarati Baroda and Dangs, as well as the Deccan Kolhapur, Sindh deserves a special mention.

Sindh had been under Bombay's presidency. Hindu Sindhi traders, being traditionally business communities, nurtured Bombay, the capital. They also preferred close association and contributed to the development of Bombay, often at the cost of Karachi, since it suited the political climate of the time, and afforded political security to Sindh's mainly Hindu (baniya) business families.

Jinnah argued the case of separation of Sindh in his famous 14 points about the need to have Sindh "liberated" from Bombay. After the Larkana communal riots in 1927, the rift in the Hindu and Muslim interests with regard to the status of Sindh became wider. Meanwhile, whereas the Congress supported the idea of separation of Sindh, the Simon Commissions proposals declared that the time was not yet ripe.

In 1931 the Government of India constituted a Sindh Conference to propose viable means of partitioning of Sindh, as it would initially carry a debt to the central government which had to be realized by additional taxation.
Finally Sindh was granted provincial autonomy under the GOI act of 1935. His Highness Agha Khan had this to say about the communal award :
“The separation of Sindh was the foundation stone of Pakistan". The struggle to keep Bombay one was the effort of all Hindu Nationalists, especially the Gujarati and Sindhi businessmen, and would have prevented partition of India, had their efforts succeeded.

The reason Bombay is singled out as compared to Chennai or Kolkatta is because of it's unique history. To say that Bombay is a city of Marathi is as ludicrous as saying India's independence was won by Sonia's congress Party.  Brave business communities who went around the world in pursuit of ambition, also lent their enterprise to the setting and running of modern Bombay. To claim Bombay as a preserve of a linguistic minority, or to somehow find Marathi roots to the city, is the biggest disservice to the history of cosmopolitan multi-cultural Bombay. Only those who had no role in the making of this history feel victorious by their efforts to run it down as "Mumbai", a nomenclature preferred by the militant linguistic minority of the city imposed on its silent majority.