Like many people, I've been trying to understand the Thanksgiving weekend terrorist attacks in India. Last night, turning to an old standby, Slate, I opened up Christopher Hitchens'
Slate article encouraging U.S. solidarity with India following the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Or should I say Bombay? Because my most significant takeaway from Hitchens' article wasn't the causes and implications of the attacks, but rather that Hitchens views the change in the city's name from Bombay to Mumbai as illegitimate and fanatical. Said Hitch:
When Salman Rushdie wrote, in The Moor's Last Sigh in 1995, that "those who hated India, those who sought to ruin it, would need to ruin Bombay," he was alluding to the Hindu chauvinists who had tried to exert their own monopoly in the city and who had forcibly renamed it—after a Hindu goddess—Mumbai. We all now collude with this, in the same way that most newspapers and TV stations do the Burmese junta's work for it by using the fake name Myanmar. (Bombay's hospital and stock exchange, both targets of terrorists, are still called by their right name by most people, just as Bollywood retains its "B.")
This may seem like a detail, but it isn't, because what's at stake is the whole concept of a cosmopolitan city open to its own citizens and to the world—a city on the model of Sarajevo or London or Beirut or Manhattan. There is, of course, a reason they attract the ire and loathing of the religious fanatics. To the pure and godly, the very existence of such places is a profanity. In a smaller way, the same is true of the Islamabad Marriott hotel, where I also used to stay. It was a meeting point and crossroads for foreigners. It had a bar where the Pakistani prohibition rules did not apply. Its dining rooms and public spaces featured stylish Asian women who showed their faces. And so it had to be immolated, like any other Sodom or Gomorrah.
So I was a bit surprised a few minutes later when I clicked a couple of articles down on the same Slate front page to read this - how shall I say it? - more
sober,
"Explainer" piece about the change in name from Bombay to Mumbai which, while crediting (or blaming, depending on your preference) the right-wing Hindu nationalist party Shiv Sena for the name change, imposing the renaming in honor of "the Hindu goddess Mumbadevi, the city's patron deity," gives us a little bit (and just a little bit) more context.
Shiv Sena's leadership pushed for the name change for many years prior to 1995. They argued that "Bombay" was a corrupted English version of "Mumbai" and an unwanted legacy of British colonial rule.
More interesting, it looks like Mumbai was the historic name of Bombay used by certain ethnic groups, as well.
The name change didn't impact all of Mumbai's residents. Speakers of Marathi and Gujarati, the local languages, have always called the city Mumbai. "Bombay" is an anglicization of the Portuguese name "Bombaim," which is believed to derive from the phrase "Bom Bahia," or "Good Bay." (Portugal held territories in western India until 1961.)
So, it appears that Hitch has picked his preferred (pro-Western) chauvinism over his disfavored form of chauvinism. Not that we'd expect that from the wise and erudite Hitchens. I read the Slate articles, and chalked it up to
classic Hitch-ism. Hitchens is always right. Everyone who disagrees is wrong.
I get it. I see that short-fuse passion in my middle-schooler. We're working our way through it, I hope. She happens to be a lot like Hitch right now - brilliant but shallow; curious about everything but quick to unshakable conclusions; often temperamental, even explosive;
questioning of the existence of a
higher power. Yet
she'll grow up and learn about the color gray, about differing opinions and viewpoints, the judgments and calculations and guesses and understanding and acceptance and disappointments and redirections and growth that define life, and getting along in life. She'll learn that sometimes she's right, and sometimes there are other sides to the story, more to learn, more perspectives to take into account. Someday, she'll learn that showing respect for varied beliefs and conclusions does not have to mean conceding your own, and sometimes means learning something new. Someday,
she won't be a reactionary, but a well-adjusted member of society at large. That is, while I hope she has some of some of Hitchens' wit and education, I expect her to far exceed Hitchens in judgment and character.
Yet it didn't take
Andrew Sullivan long to jump, sans bungee, into Hitchens' pit of judgmentalism:
Hitch informs me that the change in name to Mumbai is a function of Hindu chauvinism...I wasn't aware of this but now that I am, the Dish will refer to Mumbai by its previous name.
And so goes my love-hate relationship with Andrew Sullivan - he of charging the
decadent left with mounting a
fifth column following September 11, but also of authoring
Goodbye to All That: Why Obama Matters in
The Atlantic and the web's most prominent voice to elect Barack Obama; the man who continues to express pride in
legitimizing The Bell Curve, but also the morality to refuse to accept any indefensible excuse for
torture by any other name and the (self-serving, but no less valid) support for marriage equality. So clever and articulate and passionate (like Hitchens), yet so quick to judge and come to conclusions based on a complete absence of information (like, um, Hitchens).
UPDATE:
Kevin Drum corrects Hitchens and Sullivan.