Now that Bangalore is Bengaluru

When Bangalore was finally officially renamed Bengaluru on the anniversary of the formation of Karnataka on November 1, it was not without a tinge of controversy. One of the city’s leading corporate icons tweeted negatively about the move, only to be swamped by often abusive responses in the social media.

We need to ask what, if any, are the costs of abandoning the name Bangalore and, conversely, what, if any, are the costs of not doing so?

The reactions of the globalised corporate icons are presumably based on the fact that the name Bangalore had developed some brand equity. Bangalore was widely recognised in the global discourse on information technology.

Indeed, the term ‘Bangalored’ was coined to refer to those in the advanced countries who found their jobs being shifted to cities in the developing world. This may well have helped Bangalore in attracting investments from those seeking to locate their operations outside the developed world. The change to Bengaluru may not completely remove this advantage, but it could be a dampener.

The loss generated by the shift to Bengaluru must however be weighed against the costs of retaining the name Bangalore. The latter costs can only be understood if we take a closer look at the nature of the demand for the change in name. The demand for this change is closely linked to the assertiveness of the local Kannada identity.

As the city has grown it has incorporated new villages that are not entirely comfortable with the English-speaking elite. Just as Bangalore had brand equity for the English-speaking elite and those who aspired to enter that group, Bengaluru had brand equity for those in the absorbed villages and the migrant workers who resided in them.

In the initial years of the city’s IT revolution, the differences between Bangalore and Bengaluru were resolved primarily by clearly demarcating boundaries where the two would operate. Bangalore dominated the realm of urban policymaking while Bengaluru dominated the realm of politics and the patronage.

The influence of those who associated with the idea of Bangalore on policymaking was relatively quiet with little public attention being paid to the setting up of Electronic City and the choice of those who were allotted land in it. In contrast, the demands of those who associated with the idea of Bengaluru, including welfare schemes, were the subject of high decibel political campaigns.

This neat demarcation was broken at the turn of the millennium when the then chief minister, SM Krishna, provided a prominent public role for corporate icons in the planning for the city with the setting up of the Bangalore Agenda Task Force (BATF).

As BATF worked through the power of the chief minister, it was in the enviable position of being able to influence policy without having to take responsibility for its failures.

The ability of corporate icons to influence elite public discourse further immunised them from any public criticism. Street corners in Bengaluru today are strewn with garbage, leading outsiders to ask the simple question: Why are there no garbage bins? Yet few, if any, in Bengaluru speak of the garbage strategy of the BATF that led to the removal of these bins.

Those associated with the idea of Bangalore have, if anything, become even more vocal in recent years. Two corporate icons of the city upbraided Chief Minister Siddaramaiah for his choice of IT minister, who was apparently not westernised enough for their liking. One of them went on to take the lead in setting up a political action committee that plays a prominent role in the political discourse of the city’s elite. Their forays into the political space have not been entirely unchallenged.

When they have got carried away by their own propaganda and entered the actual electoral space, the results have been far from rewarding.

The way out of this deeply divisive stage in the history of the city, would be for those associated with the idea of Bengaluru to find space in the public discourse on urban policy. The promotion of their interests would require a much more cost-effective strategy for the city.

Rather than building unaffordable projects based on foreign models, their interests would be better served by cost-effective infrastructure. A greater sensitivity to costs would also revive the city’s fortunes in attracting global investment as well as migrant labour.

Changing the name is certainly a step towards creating a more inclusive and sustainable Bengaluru.

The writer is a professor at the School of Social Science, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore