# 12 cities name to be changed



## theserpent (Feb 26, 2012)

Why cant they do something better than changing names of citys?
Soon, 'Mangaluru' to be Official Name of Mangalore


----------



## Faun (Feb 26, 2012)

We can say that it's a nominal change.


----------



## Sarath (Feb 26, 2012)

As a South Indian that is how we pronounce it by default


----------



## thetechfreak (Feb 26, 2012)

All seem like normal change. Lore seems to have become luru


----------



## buddyram (Feb 27, 2012)

Its a local slang given to the City Names as most of them would refer it as Mangaluru only not Mangalore, the same applies to other cities as well


----------



## rajivnedungadi (Feb 28, 2012)

How will this help the country?


----------



## theserpent (Feb 28, 2012)

^ I know whats the use?Cant they do better things..Our city dosent have footpaths..People have to walk on roads..And our city buses are allways overfull..people risk their life going in it.Cant they do something to those.


----------



## Vyom (Feb 28, 2012)

rajivnedungadi said:


> How will this help the country?



I asked the same question myself. Then I realized how will it help the country.
The name "Mangaluru" will give a sense of "association" to the people who resides in it, and to those who are native to it.

That's all the help to the "country" I can think of.


----------



## buddyram (Feb 28, 2012)

^^^Yeah probably.

*@serpent*: that is not our problem instead it is embedded in our culture 
a small revolution would require do eliminate it


----------



## Tech&ME (Feb 28, 2012)

And all this so called "association" is actually breaking the harmony between different communities. As we saw yesterday how chennai is reacting towards north indians..... Is India ready for another Gothara in Chennai ??

Changing names to localized preference will actually bring more problems and do more harm IMHO.


----------



## rajeevk (Feb 28, 2012)

Well, changing the name of a state can't help the people anyways. We have better things to do in this country rather.


----------



## Whistler81 (Feb 28, 2012)

They are trying to make themselves busy with some work after being caught watching porn in the assembly.


----------



## theserpent (Feb 28, 2012)

^^ +1.


----------



## funskar (Feb 29, 2012)

Rather changing the name.. these netas shud try to change themselves


----------



## Darren Scott (Mar 9, 2012)

Yes all politicians in sub-continent do this. The main focus is "look busy do nothing". Changing names is just a political stunt. After changing the names, they will start celebrating it. An easy way to make people feel good about their so called "leaders". That is what democracy has given to the common man in India. Only the rich are main beneficiaries of this democracy. The poor will be kept happy just by changing names every year.


----------



## freakinghell (Mar 9, 2012)

Agreed changing names is stupid but what has it got to do with democracy? "Democracy only benefit rich" what? On the contrary, democracy is probably the only form of governance where poor are given some importance.


----------



## mitraark (Mar 9, 2012)

Changing names would require procuring new documents and billboards and sign all of which will cost the state a significant sum.


----------



## AcceleratorX (Mar 10, 2012)

I think there is too much of regionalism in Indians (people and politicians) today. Even in this article that was linked, I am seeing negative comments about Malayalis in karnataka, disputes about "Kudla" name, etc.

This is very demeaning and undermines everybody's status as an Indian. It was very difficult to achieve national integration and bring about a nation as diverse as India, yet we see disputes over petty conflicts. Have the past 100 years taught us nothing?

I am a South Indian by birth, but you will never be able to tell by looking at my face, body or the way I speak. Even in my so-called "hometown", I speak Hindi (and English, even though I am quite fluent in my South Indian language). I do not care if it annoys someone, it is our national language and I have learnt to accept it (perhaps my family also has a hand in this since my family is liberal and multicultural).

These issues mean nothing to me. My personal opinion is that we should learn to respect our collective pasts. More importantly, we should respect the names our cities had when we actually became a country instead of what we had when there were disproportionate petty Rajas fighting against each other.

Instead, since 1960 we have been on a slow course of divide and rule, pitting communities against each other. This is unsustainable for all the peoples involved. None will benefit from this in the long run.


----------



## kbar1 (Mar 10, 2012)

mitraark said:


> .... which will cost the state a significant sum.



That's the idea, isn't it? Just one more way to take it out of the pot.


----------



## j.j (Mar 16, 2012)

No problem in changing names.Problem starts when statues of leaders start occupying huge public place,you know what I am talking about .


----------

