Perhaps it is understandable that Facebook board member Marc Andreessen tweeted praising colonialism – the venture capitalist had reasons to be upset about India's telecom watchdog shooting down the social media giant's Free Basics program, which critics have compared to a walled garden.
Also Read - Zuckerberg says Andreessen's comments on India 'deeply upsetting'
Also Read - FB board's Andreessen offends Indians with tweet on colonialism.
But how do you explain The Independent of the UK going back to Bombay instead of Mumbai? Perhaps the answer lies in the roots of its editor Amol Rajan.
Also Read - Batting for the Brits? UK's 'The Independent' reverts to Bombay
The British newspaper thinks the Shiv Sena had pushed the Indian government for a name change and it should not respect that change. The word Mumbai comes from Mumbadevi, a goddess worshipped by the Koli fishermen who were the original inhabitants of the island city; and Bombay from the Portuguese for a “good bay.”
It is a little tough to get your head around this one: does the editor want to stick to a Portuguese-derived colonial name for the city because the Shiv Sena pushed for a name change? Does it think a name with ethnic roots just doesn't merit mention? Weird.
And what about Kolkata where Rajan was born? Kolkata apparently is a derivation of Kalighat but was too much of a tongue-twister for the colonial Brits, who called it Calcutta. Will Rajan go back to printing Calcutta in his esteemed paper?
The reason behind the pro-colonial rant of Facebook's Andreessen is easy to understand but not the one behind this not-so-disguised pro-colonial decision by Rajan.
The British colonial rule in India, with a few thousand Englishmen ruling over quite a few million natives, would not have been sustainable had it not been for willing native henchmen. The police forces of the Raj and the many princely states that submitted to it sowed terror across India, crushing any voice of freedom with brute violence for nearly two centuries.
They worked as force-multipliers for the English who came with their “white man's burden.” They killed and maimed, destroyed families and livelihoods, while their English masters ruled in peace and with a clean consciousness.
Rajan is no better that those cops of the Raj – showing more allegiance to the Raj than the Brits themselves. That alone can explain this decision.
By the way, The Independent prides itself to be an apolitical paper. You still think so?
Disclaimer
The comments posted here/below/in the given space are not on behalf of Manorama. The person posting the comment will be in sole ownership of its responsibility. According to the central government's IT rules, obscene or offensive statement made against a person, religion, community or nation is a punishable offense, and legal action would be taken against people who indulge in such activities.