Why cant they do something better than changing names of citys?
Soon, 'Mangaluru' to be Official Name of Mangalore
Soon, 'Mangaluru' to be Official Name of Mangalore
12 cities name to be changed
We can say that it's a nominal change.
As a South Indian that is how we pronounce it by default 
All seem like normal change. Lore seems to have become luru
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
How will this help the country?
^ 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.
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.
^^^Yeah probably.
@serpent: that is not our problem instead it is embedded in our culture
a small revolution would require do eliminate it
@serpent: that is not our problem instead it is embedded in our culture
a small revolution would require do eliminate it
T
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.
Changing names to localized preference will actually bring more problems and do more harm IMHO.
R
Well, changing the name of a state can't help the people anyways. We have better things to do in this country rather.
W
They are trying to make themselves busy with some work after being caught watching porn in the assembly.
^^ +1.
Rather changing the name.. these netas shud try to change themselves 
D
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.
F
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.
Changing names would require procuring new documents and billboards and sign all of which will cost the state a significant sum.
A
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.
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.
That's the idea, isn't it? Just one more way to take it out of the pot.
No problem in changing names.Problem starts when statues of leaders start occupying huge public place,you know what I am talking about .
.