Hyderabad has been dragged into the news as Prime Minister Narendra Modi referred to the city of Nizams as Bhagyanagar, setting off speculation that it is the next city to have its “Muslim-sounding” name changed. 

The move might come as a shock to many, given that many thought that southern cities, being the bastions of the Dravidian parties, would remain untouched by the same party that changed Allahabad to Prayagraj and Mughalsarai tehsil to Deen Dayal Upadhyay tehsil. 

The name changes are significant culturally, yes. But not illegal, Constitutionally. In fact, the Constitution makes provisions that elaborate on a process and method as to how Indian cities can be renamed. 

How does it work?

In order to rename a city, the state’s Legislature is involved. They must pass a resolution, which is then passed on to the Central government and the Ministry of Home Affairs. Following this, the MHA after consulting with other agencies, will either permit or deny the name change. Though in the recent past, the MHA guidelines have been either deliberately ignored or lie forgotten. 

Should the MHA give permission for a name change, then it issues a no-objection certificate” or a NOC to the relevant state. A municipal corporation must do so to remain consistent with the city’s new name. For example, Calcutta Municipal Corporation was changed to Kolkata Municipal Corporation. 

However, changing the name of a city does not mean that private and public enterprises must change their names. The Calcutta, Bombay and Madras High Courts have not had their names changed. 

Why is it there?

Colonial memories aren’t an easy history to erase. When India gained independence in 1947, demands for new names came only through mass campaigns or violent protests. A new identity for Indians was a requirement for many. While names of places were changed, the process was irregular. In a bid to combat the irregularity, the MHA set up guidelines in 1953, that direct states on what has to be done should they want to change the name of a place or area.

The letter states that should a state like to change names of places or areas, they must provide a compelling reason to do so, since making such a change is not desirable in the first place. In addition, it says that places with names of historical significance shouldn’t be changed. Further, the 1953 letter says that places should not be renamed to a national leader’s name or to satisfy “local sentiment in the matter of language etc.”