In a bold move to reclaim the city’s modern identity, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis announced plans to formally request Prime Minister Narendra Modi to redesignate IIT Bombay as IIT Mumbai. The pledge surfaced during a press interaction on Thursday, escalating a burgeoning political dispute ignited by comments from Union Minister Dr. Jitendra Singh.
Fadnavis, representing the Bharatiya Janata Party’s longstanding commitment to the name change, emphasized that Mumbai has been the rightful moniker since the 1990s, crediting BJP veteran Rambhau Naik for championing the initial transition from Bombay. “To us, it’s unequivocally Mumbai. The remnants of ‘Bombay’ need to be erased entirely,” Fadnavis declared. He committed to dispatching a personal letter to both Modi and the Union Ministry of Education, seeking swift action on the matter.
The chief minister also took a subtle swipe at Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) leader Raj Thackeray, who recently lampooned the state government for perceived inaction on the issue. Without directly naming Thackeray, Fadnavis remarked, “Certain critics love to target the administration, yet they wouldn’t dream of demanding a name change for the institutions educating their own families.” The retort underscored the personal edge creeping into the debate.
ALSO READ : Mumbai’s Smog Stranglehold Tightens: Suburbs Hit Hazardous Levels as Fine Particles Surge
At the heart of the uproar lies Singh’s address at a recent IIT Bombay gathering, where the Union Minister of State for Science and Technology expressed relief that the prestigious institute had retained its “Bombay” designation. He pointed to IIT Madras—formerly IIT Chennai—as a cautionary tale, arguing that preserving historical titles honors institutional legacies and avoids unnecessary disruptions.
Singh’s stance provoked immediate backlash from the MNS, which branded his words as an affront to Mumbai’s cultural heritage and a dismissal of the city’s evolution. Party spokespersons accused the minister of perpetuating colonial echoes, insisting that “Mumbai” symbolizes the metropolis’s post-independence resurgence and regional autonomy.
The exchange highlights deeper tensions over nomenclature in Maharashtra, where the shift from Bombay to Mumbai in 1995 was a hard-fought victory for local activists, including the Shiv Sena. While Fadnavis’s intervention signals the BJP’s alignment with Marathi pride, it risks widening rifts with allies like the MNS, which has long positioned itself as a fierce guardian of the state’s linguistic and civic identity.
As Fadnavis prepares his correspondence, observers anticipate a measured response from the Centre, given the institute’s global stature and the symbolic weight of such alterations. For now, the row serves as a reminder that even academic names can ignite fierce debates on belonging and progress in India’s bustling financial capital.
-
-
-
-
