What's in a name?

Bangalore changes to Bengaluru. I suppose that the State Government wanted to show that it still had the control of the modernising city by changing the English name into its Kannada brethren. I think that changing a name alone in a city that itself is changing at a fast pace can inflict any change in the outlook as such. By changing a name, many of the Indian cities have shown that they still are the same old decaying rot what they were before they changed the name.

What needs to be changed is not the name but the attitude of the people in the city and the people who develop the so called vision for the city. One excellent example in India is the planning of the city of Chandigarh by Le Corbusier. Inspite of the city being brought into life more than a few decades ago, still the city is appreciated for the foresight the developer had planned for the city. Nice roads, well planned sectors, greenery, etc. add value to the city. In Bangalore, people try not to root cause the problem and get it done, but what they do is a temporary fix.

Yesterday, I was seeing an episode on National Geographic - don't recollect what series it was - but they were showing how in Boston, due to the increased traffic, a two lane bridge was being replaced by a six lane bridge without much distrubance to the traffic. If India can boast itself about the IT sector and the software industry and Bangalore by itself boasting as the Silicon Valley of India, why don't people with vision come and sit in the offices that need to set the vision? why have people who look only into changing the name of the city and not do anything.

I feel that the empowerment the Software industry had brought into Bangalore had together also brought in a lukewarm approach to the city in terms of the civic administration and politics. Will there be a change to bring Bangalore to the levels where Shanghai is going?