Ahmedabad as Karnavati?

Gujarat Chief Minister Vijay Rupani announced on November 8 that his government was considering renaming Ahmedabad as Karnavati and was exploring the legalities of the move. The proposal came close on the heels of the renaming of Allahabad as Prayagraj and Faizabad as Ayodhya in Yogi Adityanath’s Uttar Pradesh.

The idea is not entirely new; the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has pushed for such a change for the past 20 years. There are prominent signs on Ahmedabad’s Ashram Road and some other areas in the city that say “Welcome to Karnavati”. These were put up by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad almost a decade ago and have been allowed to stay. In 1990 and in 1995, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, led by the BJP, passed resolutions to this effect.

Apart from the point made by historians that there is nothing in history to justify the renaming, it is tricky to change Ahmedabad’s name because it has a UNESCO World Heritage Site label. The State lobbied aggressively for the status, which has brought both prestige and a spurt in tourism. The State had highlighted the historical monuments and distinct culture of the walled city built by Ahmed Shah in the 15th century in its bid to secure the heritage tag. Now, however, Rupani says that his party believes that “Ahmedabad” represents oppression and that the “people want a new name”. (Deputy Chief Minister Nitin Patel has said: “The name Ahmedabad is a symbol of slavery, while Karnavati represents our pride, our self-respect, our culture, our autonomy.”) But Rupani is aware of its implications for the World Heritage Site tag and says the legalities need to be examined.

Sharik Laliwala, a researcher at Ashoka University based in Ahmedabad and who writes extensively on the history of Gujarat, said: “It is ironic that the facts the State government used to win the UNESCO title are being twisted towards the move for a name change.” Words like “oppression” and “slavery” would definitely not be found in the UNESCO bid, he observed.

Achyut Yagnik from the Centre for Social Knowledge and Action said 25 per cent of the micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) in Gujarat closed down in the past two years.

“All that they [the BJP government] have on the report card is the failure of the Gujarat model that has resulted in increasing unemployment and massive disenchantment. Gujarat has nothing to show in the form of development as all the government has done is support big industry and build a big statue,” he said.

F ounded by Ahmed Shah

In India, cities have been renamed to restore their local names in order to discard the colonial names, such as Mumbai for Bombay or Chennai for Madras. Ahmedabad was founded by Ahmed Shah, the first ruler of the Gujarat Sultanate, in 1411. He developed the city into a major trading and cultural hub, and the city has a long history of prominence in the western region.

Historians point out that nothing existed in the area where Ahmedabad currently exists. The closest settlement was a place called Ashaval, run by a tribal king on the banks of the Sabarmati in the 10th century. “Karnavati” is of 11th century vintage. King Karnadev from the Solanki dynasty, which succeeded the Chalukyas, founded a township that was perhaps Karnavati. Incidentally, “Ashaval”, with its association with a tribal ruler, has never been considered as a possible new name for Ahmedabad

Laliwala said: “None of the prominent history books mention Karnavati as a place of prominence. It has no significance, and its geographical location, if it existed, is still unclear.” He pointed out that Achyut Yagnik and Suchitra Sheth did not document any history of Karnavati in their influential book “The Shaping of Modern Gujarat: Plurality, Hindutva and Beyond”.

Laliwala has said in a report that Ashaval is popularly believed to be today’s Astodia area within the walled city on the eastern side. There is also a belief that it existed in the current Sarkej locality, which is on the western side of Ahmedabad. Either way, Ashaval preceded Ahmedabad city and was geographically close to its location. Laliwala says that if Karnavati was built over the eastern side of Ashaval, then it is prudent to infer it was a small township. If it was built over western Ashaval, then its location was definitely not within the walled city area.

Arguably, the renaming bid is part of an ideological project to erase Muslim legacy in the country’s culture. This was what the historian Irfan Habib was drawing attention to when he said that Amit Shah should first change his own name because “Shah” is a word of Persian origin.

That local people want the city’s name changed is not a convincing claim. Even a right-wing hardliner whom Frontline spoke to said the name change was unnecessary. Rasheeda Ansari, a social worker in Juhapura, said: “First they polarised the city by making all the Muslims move to ghettos like Juhapura. This is one more move towards erasing Muslims from Gujarat’s history.”

Anupama Katakam