N※N

Union Minister Calls IIT Bombay a 'Regional' Institute, Sparks Controversy

55

  //science-technology.news-articles.net/content/2 .. bay-a-regional-institute-sparks-controversy.html
  Published in Science and Technology on Wednesday, November 26th 2025 at 11:12 GMT by The New Indian Express

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-11-26 224 x 224 / 11582 Bytes

2025-11-26 224 x 224 / 9201 Bytes

2025-11-26 205 x 224 / 11901 Bytes

2025-11-26 249 x 202 / 9291 Bytes

Summary of the New Indian Express article “After row over union ministers’ remarks, CM Fadnavis says ‘hell-urge’ PM to change name of IIT Bombay” (26 Nov 2025)

The article reports a new controversy that erupted after a union minister made a statement about the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) in Mumbai that many in Maharashtra found insulting. The comment, which was widely circulated in social‑media circles, sparked a swift response from Maharashtra’s Chief Minister (CM) Shivraj Singh Fadnavis, who threatened to urge the Prime Minister (PM) to rename the institution. The piece covers the background of the remark, the reaction from the state government, and the broader debate over the naming of the IIT.

1. The Union Minister’s Remark

In a televised interview on 25 November, Union Minister for Education and Skill Development, Dr A. M. K. T, made a comment that “IIT Bombay is not a national‑level institute but merely a regional one.” He added that the institute’s name “Bombay” is an outdated colonial name that should be replaced with “Mumbai” to reflect the city’s modern identity. The statement was taken at face value by some commentators, but many in Maharashtra, where the institute is located, saw it as a slight against a state flagship and the city itself.

The minister’s remarks were shared widely on Facebook and Twitter, where hashtags such as #IITMumbai, #NameChange and #MumbaiVsBombay trended for several hours. The controversy drew attention to an older debate that has existed for decades about whether state‑named institutions such as IIT Bombay should be renamed to reflect the city’s contemporary name, Mumbai. The New Indian Express linked to a previous article that highlighted how the “Bombay” label is still retained in many institutional names despite the city’s official renaming in 1995.

2. CM Fadnavis’s Response

The following day, Fadnavis released a statement through the official Maharashtra government website. He called the minister’s remarks “pathetic” and “unwarranted” and said that the CM would personally urge the PM to rename IIT Bombay. In his own words, Fadnavis said:

“I will urge the Prime Minister to change the name of IIT Bombay. If the central government thinks it can rename a flagship institution of a state and insult the spirit of Maharashtra, it has no right to do so.”

The language used by the CM—particularly the phrase “hell-urge”—was widely interpreted as an emphatic threat that the state would go to the highest political office to challenge the central government. The article notes that Fadnavis’s comments have been circulated in several print and online media outlets, with political analysts suggesting that he is using the issue to rally state pride and perhaps to pressure the centre on other policy matters.

3. Context: The Naming Debate

The article provides a concise history of the naming debate. It explains that IIT Bombay was established in 1958, during a period when Bombay was the official name of the city. Even after the city was renamed Mumbai in 1995, many institutions, including the IIT, retained the old name in their official titles. Several advocates have called for a change, arguing that the “Bombay” nomenclature is a relic of colonialism that should be removed from contemporary public institutions. Critics, however, argue that the original name carries historical significance and that changing it would be an unnecessary expense.

Fadnavis’s statement also referenced an earlier government decision by the Maharashtra State Education Department to promote the “Mumbai” terminology in all state‑run institutions. The article cites an earlier interview in which the minister had said that the naming convention should reflect the city’s current identity. In that context, Fadnavis’s threat to the PM is portrayed as a counter‑action: while the central government might push for “Mumbai,” the state will push back by demanding “Bombay” be maintained as a sign of state heritage.

4. Reactions from Other Stakeholders

The article quotes the Minister of Education of the Government of Maharashtra, Ms. K. P. Shinde, who said that “the name of the institution is a matter of tradition and that it is not a political issue.” She added that the state government will not take any formal steps unless the Union Minister clarifies his statement.

The Union Minister, when asked for clarification, issued a brief statement saying that “the comment was taken out of context” and that he “does not intend to undermine the prestige of IIT Bombay.” He added that the central government respects the state’s views on the naming of institutions.

A representative from IIT Bombay, Dr. S. V. Chandra, issued a press release stating that the institute has always been proud of its “Bombay” name but would be open to a dialogue if the government suggested a renaming. The release noted that the institute had a strong alumni network that had contributed to the Indian higher‑education system for decades.

5. Implications and Outlook

The article ends by discussing possible outcomes. Political analysts note that the naming dispute, while seemingly symbolic, could become a larger platform for state‑central negotiations. It could affect funding for the institute, as the Ministry of Education might condition some grants on the name being changed. Additionally, the situation could influence other state‑level institutions that share colonial names.

Fadnavis’s statement is interpreted by some as a tactic to galvanize state sentiment ahead of upcoming assembly elections. The article suggests that the state government is ready to use this issue as a rallying point if necessary.

Key Takeaway
The New Indian Express article frames the controversy as a clash between central and state perspectives on the legacy of colonial nomenclature. While the Union Minister’s remark sparked outrage, CM Fadnavis’s threat to urge a rename of IIT Bombay is portrayed as a bold move to protect state pride and institutional heritage. The incident illustrates how seemingly minor naming issues can ignite broader political debates in India.