Delhi's 'Muhammadpur' is now 'Madhavpuram', announces BJP
New Delhi, Apr 27: Residents of south Delhi's Muhammadpur village, along with some BJP leaders, on Wednesday said they have changed its name to "Madhavpuram", even as government officials clarified that the name change will be officially invalid as only the state government had the right to do so.
The BJP members and locals even organised a ceremony in the village to mark the "change of name" and put up a sign board carrying the new name at the entry point.
The event was attended by BJP's Delhi unit president Adesh Gupta and area councillor Bhagat Singh Tokas.
Gupta said they "changed" the name of the village as the locals did not want to be associated with any "symbol of slavery". He also said there are 40 other villages with Mughal era names and they needed to be renamed after freedom fighters and persons who served the society.
"Completed the naming process of Madhavpuram today after a proposal was passed by the municipal corporation. Now this village will be known as Madhavpuram instead of Muhammadpur. No Delhiites want to be associated with any symbol of slavery despite 75 years of Independence," Gupta said in a tweet.
The proposal to change the name of the village from Muhammadpur to Madhavpuram was approved by the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) mayor Mukesh Suryan in August last year, and it was later cleared by the House.
According to senior SDMC officials in the executive as well as the deliberative wing, the civic body can only change names of parks, roads, schools, libraries and gardens among others but it doesn't have the authority to change names of any historical place, village or town.
"Only the state government can initiate the change," an official said.
"...Any proposal regarding changing the name of a village or town has to be passed by the civic body's House and then it has to be approved by the State Naming Authority, which comes under the state government. After this, it has to get notified in the gazette," SDMC Standing Committee chairman BK Oberoi told PTI.
Another SDMC official, who wished not to be named, said changing name of the village by locals or by civic body doesn't have any bearing as it will not reflect on official documents or property papers.
"Unless the proposal is approved by the State Naming Authority and the changed name is notified in the gazette, it will have no bearing. Locals can put up any signage they want to, but the addresses, property papers and government documents will remain in the old name itself," the official clarified.
BJP's Munirka councillor Tokas, who had moved the proposal in the SDMC, explained that the proposal was sent to the Delhi government's State Naming Authority in December, but it did not take action.
"The file is pending with the Delhi government since December. They are not approving the proposal. Locals of the village are angry. From now on, all signages and name plates outside houses and shops will be changed to Madhavpuram from Muhammadpur," Tokas said.
The BJP and the locals will continue to mount pressure on the Delhi government to approve the proposal and officially change the name, he added.
"These days, Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal is doing everything from celebrating Ram Navami to Hanuman Jayanti to win the hearts of the Hindu community. Now, it is a good opportunity for him to prove if he really cares for the sentiments of the Hindus by approving the proposal," Tokas said.
Last week, the Delhi BJP had also said that the party will send a proposal to Kejriwal government for changing the names of 40 villages in the city that symbolise a period of "slavery".
These include Humayunpur, Yusuf Sarai, Masoodpur, Zamroodpur, Begumpur, Saidul Ajab, Fatehpur Beri, Hauz Khas, and Sheikh Sarai.
The ruling AAP had earlier said the 'State Naming Authority' will "appropriately review" all such proposals it receives and act following due procedure.
The party has also charged that the BJP did not want the government to function as per the due process and hence was looking for opportunities to start hooliganism.
माधवपुरम गांव के नामकरण का प्रस्ताव निगम में पास होने के बाद आज गांव के नामकरण की प्रक्रिया को पूरा किया।
— Adesh Gupta (@adeshguptabjp) April 27, 2022
अब से यह गांव मोहम्मदपुर की जगह "माधवपुरम" नाम से जाना जाएगा।
आजादी के 75 वर्ष बाद भी गुलामी का कोई प्रतीक, चिन्ह हमारा हिस्सा हो, ये कोई भी दिल्लीवासी नही चाहता। pic.twitter.com/0GdfL2YD9M
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Congress using hijab issue to pacify minority anger, alleges Karnataka LoP R Ashoka
Bengaluru: Leader of Opposition in the Assembly R. Ashoka has accused the Congress government of using the hijab issue to placate what he described as discontent among minority voters after the Davanagere by-election.
In a post on X on Wednesday, Ashoka alleged that the state government, instead of addressing issues such as price rise, corruption, farmers’ distress and law and order, was attempting to retain its minority vote base by reviving the hijab issue.
Referring to the 2022 dress code introduced by the BJP government, which prohibited hijab in schools and colleges, Ashoka said the Karnataka High Court had upheld the policy and emphasised the importance of discipline in educational institutions.
He questioned the Congress government’s move to revisit the issue and asked whether setting aside the court-backed policy to benefit one community could be described as secularism.
Ashoka further alleged that while the government was willing to permit hijab, it continued to prohibit saffron shawls.
He accused the government of dividing students on religious lines rather than treating schools and colleges as spaces of equality.
Drawing a comparison with Mamata Banerjee’s government in West Bengal, Ashoka claimed that excessive appeasement politics had harmed the state and warned that the Congress in Karnataka could face a similar political response.
He said voters in Karnataka would teach the Congress a lesson for what he termed “vote-bank politics” and for compromising constitutional and judicial principles.
