For Kerala, No AIIMS, Only an Extra ‘m’, The Politics and Costs of Renaming a State
The renaming of Kerala to “Keralam” has been a long-simmering demand, rooted in linguistic pride and historical authenticity. The Cabinet is now moving forward with the state’s request to amend its name in the First Schedule of the Constitution. But as the state contemplates this change, a fundamental question arises: What are the costs, and what are the priorities?
The Linguistic Journey
The word “Kerala” has a complex linguistic history. In Sanskrit, the state is referred to as “Kerala”; in Malayalam, it is “Keralam.” The Sanskrit form ended up being used in English. The origins of the word don’t necessarily lie in Sanskrit, however—it may be derived from the name of the ancient Chera kings.
In Old Tamil literature, these rulers are referred to as Cheral. But a sound change from “k” to “ch” occurred in Tamil sometime before the earliest records. So, the Prakrit name Ketalaputo (Sanskrit: Keralaputra), used by Emperor Ashoka for one of the southern rulers beyond his borders, could reflect an earlier Dravidian form.
The later Chera kings are known to have used the term Kerala when referring to their dynasty in Sanskrit—for example, the royal dramatist Kulasekhara called himself Keralakulachudamani, “crown jewel of the Kerala dynasty.” At the same time, Keralavishaya (“the land of Kerala”) developed as a term to denote the region ruled by the Cheras, and may eventually have been shortened to just “Kerala.” In Malayalam, it naturally became Keralam, and when referring to the region, the Sanskrit word can also be Keralam in certain grammatical forms.
The Unification Movement
After the region was divided among warring rulers, and even into the colonial period, the memory of a unified Keralam survived—hence the mythologised origin stories found in works such as the Keralopatti. It was revived as a name for a hypothetical unified Malayalam-speaking political unit by the Aikya Kerala Movement in the early-mid 20th century. This came to fruition with the formation of the state of Kerala on November 1, 1956.
Seen through the lens of this recent history, the renaming is justified in principle—it makes no sense for a linguistic state not to have its official name in its own language. In practice, however, another question must be asked: What are the costs?
The Practical Implications
When the name change is approved, will the state take it to its logical conclusion—repainting and rebranding everything from signposts to institutions? Will the University of Kerala become the “University of Keralam”? Will government letterheads, vehicle number plates, official seals, and countless other items need to be replaced?
There are always more pressing demands on the state exchequer. Right now, for instance, government doctors are protesting over salary revision arrears. The health system faces challenges. Schools need resources. Infrastructure requires investment. Every rupee spent on rebranding is a rupee not spent on these priorities.
The Uttarakhand Precedent
In 2006, Parliament passed a Bill to rename another state, Uttaranchal, to Uttarakhand. During the debate, BJP MP Ravi Shankar Prasad claimed the move would cost the state at least ₹400-500 crore, and questioned the Congress for raising the issue ahead of an election.
Twenty years later—and despite the lack of a mass movement as in Uttarakhand—another state is about to be renamed on the eve of an election. The parallels are striking: a name change driven by linguistic sentiment, implemented at significant cost, and timed close to an electoral contest.
The Political Calculus
Who stands to gain politically, the LDF government in Kerala or the BJP? Or nobody at all, if the voters would rather have substance than symbolism, AIIMS than an extra “m”?
The timing is curious. With elections approaching, a symbolic gesture of linguistic pride could mobilise support. But it could also backfire if voters see it as a distraction from real issues—healthcare, education, employment, infrastructure.
The BJP, which has supported similar name changes elsewhere, might welcome the move as validating the principle of linguistic authenticity. The LDF government might hope to claim credit for finally delivering on a long-standing demand. But both could miscalculate if the public prioritises substance over symbolism.
The Symbolism vs. Substance Debate
At its core, the debate is about what citizens want from their government. Do they want the satisfaction of having the state’s name rendered correctly in the local language? Or do they want better hospitals, schools, and roads?
Symbolism matters. Language and identity are deeply felt. The name of a state is not a trivial matter. But symbolism without substance can feel hollow. When government doctors are protesting unpaid salaries, spending crores on rebranding sends a message about priorities.
Conclusion: A Question of Priorities
The renaming of Kerala to Keralam is justified in principle. It corrects a historical anomaly and aligns the state’s official name with its linguistic identity. But the practical costs and the political timing raise legitimate questions.
Before spending crores on repainting signboards, the government should ask itself: Is this the best use of public money? Are there not more urgent needs? Will voters reward this gesture, or will they see through it?
The people of Kerala deserve both linguistic respect and effective governance. The challenge is to deliver both, not to trade one for the other.
Q&A: Unpacking the Kerala Renaming Debate
Q1: What is the linguistic basis for renaming Kerala to Keralam?
The state’s name in Malayalam is “Keralam,” while English usage has followed the Sanskrit “Kerala.” For a linguistic state organised on the basis of language, having the official name in the state’s own language makes linguistic sense. The Chera kings historically used “Kerala” in Sanskrit to refer to their dynasty, while the region was “Keralam” in Malayalam.
Q2: What are the potential costs of renaming?
The Uttarakhand precedent suggests costs could run into hundreds of crores. Everything from government signposts, letterheads, vehicle number plates, official seals, institutional names (like University of Kerala) would need to be rebranded. These funds would be diverted from other pressing needs like healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
Q3: What was the Uttarakhand precedent?
In 2006, Uttaranchal was renamed Uttarakhand. During the parliamentary debate, BJP MP Ravi Shankar Prasad estimated the cost at ₹400-500 crore and questioned the timing ahead of elections. The Kerala move comes two decades later, also on the eve of an election, raising similar questions about political timing.
Q4: Who stands to gain politically from this move?
The LDF government could claim credit for delivering a long-standing linguistic demand. The BJP, which has supported similar name changes elsewhere, might welcome the validation of linguistic authenticity. However, both could miscalculate if voters prioritise substantive issues like healthcare, education, and employment over symbolism.
Q5: What is the core tension in this debate?
The tension is between symbolism and substance. Linguistic identity and pride are important—the name of a state matters. But when government doctors are protesting unpaid salary arrears, when schools need resources, when infrastructure requires investment, spending crores on rebranding raises questions about priorities. Citizens deserve both respect for their language and effective governance.
