Jitendra Singh Welcomes Retention of ‘IIT Bombay’ Name; MNS Criticises
Jitendra Singh
Union Minister Jitendra Singh expressed his support after the institute retained the name “IIT Bombay.” The regional party MNS has reacted with concern, citing regional identity issues.
Mumbai November 25, 2025 – Union Minister of State Jitendra Singh said he is pleased that the premier institute has kept the name “IIT Bombay” and did not undergo a change to “IIT Mumbai.” Singh noted that the decision reflects continuity and recognition of a long-established brand. The remark came during a programme held at the institute’s campus, drawing attention amid ongoing debates over institutional naming conventions and regional sentiments. Singh said retaining the name maintains the institute’s legacy and avoids confusion in national and international circles. He underlined that the brand value built over decades is significant not just for the institute but for India’s higher-education reputation globally.
The response from the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) was swift. The party argued that naming institutions after the state’s capital city is a matter of pride and identity for Maharashtrians, and that dropping “Mumbai” in favour of “Bombay” undermines regional aspirations. The MNS insisted that government institutions reflect local heritage and language, and urged officials to revisit naming decisions with the state’s cultural and historic context in mind. The party’s concern highlights the delicate balance between legacy names, branding, administrative convenience and local identity politics.
Observers say the episode underscores a broader tension: prestigious institutions often carry names that pre-date political and administrative changes, yet these names may not always align with contemporary regional expectations. “IIT Bombay” is internationally recognised, and Singh’s comments indicate that overhaul of the name could disrupt recognition and branding. At the same time, regional parties like MNS view such naming as a symbolic matter tied to state pride and identity. This interplay between institutional prestige and regional sentiment may shape future policy decisions on naming.
For the institute, the decision means continuity in identity, which may help maintain academic and international standing. Alumni, industry partners and foreign collaborations often refer to “IIT Bombay” and the name change could have prompted operational ambiguity or branding challenges. Singh’s endorsement sends a clear signal to stakeholders that the government will support stability in the name and brand value. For Maharashtra’s political landscape, however, this is another reminder that even naming of institutions can become a site of contestation between national-level policy decisions and regional expectations. Parties like MNS will likely keep naming and heritage issues in focus as part of their broader agenda of local cultural assertion.
In short, while the name “IIT Bombay” remains unchanged, the discussion it triggered reveals larger themes. It’s not just about a name, but about brand equity, regional identity, historical continuity and the politics of naming in higher education. Stakeholders from central institutions, state-level parties and academic communities will henceforth pay closer attention when institutional names are considered for revision.
