Alone, so far as I can see, amongst the British press, The Times insists on referring to Mumbai as Bombay in all its reports on the carnage.
 

In the larger scheme of the atrocities, it is, of course, of no great matter, but it does seem a little odd. It is, apparently, because the paper’s readers find the use of the word Bombay 'more familiar'. Which has a whiff of Empire about it somewhere.


Nor is there much consistency. England's cricketers, while they were still there, played a Mumbai XI, which had to be referred to as such - but then they played 'in Mumbai' too. Very confusing.
 

Maybe the Times thinks its sports fans are more up to date than its news consumers (which would be a tad counter-intuitive), but either way, it’s been a while now since the name was changed by the Indian parliament (in 1997, in fact). Long enough for even the most traditional of the Thunderer’s readers to get used to it, surely?
 

And while I’m here. Anyone know of any good pubs in Kensington?