(Let's call the whole thing off...)

Throughout my Indian travels I've been finding myself referring to Mumbai as 'Mumbai' (rather than Bombay) and to Calcutta as 'Calcutta' (not Kolkata). There is a tension between the slightly un-PC, harking-back-to-the-days-the-British-Empire, use of colonial names, and the rather pansy, trying-to-be-too-sensitive-and-correct, use of the modern names. But for some reason, my sensibilities seem to fall one way for Mumbai and the other for Calcutta. Don't have a strong feeling about Chennai/Madras situation, but will probably err on the Chennai side of the equation.

Asked to explain this I would probably say that Calcutta still has a very colonial feel and is largely a British invention (being, I think, the administrative hub of British activities in India) while Mumbai has a much richer, decidedly Indian, identity. But the truth is I don't really know. I just feel a bit awkward saying Bombay or Kolkata (though for different reasons).

However, it was somewhat comforting to discover on the journey home that the in-flight route tracking system also referred to Mumbai and Calcutta.

So I may not be right, but at least I'm not alone.