Surat: The Surat Parsi Panchayat has written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi asking him not to merge the Central Bank of India. In their letter, the Panchayat’s president, Homi Doodhwala, said the bank is 114 years old and began as part of the Swadeshi movement. For the Parsi community, the bank is not just a place for money, it is a symbol of history and pride.
Central Bank of India started in December 1911. Two Parsis, Sorabji Pochkhanawala and Pherozeshah Mehta, played a big role in setting it up. Over the years the bank grew with ideas that were meant to help Indians and local businesses. Later, it was nationalised in 1969, and many people remember it for some early banking innovations and its role in the country’s financial history.
The Panchayat’s main worry is identity. They fear that if the bank is merged with another public sector lender, its name and legacy could be lost. For them, changing the name would be like erasing a part of community memory. The letter asks that any plan to merge or rename the Central Bank of India be reconsidered so the historic identity is preserved.
Why is this issue coming up now? There have been reports that the government may look at merging some public sector banks to make larger, stronger banks. Other steps being discussed include reducing government shareholding in some weak banks by selling stakes or allowing big investors to come in. The aim behind these ideas is to meet rules on public holding and to improve banks’ capital and operations.
If the government goes ahead with mergers or stake sales, banks like Central Bank of India, UCO Bank, Bank of Maharashtra, Indian Overseas Bank and Punjab & Sind Bank could be affected. The Surat Parsi Panchayat is particularly worried about Central Bank of India because of its deep link with Parsi heritage and the Swadeshi movement.
A few practical points matter here. Mergers can make banks stronger on paper, they can help with technology upgrades, larger capital bases and wider branch networks. But this practical benefit sometimes clashes with history and local feelings. When a bank carries a name tied to a community or an independence-era movement, people can see it as more than a company, it becomes part of shared memory.
The government must balance both sides. Strengthening public banks is important for customers and the economy. But history and identity also matter. A fair middle path could be to keep the historic name in some way, maybe as a legacy brand, a special heritage unit, or a trust that preserves records and stories. This way the bank’s financial future can be secured while its past is also protected.
If you use Central Bank of India or follow public sector banking, this affects how public money and heritage are handled. The debate also raises a bigger question for India, how to modernise public institutions without erasing the stories and names that matter to local communities.
