Thanks for the positive response.
One more thing that these people are missing, is the concept of 'original names'. Names evolve over time. Depending on the rulers and Socio-cultural conditions, names evolve over time. For example, the claim that 'Chennai' is the original name and not Madras. Over centuries, the place would have had many names. It's just that Chennai is historically the most recent one of those that we are familiar with.
Similarly, the claim that 'Bengaluru' is the original name...
more...

too does not hold up. That is only accurate till about 200-300 years ago. Before that, for centuries, the region was under various rulers and the name would have been different. Clamoring for a 'original name' is pointless as one would have to go back to ancient scriptures and put those names if they really want to be accurate.
It would be a really good start if people started referring to the literature from the 1800's or early 1900's. These books, written 200 years ago, present a different picture and provide details that we now are not even aware of, regarding many places and their histories. If the Brits were good at anything, that was maintaining impeccable historical records of each and every place that was under their rule. Our perspectives will change once we incorporate their knowledge.