You keep asking the reason for the timing of this name change. I thought this was well-known. This Times of India article had this to say,

Singh recalled that a suggestion to call the city as Bengaluru had emanated at a meeting of prominent Kannada litterateurs he had called recently to seek their views on celebrating the golden jubilee of the formation of the state of Karnataka.

In another story I had read URA being quoted saying that he wanted this as a tribute to Kannada in light of the 50 year celebration of Karnataka state. Note also that this change will come into effect next November.

You say To my knowledge, URA’s name has never figured prominently-if at all-in any language-related activism. I was surprised at reading this. Whenever URA’s name has cropped up in any discussions, I have always heard it in the context of his fierce Kannada pride. I have read interviews where he has stated that all poetry that is not written in one’s mother tongue is no poetry at all. This article in Outlook published way back in 2001 URA has a few of his thoughts about hegemony of Hindi etc. So I don’t understand what you mean by his name not figuring in “any language related activism.” One doesn’t need to come out on streets to protest to be termed as an ‘activist.’ This is especially true for writers, who can wield their pen to get their point across. This brings me to another point where I disagree with you. You seem to be against his use of politics in novels. But all writing is political, any writing is political. Including the piece you just wrote and the comment that I am writing. So to expect a writer not to express his political views through his novel is an impossible construct.

About his switching ideologies, I see no issue there as well. Had he stuck to communism/existentialism etc. you would have called him hardheaded and unreasonable. Someone who is an ideologue and does not see reason. There is nothing wrong in evolving and changing one’s stand on issues. In fact, I see it as a sign of intellectual honesty that you are willing to acknowledge the flaws of your own reasoning when faced with facts contradicting your earlier stance. Now as you insinuate, there may be a measure of truth in what you say about his siding with the regime in power. Yet, unless someone exposes that with proof that he had indeed courted those politicians only to gain awards and university posts, it amounts to slandering his reputation. I mean given his erudition and his lierary scholarship, I see no reason why he did not deserve the Vice-Chancellorship and president-ship of Sahitya Academy. I even asked my Kannada room mate and he said that no other person deserved the Jnanpith award more than him. I have read his translated works and I really liked them. Therefore to insinuate that he got Jnanpith and other awards just by currying favours with the powers that be is a charge I find difficult to digest.