I’ve been trying to curb a habit lately. That of dissecting the names that appear before me.
Over the last few years, I’ve become acutely aware of the demographics that are at play in a culture like ours. And it is ever so easy to take a name and trace it right to the roots.
Of course, one cannot but distinguish Ram from Rahim and Rose; but it’s the subtler distinctions that I am talking about here. Should the Acharyas and Bhattacharyas be considered any different from the Choudhary’s? Are the Rathore’s different from the Noor’s? Is a Sharma different from a Sethi?
The first divide that I encountered was that of North and South. On an average a North Indians have two names, while South Indians have three (or more). Or so the kids in school believed. For years I felt lost without a so called surname and joined the ranks of the dozen or so Khattas and Khattis around. When you introduce yourself to someone from the North of the Vindhyas, they would ask you, “What’s your family name?” and someone from the other side of the mountains would ask, “What’s your initial?”
As a South Indian growing up in the North, I would feel an inordinate and inordinately irrational sense of joy when I encountered the name Reddy. Here was living proof that South Indians, and specifically Andhrites (the tams seemed to get by with their fathers’ names), could have a “proper” last name too…
But time passed and the demographics got more intricate. The Sharmas and Sastry’s seemed different from the Reddy’s and Choudhary’s for no real reason. Surnames and diet preferences seem to segregate the thread wearing from the non thread wearing; (though as per the shastras the latter should be negligible in number). And now comes the “big question” what do you do after you make the distinction?
Yes, you can group the Sastrys and Shastris and Sharmas and Sharmas and Pandeys and Mishras and Dwivedis and Chaturvedis and Acharyas. But then what? Does that change anything? Not really. Would you stop being friends with one? My grandmother might, but I wouldn’t. Would you not employ one? Of course you would, if you’re right in the head. But the divide exists nonetheless. And that is what disturbs me. Ah, an
Acharya, what would he know of running a business, some say. But what makes you think that a Patel is any better?
Names are dangerous. They lead to sterotypes. You can’t look at a person and tell what they are or are not good at. Why should we look at the name and decide? I’ve decided to consciously try and not separate the demographics from the name for a while. And I want to see if I’m any worse off for it.