The Necessity Of Naming: Or What's in A Name: Or Rainy Days Or An Inquiry Into The Origins Of Indian Naming Systems: Or An Empty Mind Is A Devil's Workshop: Or Some Other Catchy Interesting Erudite Title Yet (SOCIETY) --------------------------------------------------------- Srinivas Narayanan ----------------- INTRODUCTION ----------- The other day I was challenged to explain the origin of my name and the connection that my befuddled interlocutor imputed between Narayanan and Satyanaryanan (another name that had been cruelly thrust upon him). Ingeniously generalizing from a limited and biased sample (of two), it was suggested that maybe the string {an} and the letter {a} when adequately combined and permuted with other letters could cover the range of Indian names. In explaining why such a simplistic scheme was probably insufficient to come up with a deep understanding of the naming conventions in India, I came to realize the chaotic nature of any simple reply which might result in it being picked apart as irrational and having any number of counter examples. I also realized that there is a singular lack of scholarly reflection into the issues of naming and "necessity" (or lack of it) in Indian names. This of course is likely to surprise the gentle reader as much as it did me, given the imaginative and innovative nature of Indian scholars in coaxing simple and seemingly unassuming facts into multiple and contradictory metacircular metatheories. Besides it is raining outside and even mortals can be theorists on such a gloomy day. So I have collected my thoughts on the issue under two broad and scholarly categories, namely the clean stuff, and the interesting stuff. The clean stuff is a detailed and bold ontological exploration of the syntactic, semantic, and phonological considerations in naming conventions. The interesting stuff attempts to tackle head-on the obtuse and seemingly irreducible conventions of first names, middle names and last names. As theories go, I must not fail to mention that the attempt here is to create a dialogic space where multiple and fluid (i)(dent)(i)ties of the "(post)""-"colonial "Indian" "(sub)(ject)" are (re)"(con)"(struct)ed, (fore)"grounded" and problematized in an attempt to "negotiate" a "strategic trace" through the "deconstructionist mandate". In other words, I hope the parentheses and quotes are balanced. THE CLEAN STUFF --------------- Consider the name Satyanarayanan. This name will be used to illustrate the various semantic considerations in Indian naming. I. Compositional semantics -------------------------- The name is a "composition" of the two strings "satya" and "narayanan" which have unambiguous, meaningful interpretations. The interpretation of "satya" is truth and "narayanan" is interpreted as a name for Vishnu. The composition "satyanarayananan" is also a name for Vishnu. In general names are composed of {"descriptor" "divine name"}. The divine name is a finite set of names of gods (1600 for Vishnu, and a more-or-less similar amount for Shiva, Parvati, Lakshmi, etc.) So of the 700-750 million Hindus in India, the set of possible names is in the order of 10000-15000. Small wonder that the names are similar. The names are somewhat differentiated by the descriptor prefix since the composition is also a divine name (giving limited room for improvisation). The descriptor can be from the set [divine name, (positive) noun, (positive) adjective] such as Sankara, Satya, etc. II. Phonological Considerations ------------------------------- The Sanskrit word ends in the complete pronunciation of the last syllable. Due to a strange phonetic technique in English (of swallowing the last syllable in an inexplicable act of impatience) one is forced to end words with an additional "a" attached. For instance the word "saty" (truth) would tend to be pronounced as "sati" (widow-burning) leading to some confusion about the meaning of truth, perhaps. To forestall this aurally displeasing and potentially dangerous generation of lexemes (the reader will surely concur that calling our friend Sati-narayanan is likely to provoke an unfriendly response), one is forced to add the "a" at the end of Sanskrit words when using an English script. III. The Great Divide Between Purists and Ockham Razorists : The Long and Short of Revisionist History. --------------------------------------------------------- Sanskritized structures and naming systems were fully developed by 200 B.C. and were introduced to the various parts of India (including the south) by 400 A.D. The constant interaction (mostly involuntary) between the Northern part of the country and variously the Greeks, Turks, Mongols, Arabs and Chinese in the relationship of conqueror-vanquished had a transformative impact on the use and abuse of Sanskrit in this region. The pressure of communication with external sources with different conceptual and naming conventions probably forced the north to adopt an Ockham's razor (which easily trimmed long unkempt names into smaller, tighter strings) modification to their names resulting in dropping some of the phonological conventions. The minimal version of our by now familiar personage is the expurgated "Satnarayan", allowing for the dropping of the last syllable entirely. Mass scale excision of the strings (an, a) from the names of the Ockham Razorist north, are evidenced by the use of Krishn (for Krishna) and Ravan (for Ravana), etc. Not hampered by pressing needs for such a close shave, the South maintained the superordinate position of the suffix "a", and even innovatively embellished the naming systems with a wanton addition of prefixes and suffixes. This resulted in SivaRamaKrishnaSankaraRamanujaNarayanan and other modest appelations gaining considerable popularity over the years. THE SURNAME: WHAT'S IN IT FOR ME ------------------------------ Now we tackle the issue that has eluded definition even by erudite and ever exploding mobs of Indian social theorists. Before proceeding further, any reader who felt included by the term gentle reader (in the first part of this essay) should realize that calm winds will soon yield to stormy seas as we plunge into the uncharted waters of Indian surnames. I. The Questions ---------------- a) How are names composed? b) Which is the first name, the last name and how are they related? c) How many first names are there? d) How many last names are there? e) What is the difference between Last Name and Surname? f) How about Middle Names? g) Repeat a) to f) for every middle name and others ....................etc. Note that the answer has to explicitly prove AND identify actual living (or reborn) human beings who will agree with the proposed label as their full and rightful name. Any theoretical explanation that has enough machinery to be able to accomplish this task can be considered a suitable hypothesis. II. The Assumptions ------------------- The great surname debate can be traced to the massive increase in European expansion in India during the the 18th. century. The intractability of the Indian systems confounded the European mind which had been so sharpened by Sir. William Ockham's Razor that there was precious little left to spend in the fruitless pursuit of understanding Indian naming methods and meanings. The British urge to develop and modernize (even colonize) the Indian sub-continent and led to an irreversible influence on the surname generating possibilities for the primitive populations. The legacy had lasting psychological and social-institutional effects as is evidenced by the current naming practices in India. (there may be other assumptions, but I will leave that as an exercise to gentle readers (and to strategically militant cultural theorists, subjectification freaks, and other types of bullies) who continue to be awake). III. The Answers ---------------- The answer is an ontology that describes the origin and subsequent proliferation of names. In order for a satisfactory development of the ontology, one has to consider the demographic cleavages (any other clever word is fine) in the indegeneous population vis-a-vis the colonizing authorities that were increasingly challenging the traditional boundaries between native private and public discourses. In other words, forget the other words. Let us attempt to explicate, dear reader (since the gentle ones are gone by now) strategies that impacted the public/private space divide within the colonizing discourse. We will divide the local population into three broad categories based on the degree and quality of their participation and their complicity (got to use this word at last) in the colonization process. III. a) The Assimilators. These are the people who worked in British institutions in the capacity of bureaucrats, as railway officers, bankers, etc. They usually came from Brahmin and Kshatriya families and ranged from lower-to-upper middle class. This group was the most severely affected group and the response to the demands on their names were uneven. In the beginning they adopted a resilient naming structure which closely mirrored their traditional appellation. For instance, a common structure was of the form ["Place Of Origin" "Last Name" (same as father or grandfather's name) "First Name"]; such as Kodambakkam Sivaramakrishna Ramamurthy or Gummidipundi Annantharaman Ramanujam. Confronted with far more syllables than would fit into the long term memory of someone called John Smith, the Brits adopted a strategy whereby initials were allowed for all but the first name creating names such as K.S. Ramamurthy or G.A. Ramanujam. The matter could have been declared closed except for a small loophole; the British did not specify a limit on the exact number of initials that a single individual could choose to display. Like one act after another threading a carefully woven story leading to the final cresendo announcing the first name, this loophole exploded in artistic statements. For instance, there was the daring S.M.M.V. Krishna Rao, the traditional E.V.K. Ramaswami, or the more sporty S.P.E. Iyengar to choose from. III. b) The Mimic Men. These were people who walked like the Brits, talked like the Brits, even learnt to hold the upper flaps of their lips perpetually rigid like the Brits. They were mostly the landed community and ruling classes with titular and kingly names like Gloriouskingofkings Mannafromheaven Biggerthananybodyinthewholeworld Multiplehorseburning Warriorgod. "This won't do" said Lady Hastings as she was printing out her invitations for High Tea at the General's pucca bungalow. "We must have shorter names or they shan't be invited to Tea anymore". Facing utter humiliation in their ever increasing urge to be British, the prospect of being left out for Tea was more than the mimic men could bear. The die was cast. The search was on for a modern name and a British identity. Thus was born the era of Nabob Ali and Raja Ram (sweet, short and ready for Tea). III. c) "Native Indians" (also defined as "affirmative action beneficiary"). These were the last of the primitives. Untamed and uncivilized they presented an impenetrable barrier for the progress of names. Their primal and native systems of naming has still to arise to the level of a theory. These were simple people, aboriginal sons and daughters. They spoke in fast grunts, they had primitive means of communication, and NO IDENTIFYABLE LAST NAME. Yet they built temples, conducted trade with other similarly uncivilized people in Malaysia, China, Indonesia, and South America. They steadfastly avoided contact with the British, living in their inhumane and primitive villages and calling each other quickly by their long gruntlike names. The closest name that a "civilized" anthropologist came to reproducing was Thiruvalluvar Thirnavakarasu Abithagajambal Palaniappan. Too much to bother with he said. So the British left them alone with their crazy names and crazy ways.