Most Indians today follow a common name format: a first name followed by a surname. Examples like Priya Sharma or Rahul Verma seem completely normal. But this naming structure is not ancient or indigenous. It was introduced by the British less than 200 years ago.
Before colonization, India had its own rich, diverse, and fluid naming traditions. These traditions reflected personal qualities, family roles, professions, regions, or spiritual significance—not rigid family lineage or caste status. That changed under colonial rule.
Naming in Pre-Colonial India
In ancient Indian society, people often had one meaningful name. Some had multiple names or titles depending on the context, but none of them were “surnames” in the modern sense.
Historical figures like Arjuna were known by various names that reflected their attributes or relationships: Savyasachi (ambidextrous), Vibhatsu (valiant), and Dhananjaya (conqueror of wealth). Similarly, Rama was called Dasharathi (son of Dasharatha), Raghava (of the Raghu lineage), or Janakivallabh (beloved of Sita).
These were descriptors and honorifics, not inherited surnames. Even kings like Ashoka and Shivaji did not use “Maurya” or “Bhonsale” as surnames during their lifetimes. These identifiers were applied later by historians or colonial administrators trying to fit Indian identities into European frameworks.
The British Bureaucracy and the Invention of Indian Surnames
When the British established control in India, they brought with them a bureaucratic system that required every citizen to have a fixed, trackable identity. This included records for taxation, policing, census-taking, and legal systems. To organize these efficiently, British administrators imposed a standardized format: first name followed by family name.
This format did not align with Indian practices. So the British adapted Indian names to suit their system.
- Devotional suffixes like “Das” became surnames.
- Titles such as “Peshwa” or “Borphukan” were recorded as family names.
- Occupations and caste identities were forcibly turned into hereditary surnames.
In many cases, Indians were told to adopt surnames—or had them assigned by colonial officials—simply to fit into paperwork. It wasn’t about culture. It was about control.
Surnames and the Codification of Caste
While caste existed in India prior to British rule, it was not always formally documented. The British changed that by converting caste markers into surnames. This had long-lasting consequences.
The 1901 Census, led by H.H. Risley, officially linked caste to surnames and even attempted to rank castes by physical features such as skull size and nose length. This pseudoscience was used to justify classifying and segregating Indians into rigid social categories.
By embedding caste into legal documents, the British ensured that a person’s identity, status, and opportunities became tied to their surname.
How Indians Resisted the System
Despite the pressure, not all Indians followed the new format.
In South India, people often used initials instead of surnames. For instance, in the name R. Subramanian, the “R” might stand for the father’s or village’s name—not a family surname.
Other forms of resistance included:
- Using ancestral village names
- Adopting occupational nicknames (e.g., Batliwala, meaning bottle seller)
- Creating completely new identifiers
- Avoiding surnames altogether in informal settings
Many Adivasi and tribal communities, who traditionally had no surname culture, continue to face issues when forced to adopt one in order to access education, banking, or government services.
Why the Problem Still Exists Today
India is now a digital society, relying heavily on ID systems like Aadhaar, PAN, and passports. But these systems still demand a surname—even if it doesn’t reflect the individual’s real identity.
People with compound names, such as Vidhushekhar, often find their name split into two—“Vidhu” and “Shekhar”—simply to comply with colonial-era formats.
This results in:
- Loss of linguistic and cultural authenticity
- Confusion in official documents
- Barriers in accessing services
In short, an outdated naming structure continues to limit modern Indian identity.
What India Can Do Now
India has already reclaimed many cultural practices—Ayurveda, handlooms, yoga. It’s time to do the same with naming traditions.
Here’s how the government and society can help:
- Make surnames optional on official forms and identity documents.
- Allow single-name identities for those who choose them.
- Recognize and accept regional naming formats such as initials, village names, or compound names.
- Train government and institutional staff to respect naming diversity and avoid forcing western-style formats.
A Name Should Be a Choice, Not a Compulsion
A person’s name is personal. It reflects who they are, what they value, and where they come from. It should not be reduced to a format created for colonial convenience.
In a democracy, naming should be a right—not a rule.
It’s time we questioned why we’re still ticking the “surname” box on every form. The past is clear. So is the path forward.
