My article “What’s in a name?” has drawn lot of flak from one passionate reader (there may be others too) who strongly takes exception to my proposition of Name+Surname format of nomenclature. I am not surprised though; it is natural for most of the people to resist change. Remember Copernicus -the hapless Polish astronomer who lived in the 15th century? He was hounded by the establishment for suggesting that the Sun was the center of the solar system. I don’t claim to be in the shoes of this great man, but I think I am in similar situation that he faced.

Some of the points our reader raised are genuinely notable but for the most part, his (or her?) arguments for retaining the old naming system is atavistic and self defeating. I beg to differ from him on the following issues:

1. Name + Surname sequence is NOT a “mayangnised” convention but on the contrary it is a universal form of nomenclature in most part of the world and across almost all cultures. You have Bill Clinton, Ariel Sharon, Kofi Annan, Jacque Chirac, and so on. (Are they mayangs in disguise?)

2. My article is not an advocacy for name change only but also aimed at instilling pride in our original identity and culture. To me and also to most of the patriotic Manipuris gender identity is SECONDARY to our cultural pride. Sacrificing cultural identity for gender identification is not only foolish but also very unpatriotic.

3. If gender identity seems inevitable to some of us, then let us use our own words like Chanu, Athouba, (our reader too admits as much) and so on. If necessary, let us coin some more gender identifiers to suit our individual taste. But forcing Singhs, Devis, Kumars, etc., to our names is an insult to ourselves and reeks of cultural imperialistic dominance by mayangs.

4. Who says “Singh” is a word for paragon of masculinity and intellectual prowess, and for that matter “Devi” for quintessential femininity and qualities of a “goddess” (whose goddess?). Do we need to prove a point to the mayangs that we are as able as them? Doesn’t this point to a feeling of inner inferiority complex in us? Have you met any mayang adding Meitei in their names to tell us he is as capable as us, the Manipuris?

5. If an Australian comes across my name and wonder which country Ranjan Yumnam could possibly belong to, so be it. If he has time and enough curiosity, he will try to find out my roots. Even otherwise, I will be glad as any proud Manipuri would, that at least I am not mistaken for a Punjabee bloke (though there is nothing wrong in being a Punjabee). If we suppress our identity just because people would not recognize us by our names and adopt a more familiar Mayang name, it will only lead to more obscurity about our true identity. We should promote our true identity instead of keeping it under the wraps.

6. Clan welfare is important to us. But are we actually living it up when we abbreviate our surname as in M.Kamini Devi, L. Chaoba Singh and so on. Most of us abbreviate the surname giving more prominence to first name and mayang suffixes. Where has your “Sagei Chophanba yade” gone here? Common sense tells us that this adage relates more to family’s honour and status in society than one’s nomenclature. There may be better ways to name ourselves other than the format that I seek to espouse, i.e., First Name-Surname or alternatively (as a second choice) Surname-First Name-indigenous gender identifier. No Singhs, Devis… please, we are Manipuris. The question is: How long shall we live under the shadows of mayang’s cultural imperialism?