What Is In A Name?

’Tis but thy name that is my enemy;

Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.

What’s Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,

Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part

Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet;

So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,

Retain that dear perfection which he owes

Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name;

And for thy name, which is no part of thee,

Take all myself.         

(Shakespear, n.d.,72) 

This was Juliet’s monologue to Romeo in Shakespear’s classical tragedy ‘Romeo and Juliet’. Juliet expresses the family feud as the reason why they cannot be together and it is just because he comes from the family of Montague. According to Juliet, even without the name, he would carry all his perfection just as the rose would smell as sweet as it does even without the name. 

Recently, the Uttar Pradesh government directed all the shop owners in the Kanwar yatra route to display their names i.e. identity, with the intention to maintain law and order following the Muzaffarnagar police mandate for voluntary display of owner and employees name to avoid communal tension as in the past.¹ Kanwar yatra is a month-long procession taken by Lord Shiva’s devotees during the Hindu month of Shravan (generally July-August). The yatra has been done since 1960, the devotees fetch gangajal from Uttrakhand’s Haridwar, Gaumukh, and Gangotri and Bihar’s Sultanganj. This year the yatra began on July 22nd.² Following the suit, Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh governments also issued a similar mandate.

This practice of mandating shops to display the names of the shop owners, directives on food sales have been implemented in various states at different times, often citing reasons of transparency, regulations and religious sentiments. Here are some of such instances of such identity-based mandate.

Identity Based Mandates Across The Country

In 2015, the Maharashtra government imposed a beef ban. The Mumbai civic authorities issued notices to shop owners, particularly Muslim-owned meat shops, requiring them to clearly display signage indicating that they did not sell beef. The move was viewed by many as targeting a specific community, leading to tension. Muslim shop owners reported harassment from local authorities and vigilante groups, which exacerbated communal tensions.⁴  

During the Navratri festival in 2017, the Gujarat government issued an order to close down all meat shops near the religious premises.This move led to significant backlash, especially from Muslim communities who felt targeted by the directive. The closure of meat shops during the festival was seen as discriminatory, as it specifically affected businesses owned by minorities. The backlash included protests and legal challenges, with affected communities arguing that the directive violated their rights to carry out their business and infringed on their religious freedoms. 

In 2017, the Bengal government issued a directive restricting the Durga idols immersion timing to avoid it clashing with the Muharram timing. The policy resulted in significant backlash from Hindu groups, which saw it as an appeasement of Muslim sentiments. Legal battles ensued and the directive was challenged in the court, resulting in a ruling that allowed for religious practices to proceed concurrently. Despite the resolution, the incident heightened religious sensitivities and deepened existing communal divides in the state.⁵

In 2022, the Karnataka government issued a directive banning the wearing of hijabs in educational institutions, citing the need for uniformity and secularism in public schools. This led to a significant backlash from the Muslim community, with widespread protests and legal challenges. The ban was perceived as targeting Muslim women and infringing on their religious freedoms, leading to national and international backlash.⁶

These examples highlight the complex and often contentious relationship between state governments’ regulations, identity, and communal harmony in India. Such policies often cause anxiety and fear of being targeted based on religious identity. In India, many people view their social identity through the lens of religion, caste, and cultural markers, with significant implications for their social relations. Surveys show that religious identity is deeply intertwined with social interactions, where names often signal a person’s religious or caste background, influencing friendships, marriage, and even neighbourhood preferences.

Religion, Tolerance And Segregation

PEW conducted an intensive research – Religion in India: Tolerance and Segregation⁷ in 2021 which gave interesting insights into religion and identity in India. Amongst many other questions, a significant portion of Hindus expressed a preference to live separately from Muslims, with 64% of Muslims feeling the same way about Hindus. This indicates a substantial level of social segregation based on religious lines.

The survey indicates that many Indians form close friendship circles within their own faith and oppose interfaith marriages, for instance 67% Hindus say that its very important to stop Hindu women from inter-faith marriages and in muslims, 80% believe the same. These attitudes are reflected in consumer behaviour as well. Anecdotal evidence and various reports suggest that some individuals may avoid purchasing from shops owned by members of other religious communities, although specific quantitative data on this behaviour is scarce.

These tendencies suggest that names in India often carry markers of religion and caste, making them a proxy for identity. Thus, names can act as a subtle indicator of one’s background, which in turn affects social relationships in a country where religious and caste-based divisions remain deeply ingrained, often creating a us versus them mentality. Following the UP government’s directive in Muzaffarnagar, Vakeel Ahmed, owner of Chai Lovers Point changed his shop’s name to ‘Vakeel Saheb Tea Stall’. He was told that it’s not clear enough hence he changed it to ‘Vakeel Ahmad Tea Stall’ using his last name to clearly state his identity. Later Ahmad had to ultimately close down his shop due to vandalism, losses and fear. Those new signboards costed him nearly half his monthly income.^8,9

At Sakshi Tourist Dhaba on the Delhi-Dehradun highway, employee Shafaqat Ali was put on ‘forced leave’. Mohammad Irshad, who runs Shri Khatu Shyam Tourist Dhaba in Bijnor who serves pure vegetarian food without onion and garlic, expressed that if he puts his name, customer footfall would decrease.^10,11

As seen in multiple examples, events like these expose minority communities to selective state action and social vulnerability. In particular, Muslim-owned businesses, which are frequently the subject of these mandates, may become easily identifiable, making them more susceptible to harassment, boycotts, or violence from hardline groups​. This could lead to a heightened sense of insecurity and stress due to being singled out, particularly in regions with a history of communal violence​.

Us Versus Them

The mandates intensify existing communal tensions. It reinforces the idea of “us versus them” and deepens the divide between different religious groups. In extreme cases, this can contribute to communal riots and violence​. On the other hand, such mandates have their own impact on the majority community. Some members of the majority community may feel emboldened by such policies, perceiving them as an official endorsement of their beliefs or practices. This can lead to an increase in vigilantism, where self-appointed moral police enforce informal boycotts or pressure minority business owners​.

If a policy makes it easier to distinguish between Muslim and non-Muslim businesses, it may reinforce biased assumptions about certain communities, leading to greater prejudice, intolerance, and discriminatory behaviours. Some people may feel justified in avoiding businesses based on religious identity, seeing the government’s directives as a validation of their actions.

Overall such policies deepen the existing faultlines, by making religious and caste identities more visible in public life. They can deepen existing divisions between communities, contributing to an increasingly polarised society. This reduces the space for dialogue, tolerance, and peaceful coexistence. They may also undermine constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination. By institutionalising identity-based distinctions, the state inadvertently signals that communal identities are more important than individual rights, which can have lasting consequences for democracy. In the long term, such policies can harm social harmony, weakening the fabric of multicultural and multi-religious societies. The rift may lead to a decline in inter-community interactions and trust​.

Encouraging Vigilantism

However, this is also our reality that the communities have been stigmatised and easily polarised. Due to such policies and mandates, the questions arise that does this change the taste of Adrak Chai at chai lovers point or does the renamed “Salim Shuddha Shakahari  Bhojanalaya” make their food any more vegetarian than it was for the past 25 years? The only thing which changes now is the perception.

This leads to further questions for society to introspect. Should the state have the power to mandate individuals to reveal personal information such as religious or community affiliations in the public sphere? Are we unknowingly encouraging vigilantism? Are we giving importance to communal identities over national unity? Are we encouraging or destroying secularism?

Names are that primary identities which in most cases describe the person. They carry meanings that go beyond mere identification and are often deeply intertwined with a person’s heritage, beliefs, and social identity. However, for a multicultural country like India, it also risks discrimination, prejudice and assumptions. Even though names tell almost everything, they do not speak for one’s true self, their nature and character. In an unpopular opinion, names are a cloak usually given to us and it’s not fair to form opinions based solely on it.

It is also unfair that people have to live under fear and duress because of this part of their identity. And then this makes me think if Juliet is right, it’s only the name which is the ENEMY!

1. The Daily Guardian, July 26,2024  ↩︎
2. Hindu Post, July 25,2022 ↩︎
3.  The Indian Express, July 22,2024 ↩︎
4. The Indian Express, January 27,2017 ↩︎
5. Bangalore Mirror, September 21,2017
   ↩︎
6. The Leaflet, August 23, 2024 ↩︎
7. PEW, 2021 ↩︎
8. Religion News Service, July 30,2024 ↩︎
9. The Economic Time, July 20,2024 ↩︎
10. BBC, July 22,2024 ↩︎
11. OpIndia, July 19,2024 ↩︎