The Name We Discard: How Indian Immigrants Adapt in the US

 

---

The Name We Discard: How Indian Immigrants Adapt in the US

Rajesh becomes Ray. Priya becomes Pree. Arun becomes “Aron” because, well, it’s easier. These aren’t just spelling variations — they’re microcosms of a larger asymmetry in how immigrant identity works in America

Walk into any American tech office, startup, or corporate floor. You’ll find Indians with anglicized names filling their professional lives while keeping their “real” names for family WhatsApp groups. The pattern is so routine it feels natural, almost inevitable. Yet the opposite rarely happens: when Americans move to India or anywhere else in Asia, they rarely feel compelled to change their names. This asymmetry reveals something uncomfortable about how power, discrimination, and assimilation work.

The Numbers Don’t Lie: How Common Are These Changes?

The practice is widespread but often invisible because it happens gradually. My older brother, Nirmalkumar, became Norm. My sister, Savita, became Sammy. These aren’t dramatic rebrandings — they’re accommodations, convenience, survival tactics in a system not built for them.

The examples are endless and mundane:

• Shrinivasan → Shri or Steve
• Priya → Pree or even just “P”
• Deepak → Dave
• Anjali → AJ
• Vikram → Vik or Victor

Some Indians officially change their names on resumes, LinkedIn, and job applications. Others switch between contexts — their legal name in one setting, an anglicized version in another. This code-switching becomes second nature, so normalized that it barely registers as a choice anymore

Why This Happens: The Machinery of Discrimination

The reasons are deceptively simple but rooted in real harm:

1. Hiring Bias Is Measurable

Harvard research demonstrated that resumes with Indian names receive callback rates 26–50% lower than identical resumes with “white-sounding” names. This isn’t anecdotal — it’s statistical. When a hiring manager sees “Priya Gupta” versus “Priya Gardner,” the outcomes differ meaningfully. Discrimination is real, quantifiable, and immediate

2. Pronunciation Becomes a Burden

There’s a subtle cruelty in workplaces where your name requires explanation every time you introduce yourself. Hiring managers stumble over it. Colleagues butcher it repeatedly. In meetings, you’re constantly correcting people — a micro-aggression that drains energy while signaling that you don’t quite belong. Changing your name removes this daily friction.

3. Professional Advancement

Indians quickly learn that their ethnic identity can be a ceiling, not a bridge. Names become a calculus: Is keeping my identity worth limiting my career? For many, the pragmatic answer is no. Changing your name isn’t about preference — it’s about survival in a system that penalizes difference

4. Social Integration

Beyond careers, there’s a social dimension. Getting hired is one thing; actually fitting in is another. An anglicized name makes social interaction frictionless. Americans don’t have to feel uncomfortable around difference. Indians don’t have to be the foreign one. Everyone is more comfortable.

The Hypocrisy Is Structural

Here’s where your original critique hits hardest: Americans almost never do this in reverse.

When Americans move to India, the UK, Australia, or anywhere else, they keep their names intact. A “Mike” remains Mike. A “Jennifer” doesn’t become “Jaya.” They face no equivalent pressure, no hiring discrimination tied to their names, no systematic barrier that rewards assimilation.

This isn’t because Americans are individually more principled. It’s because they carry institutional power with them. American names aren’t foreign in most of the world — they’re prestigious. They suggest education, wealth, reliability. An American’s name is assumed to be correct; an Indian’s is assumed to be difficult.

The asymmetry reveals the truth: name-changing isn’t a choice born from respect for local culture. It’s a symptom of power imbalance. Indians adapt because they have to. Americans don’t adapt because they don’t have to.

The Trap of Individual Solutions to Systemic Problems

This is where the hypocrisy becomes philosophical. By normalizing name changes, we’re essentially telling Indian immigrants: “The system discriminates against you, so change yourself to fit it.”

This approach has consequences:

• It makes discrimination invisible. If discrimination isn’t obvious because everyone has adapted to it, it becomes self-inflicted rather than systemic.
• It shifts responsibility. Instead of asking “Why does American society penalize different names?” we ask “Why don’t you just change yours?”
• It surrenders identity. Each name change is a small surrender of cultural identity on the altar of professional acceptance.

Researchers themselves have pushed back: “We do not suggest immigrants to Anglicise their ethnic names in order to avoid discrimination,” warns Harvard research, because “this puts the onus on immigrants to promote equity

The Growing Resistance

Not everyone accepts this bargain anymore. Some Indian immigrants and their children are consciously resisting, keeping their names despite the friction, treating it as “a symbol of successful resistance to assimilation.”​

Activists are pushing systemic solutions instead. California passed a historic ban on caste discrimination. Recruiters are learning to value diversity rather than demanding homogeneity. Some companies now anonymize resumes to remove racial bias.

But these changes move at glacial speed. Meanwhile, individuals still face rent to pay and careers to build.

What This Reveals About Assimilation

The name-change phenomenon exposes how assimilation really works in America. It’s not a free exchange of cultures — it’s a hierarchy where the dominant culture’s comfort is prioritized over minority identity. It’s a system that says: “You’re welcome here, but only if you make us comfortable by becoming more like us.”

Meanwhile, Americans anywhere in the world remain comfortable as they are. No one asks them to change. No one makes it worth their while. They don’t have to choose between their name and their career.

That asymmetry is the hypocrisy. Not that Indians change names — that’s rational survival. But that we’ve normalized it so completely that it feels like personal preference rather than what it actually is: adaptive response to discrimination masked as cultural assimilation.

---

The real question isn’t whether Indians should change their names. It’s why, in a diverse nation built by immigrants, we still make it necessary.

The CJI Gavai Shoe-Throwing Incident: Unpacking the Controversy, Selective Outrage and Misplaced Anger in India

In a brazen act of courtroom disruption on October 6, 2025, 71-year-old lawyer Rakesh Kishore attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan Ram Gavai during a Supreme Court hearing.

Shouting slogans about the “insult to Sanatan Dharma,” Kishore was swiftly detained by security, but the incident has since spiraled into a national conversation on judicial respect, communal tolerance, and the double standards in India’s socio-political landscape.

This event, rooted in Kishore’s fury over a prior judgment by CJI Gavai, not only exposes the volatility of religious sentiments but also reveals how certain groups weaponize them while others exercise restraint.

Amid this chaos, the Supreme Court has issued numerous judgments in recent years that have been perceived as challenging Muslim practices, yet no Muslim has ever resorted to such violence against the judiciary. This stark difference underscores the Muslim community’s tolerance in the face of adversity. Meanwhile, the lack of stringent action against Kishore — despite his act — highlights how Hindutva fanatics often evade accountability, potentially emboldening further extremism.

The Prior Judgment: A Misconstrued Remark on Lord Vishnu and the Role of ASI

The shoe-throwing incident was not spontaneous but stemmed from simmering resentment over a Supreme Court judgment delivered by CJI Gavai in mid-September 2025, in what has come to be known as the Khajuraho case.

The plea, filed by a devotee, sought directions to reconstruct and reinstall a seven-foot idol of Lord Vishnu, which had been beheaded during the Mughal era and was discovered as an archaeological artifact in Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh.

Dismissing the petition, CJI Gavai emphasized that the matter fell squarely under the jurisdiction of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), an expert body responsible for preserving historical artifacts.

He noted, “It’s an archaeological find, whether the ASI would permit such a thing to be done or not… there are various issues.”

In a light-hearted aside to the petitioner, who professed deep devotion to Lord Vishnu, the CJI suggested, “If you are saying that you are a strong devotee of Lord Vishnu, then you pray and do some meditation.”

This remark was misconstrued by elements within the Hindutva ecosystem as an insult to Sanatan Dharma, with critics accusing the CJI of mocking Hindu beliefs and deities.

However, the comment was far from insulting — it was a pragmatic redirection to the appropriate authority, underscoring the judiciary’s role in deferring to specialized bodies like the ASI for matters involving historical preservation.

CJI Gavai later clarified his stance, affirming, “I respect all religions” and emphasizing his belief in true secularism, while noting that his words had been taken out of context.

The judgment itself was neutral, avoiding judicial overreach into archaeological decisions.The ASI, established in 1861, operates under the Ministry of Culture, which is part of the central government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

As such, any policy on restoring or altering artifacts like the Vishnu idol ultimately falls under the executive branch’s purview. If the Hindutva ecosystem is dissatisfied with the ASI’s potential reluctance — due to guidelines protecting the integrity of historical finds — they should direct their ire toward the Modi government, which has the authority to influence or amend such policies through legislative or administrative means.

Yet, the outrage has been disproportionately aimed at CJI Gavai, perhaps because deferring to the ASI disrupts narratives seeking judicial validation for religious restorations. This misplaced anger ignores the government’s role, raising questions about whether the criticism is truly about devotion or a strategic attack on judicial independence.

Supreme Court Judgments and the Muslim Community’s Restraint

In contrast to this aggressive response, the Supreme Court has handed down several rulings in recent years that have directly impacted Muslim communities, often reshaping their religious and cultural practices. The 2017 ban on instant triple talaq, the 2022 upholding of hijab restrictions in certain educational institutions, and ongoing discussions on a Uniform Civil Code have all been met with criticism from Muslim groups for encroaching on personal laws.

Despite these setbacks, Muslims have channeled their dissent through peaceful protests, legal appeals, and democratic engagement — never through physical assaults on judges.

No Muslim has thrown a shoe at a CJI, even amid judgments perceived as biased or intrusive. This pattern of tolerance, rooted in a commitment to non-violence and institutional respect, stands as a testament to the community’s resilience. As social media users have pointed out, “Muslims face rulings on talaq, polygamy, and more, yet respond with petitions, not projectiles.”

The shoe incident, conversely, exemplifies how some Hindutva proponents resort to extremism when faced with even mild judicial pushback.

Hindutva Fanatics Roam Free: No FIR, Muted Response

Following the incident, Kishore was questioned and released without an FIR being filed, as CJI Gavai personally directed officials not to press charges, opting instead for composure and continuity in proceedings.

The Bar Council of India suspended his license, but Kishore expressed no regret, claiming a “divine force” compelled him.

This leniency is telling: Had the perpetrator been Muslim, the fallout would be immense — multiple FIRs under contempt and assault charges, nationwide condemnations from BJP leaders, and a barrage of dehumanizing campaigns by the party’s IT cell.

In reality, while PM Modi called the act “utterly condemnable,” there have been no statements from the President or governors. BJP figures have issued measured rebukes, but online, Hindutva supporters defend Kishore as a “hero” defending faith. Critics like Nupur J. Sharma have shifted blame to the CJI’s “loose tongue.”

This asymmetry grants a free hand to Hindutva extremists, normalizing violence under religious pretexts.

A Broader Implication: Erosion of Secular Fabric

The episode, intertwined with caste dynamics given CJI Gavai’s Dalit heritage, signals deeper biases.

By targeting the judiciary while sparing the government, the Hindutva narrative risks undermining institutions. India’s Muslims have shown exemplary tolerance; it’s imperative that all communities follow suit to preserve the nation’s democratic ethos. Unchecked, such incidents could pave the way for more “Hindutva terrorism,” where fanaticism trumps law and reason.