A friend once asked me why so many Sikhs were named Singh and Kaur. I told him these names were mandatory for Amritdhari Sikhs and common for others, that they served to replace surnames that were caste markers with just two names that had royal associations, and that while there were many Sikhs who were Singhs, there were many Singhs who were not Sikhs.
He listened carefully and replied “Doesn’t that get confusing? I mean all those Singhs running around?”
I burst out laughing. You see my friend’s surname was Smith. And he wasn’t just any Smith, he was a John Smith, and actually a John Smith Jr. at that.
It was funny as a question from a good friend. It was offensive as long running Canadian Policy:
CBC News has obtained a copy of a letter sent from the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi to Singh’s family stating that “the names Kaur and Singh do not qualify for the purpose of immigration to Canada.”
Karen Shadd-Evelyn, a spokeswoman with Citizenship and Immigration Canada, said the policy preventing people from immigrating to Canada with those last names has been in place for the last 10 years.
“I believe the thinking behind it in this case is because it is so common. [With] the sheer numbers of applicants that have those as their surnames, it’s just a matter for numbers and for processing in that visa office.” [Link]
<
p>This made absolutely no sense. If you’re processing files, you need to know the name the person had for most of their lives to distinguish them from others, and you can’t go back in time and change it retroactively. If they’re complaining that it’s hard to distinguish the files of one “Ennis Singh” from another once they’ve applied, that’s absurd. You use file numbers not actual names. Lastly, this was a policy solely directed against Singhs and Kaurs, not any other name:
Citizenship and Immigration Canada says there is no such policy against other common last names. [Link]
Even though there are roughly 100 million Zhangs and 93 million Wangs (85% of mainland Chinese have the same 100 names), this policy was in place for Singh and Kaur only? WTF?
The most common Canadian surnames are:
1. Li
2. Smith
3. Lam
4. Martin
5. Brown [Link]
<
p>
If the Canadian government can handle all the Browns without confusion, then immigration should have had no problem handling my brown brethren as well.
At first, the government defended their policy which caused even more outrage. Then they back pedaled, claiming that it was all a misunderstanding:
In no way did CIC intend to ask applicants to change their names. The letter that was previously used to communicate with clients was poorly worded. We are making changes to ensure there will be no misunderstandings in the future.
CIC recognizes that previous communications with clients may not have been clear on this issue and regrets any inconvenience this may have caused.
Asking applicants to provide a surname in addition to Singh or Kaur has been an administrative practice used by our visa office in New Delhi as a way to improve client service and reduce incidents of mistaken identity. This was not a mandatory requirement.There is no policy or practice whereby people with these surnames are asked to change their names. [Link]
Riiiiight. Because clients love it when you tell them “You’re cleared for immigration, but just one small thing – you have to change your name.” And of course, it’s simply not true that the name change was optional (see the image below, for example):
When asked if he believes the immigration department’s claim that the policy was just a misunderstanding and that people with the surnames Singh or Kaur were actually allowed to apply, Gahir said, “They were told, unequivocally, `You can’t apply with the surname Singh or Kaur.‘”… [Link]
<
p>Feh. At least the Canadian government was shamed into changing their policy. They may not be truly multicultural at heart, but at least they were willing to admit when they were wrong before the issue became an even bigger political liability.
 |
|
Doesn’t look optional to me |
In case anybody asks, yes, I am a Singh too. The “Mutinywale” is just an honorific, it is not on my passport.
What is the correct pronunciation of Sikh? Seeekh. or Sick? Indians from India tend to say Sick. Westerners tend to say Seeekh.
I hate it when whites who are converts to Buddhism cannot even pronounce Buddha correctly.
Neither. But to answer your question, it is a short i not a long one.
This is so messed up…
It’s kind of a throwback to the last big wave of immigration in the US, during the Ellis Island days. Many of my Polish- and Italian-American friends’ ancestors had their names shortened or anglicized with the stroke of a pen– the Piworskis became Pivarskis, Schmiulowitzes became Samuels, etc. It was racist then, and it’s racist now.
My husband’s father’s name was changed during WWII… they added an ‘e’ to the end. It was a typo, but his father’s birth certificate had been destroyed in a hospital fire. The Army told him that if he wanted to get paid, he’d have to change his name. That side of the Cleffi family are all Cleffie to this day.
Are they also banning Smith and Jones? I really can’t tell all those whiteys apart anyway.
Yeah I’m glad they changed their policy, but I’m not sure if I admire them for it. This is simply because they didn’t admit when they were wrong, they tried to defend it testing the water, saw it wasn’t going to work, then changed it. It wasn’t out of the goodness in their heart, 🙂 and I don’t think I admire action to score political points.
Well, they say they’ve dropped the practice, and it wasn’t mandatory anyway … but no, they were fine with Smith and Jones and Lee and Wong and Zheng and Patel and Khan and Muhammed etc.
Not every government stops when they realize that their policy is bankrupt. Some get stubborn and dig in.
The policy is stupid. Having said that, the majority of Sikhs(mainly Jatt & Rajput) I know still have a surname, and simply use Kaur or Singh as a middle name.
Yes, lots have tried to reassert their castes once more. But, as you observed, that’s not the point. The point is that the policy is stupid.
Note that this wasn’t just an anti-Sikh thing. It would have applied to all the Hindu Singhs out there as well.
The purpose of removing the surname is to remove caste associations… you can’t really show that you’re a Jatt if you’ve got no surname…
As far as the pronounciation of “Sikh” goes, the word is the same as the hindustani/punjabi word for learning. Seekhna, means to learn. The difference comes from the way this word is pronounced in Punjabi versus Hindustani (i.e. Hindi/Urdu). Punjabi speakers, pronounce it “sikh”. Hindustani speakers say “Seekh”. Your pronunciation of the religious term should be the same as your pronunciation of the word for learning, since the former is derived from the latter. PS, Ennis please correct me if I’m wrong. I’m not Sikh myself, or even punjabi, but I am from saddi Dilli and this is what we were always told when growing up.
On the actual topic at hand, this is so typical of Canadian immigration. I just completed the process myself. The Canadians are quick to trumpet their
race-blind' andmulticultural’ society, and to point out that they are so much better than the big, bad Americans. And then every once in a while you see the vestiges of unadulterated British racism coming through in their protocols and procedures.If they’re American, perhaps they’re simply pronouncing Buddha with their American accent.
One wouldn’t call someone incorrect for saying “ad-VER-tis-ment” instead of “ad-ver-TISE-ment,” etc.
With names it becomes more complicated, obviously, because there are identity and cultural issues involved. But there is an “American Standard” (that’s a dialect term, and a pejorative one, but it hasn’t yet been renamed) way of saying “Buddha,” and it’s the way Lisa Simpson says it. ^__^ For better or for worse.
I hate it when whites who are converts to Buddhism cannot even pronounce Buddha correctly.
That is one of the most idiotic comments I’ve ever read. That’s like saying, “English-speaking Christians can’t even pronounce the name of ישוע (Yeshua) correctly.”
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that most native English speakers aren’t familiar with the voiceless aspirated dental plosive, or some such nonsense. What exactly is your point?
If one gets Buddha’s teachings, what does it matter how one pronounces his name? Besides, it’s not intentional because of the different alphabets/sounds used in the two languages. So, for some people it’ll always be a challenge to pronounce his name correctly.
Mulva? Gipple?… Delores!
This policy is so stupid it makes me just roll my eyes.
I think Ennis nailed the pronunciation (it’s a short i, not a long one, but it isn’t “sick” as in cough cough — the k sound at the end is different). ac, “Sikh” does come from the term “sikhna,” but it’s from Sanskrit, not Hindi/Punjabi, hence the argument for a universality of pronunciation. That said, I’m sure that if a person makes an effort to pronounce the name of the religion, few would be offended.
As for Sikhs who have surnames — both sides of my fam have surnames on their legal documents, but many opt for “Singh” and “Kaur” on their non-government documents. I think it gets funny when folks try to adapt to the last name adoption with patrilineal descent (e.g. all the Sikh women who are “X Kaur Singh”).
i’ve been looking for a new middle name – i might just take this one up 🙂
i only hate it when people don’t even try, and then get all offended if it ever comes up that they’ve been mispronouncing. my own name is an example (so mangled for 13 years of school that i barely remembered the proper pronunciation), but also common terms from foreign languages – people just assume that their fellow americans have been pronouncing those words properly all along.
Or writing, like “Ghandi.” 🙂
Isn’t this what matters most?
This is actually such a sign of respect for me — if someone makes an effort or asks how to pronounce something. At least they’re trying, even if they’re unsuccessful. I know this sounds ridiculous, but if I bother to learn how to say someone’s name correctly, I think it’s very fair to afford the same respect.
I had an IBD friend in undergrad who liked to tease me about my inability to pronounce Indian names.
One day I finally said “but you don’t pronounce my name correctly either.”
Which he didn’t; he perpetually made a short i into a long one.
Then he said “YOU don’t pronounce your name correctly. You have a French name, and the way I say your name is how it would be said in France, and how we say it in India.”
^__^
He called you “Bluw” ? [It’s hard to write out how the French pronounce Blue]
Obviously.
I don’t see an “i” in Blue. :p 😉
re: # 12 sikh-was actually shishya, a sanskrit word for student. so, when you hear the term guru ka sikh, it means guru ka shishya which translates into the disciple/student of the guru. ennis, amardeep – please correct if i’m wrong.
Ok, the first thing that went through my head was that Ludacris song, which I can’t remember the name, but I do remember the part where he says:
What’s my name? What’s my name? What’s my name?
I’m surprised no one has picked up on the gunda title… 😉
I thought it was an American Pie reference. ^__^
Yea? The Americans are not to great either. The Mumbai consulate will not issue a dependent visa unless the dependent has the same lastname as the the sponsor. My wife had to change her name after she married me to come to the US, which means a delay of however many months Passport office takes to issue a new passport.
That’s absurd as well. My grandfather and grandmother didn’t have the same last name – he was Singh and she was Kaur. I’ve never expected any hypothetical wife to take my last name for the same reason, and have been puzzled by female friends who feel it is important to change their name to that of their spouse so that “everybody has the same last name” (why doesn’t he change his name then?).
Maybe Blue is pronounced “Savitre”?
Yes, you are right! It’s been a LONG time since I’ve seen that movie.
Ennis, you are by far in the minority of men that I have met who feel this way.
I personally do not want to change my name when I get married, but amongst my married friends it’s a 50/50 split who changes their name. And it’s not split between brown/non-brown by any means. I have brown friends who have not changed their names and I have non-brown who did almost immediately after marriage.
I guess if I was very traditional and/or living in India it would be a moot point for me, becuase I would find another Kudva Patel to marry and I wouldn’t have to change my surname. But some of my cousins in India have not married Patels, so it’s changing now and you are not expected to marry a Patel.
It’s not a reference to American Pie but the movie does feature the phrase I was thinking of which is also common in hip-hop. The polite version (i.e. non-misogynistic version) is:
What’s my name, fool? Say it.
If I had been less pissed at the Canadian government it would have been Beyonce’s:
Say my name Say my name
Probably the only historically Buddhist people who pronounce it “correctly” are the Sinhalese due to its relation to Pali and other Eastern Prakrits. I guess the Dalai Lama and Thai monks are all rank amateurs?
Back to the thread, don’t Scandinavian countries have naming conventions that must be obeyed by all citizens ? Does anyone know the rationale for that? These countries are quite progressive, like Canada, so I would be surprised if the intention was racist
Ennis, I won’t expect my hypothetical partner to change her last name either, but if she willingly wants to change her last name, then asking her not to wouldn’t be that different from asking her to. What do you think?
Since my very traditional grandparents had different last names, I never bought into the mainstream patriarchal norm that everybody “should” have the same last name as the husband.
You’re right – I am not going to tell my hypothetical wife what hypothetical last name she should have. I don’t understand the urge to change one’s last name to match that of one’s husband, but especially if her last name was from the patriarchal norm, I’m not going to object either.
I just personally don’t get the name changing impulse is all. I’m not planning to change my last name to match that of my hypothetical wife, so I don’t expect her to do so either.
Over in the other thread, pingpong said:
In some ways that seems more equitable, as long as there are both patronymics and matronymics involved.
While traveling in Bali I met many Mades and Wayans, which means first born and second born (or vice versa, I can’t remember) and this went for male or females. So you were named by your birth order and it didn’t apply to juse male children which I found quite interesting.
In Ghana, traditionally Akan first names indicated the day that you were born and the second name indicated your birth order. So your name would mean something like “Tuesday born third child”
I’m not sure if this holds true all over India, but Gujurati’s traditionally name a child based on the time and day he/she was born. The time/day decides the akshar which is the phoentic sound/first letter of your name. My parents did not do that for my sister and I, they just picked names that they liked.
And what’s with our generation naming both of their kids with the same letter/sound for their first name. Parent’s already confuse kids names enough, then to add that on top of it? Sheesh!
Of all the DBD married women, I personally know in the US (all Southie, I don’t know what Northie women do), only one has changed her name after marriage (to a Northie – don’t think if this has a any significance, she would have changed it regardless of whom she married). One uses both her maiden name (with desis) and her husband’s name (with Americans, except at work) depending on the situation. The one that did change her name lives in place where there are NO internationals. Everyone is American. I didn’t quiz her on this topic (it’s uncomfortable), but from what I understand she would have faced a lot of questions of the type “why doesn’t everyone in the family have the same name?” around her place.
All this is a little strange because both in North India and South India, almost all women take their husbands’ names.
For pronunciation of Sikh, the latest from Bollywood I remember is Kiron Kher in Rang De Basanti. She says it well and that too thet punjabi ichh. But I think most of the times she uses sikh collectively – sikhhAn nu etc etc..
The ‘i’ is definitely short and the h is stressed. As Camille, others pointed out, sounds like ‘sikhhna’ with a short ‘i’.
Wont it be pronounced as you would say ‘buddha’ in Sanskrit, with the last a slightly subdued. Unlike BooDa, or BuddhA!
Reminds me of another thing I was reading, unlike the word “Dharma’ Ashoka used to use the term ‘Dhamma’ which was Pali and the connotation used was also more socio-political unlike Dharma in Hinduism. I know, totally unrelated but I typed it so will post it…
nah, say BOODA if you want. i’m a buddhist and it doesn’t incite me to holy war if people choose to pronounce words, even the popular name of tathagata, whatever way suits them.
Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu! 🙂 🙂
I know this is addressed to Ennis…but here’s my POV. I would beg her not to. Then I’d threaten to change my name to hers if she changed to mine. If she still insisted on having the same name, I’d suggest settling this through a friendly game (or a duel or boxing match if she likes). Winner’s decision prevails.
Not quite. Neutrality is sometimes not neutral but an implicit endorsement of one or the other choice. Context is everything. e.g., “We will not ask anyone for dowry. But if they themselves willingly give it, who are we to object?”. Same for bribes.
No, anyone can comment. I didn’t mean to exclude everyone but Ennis. 🙂 I guess if this makes you happy, then that’s fine.
That’s why I used the words “not that different” and not “same” exactly because of your reasoning. 🙂 But I don’t agree with using the same logic when comparing name change to dowry/bribe – those are different birds and need different thinking caps, nor did I imply that the same logic should be applied in all situations. If a strong case can be made that changing last names by women has the same/similar negative consequences on them and society as bribe/dowry, then sure, I’d apply the same logic and be firm about her not changing her last name.
For me, it’s a trivial issue and it doesn’t matter to me whether she changes her name or not – it’s her decision and whatever makes her happy; whereas it seems that for you, it matters that she keeps her maiden name. So, whatever floats our boats – I can see value in both approaches. 🙂
This is absurd. My family’s firm has been practising Canadian immigration for 15 years now, and have never come across anything like this. Cases are filed under file numbers referred to as B numbers, and any correspondence has to include them.
Sorry – what is the “this” that is absurd? The policy justification? Then we agree. If you’re having trouble believing that the policy was in place, there is the government document and the official government acknowledgment.
It might not be you, but I figured somebody out there might try to deny that the policy existed just to be contrary, or because they had never encountered it, and I tried to write the post in such a way as to firmly substantiate that point.
His name was John Smith….that kills me! lol
Gooddamn brown. I’m brown #45. Another idea could be to have one name that’s an amalgam if it’s absolutely necessary to have one name. Like Villaraigosa. His “maiden-name” was Villar and hers was Raigosa. When married, they took on this new common name. But then there’s the problem of what happens when his cheating ass gets divorced….
Amit, sure, gottit. I agree that name change is nowhere near social-evil status in weight. I didn’t mean to imply everyone should fight it or anything. It’s definitely personal. But that would be my personal choice. I also think neutrality is impossible. Maybe unimportant, but impossible. Not caring either way is definitely possible and probably what most people do.