The Power of Names: A Nation’s Identity at Stake

Names hold immense weight in the collective consciousness of any society. They are not just linguistic tools but repositories of cultural memory, identity, and historical resonance. In India, where traditions span millennia and regional diversity is pronounced, altering a name can set off ripples across social, political, and emotional spectrums. Recently, a stir was caused when calls emerged to rename the beloved South Indian sweet “Mysore Pak” due to the term "Pak" allegedly evoking association with Pakistan. While the sweet has no connection with modern-day geopolitics, this episode signals an increasingly symbolic form of nationalism.

Tracing the Roots: Historical Context of Renaming in India

Renaming is not new to India. Over the decades, the postcolonial Indian state has replaced many British-imposed names with vernacular alternatives. Bombay became Mumbai, Calcutta turned Kolkata, and Allahabad returned to its ancient identity of Prayagraj. These changes were framed as acts of cultural restoration. Yet, there is a growing tendency to stretch this practice to culturally indigenous symbols not borne out of colonization. This raises questions about whether renaming is being used to celebrate Indian heritage genuinely or to assert selective, politicized identities under the guise of cultural nationalism.

The Mysore Pak Controversy: Sweet in Origin, Bitter in Politics

Mysore Pak, a ghee-laden delicacy born in the royal kitchens of Karnataka's Wodeyar dynasty, has nothing to do with the nation-state of Pakistan. The term "Pak" in Kannada translates to a sugared concoction or syrup, referencing the preparation method, and even in Urdu, “Pak” means Pure. Despite this, some voices argued that the name evokes an undesirable connection with Pakistan, especially in the current politically charged atmosphere. Proposed alternatives such as "Mysore Shree" were floated to remove this perceived association.

The backlash was swift. Chefs, citizens, cultural historians, and politicians responded critically, with many accusing the renaming push of absurdity and cultural erasure. The sweet, after all, is a legacy of Karnataka’s culinary tradition, not a product of foreign influence.

Names as Political Tools: Symbolism vs Substance

Political regimes often harness symbols to consolidate narratives. In India, altering the names of cities, streets, railway stations, and even awards has become a strategy to assert ideological dominance. Streets named after Mughal emperors, Islamic dynasties, or British administrators are regularly rebranded with names from Hindu mythology or modern nationalist figures. While proponents claim this reclaims cultural pride, critics argue it masks more pressing governance issues under symbolic changes.

This performance of nationalism—prioritizing symbols over substance—can be seen in the Mysore Pak incident. There’s no policy change improving the lives of sweet-makers or preserving culinary heritage. Instead, attention is diverted to linguistic optics, creating polarizing identity debates in place of substantive reform.

Comparative Perspective: China and the Political Rewriting of Identity

To understand the implications of such acts, one can draw a parallel with China, where the state actively edits school textbooks, erasing or rewriting historical narratives to suit its contemporary political ideology. This form of state intervention constructs a controlled identity that limits critical engagement with the past.

India, though a democracy, is showing early signs of a similar tendency, where narratives are curated through renaming, selective commemoration, and institutional rhetoric. Whether emphasizing ancient texts while overlooking medieval syncretism or promoting one religious heritage over others, this pattern hints at a desire to redefine national identity from the top down.

Impact on Cultural Heritage and Plurality

This trend poses risks to India's rich cultural diversity. The policy of nomenclature doesn’t merely change the label—it can reshape how future generations perceive cultural history. When names with linguistic, religious, or regional plurality are systematically replaced with monolithic, ideologically acceptable alternatives, India risks losing the inclusivity that defines its ethos.

Culinary traditions, like that of Mysore Pak, are not merely recipes—they are markers of history, local knowledge, and intergenerational memory. Altering their identity without understanding their roots reflects a disregard for the depth of cultural heritage.

Legal and Institutional Framework: Who Has the Power?

The nomenclature often lies in the hands of elected governments, and the involvement of institutions like the Survey of India, the Ministry of Home Affairs, and state heritage committees varies. While democratic processes allow for proposals and debates, there’s often limited public consultation. This can lead to top-down decisions that ignore local sentiment and cultural knowledge.

In the Mysore Pak case, there was no formal process or institutional backing—merely a public statement. However, that such suggestions gain media traction indicates a larger trend in national discourse.

Psychological and Social Implications

Identity politics, driven by renaming, deeply influences how citizens perceive themselves and their role in the historical narrative. For younger generations growing up with altered names, there’s a risk of losing touch with cultural plurality and complex historical truths.

What’s more, such moves can deepen social divides. Communities associated with the replaced names may feel marginalized or deliberately excluded from national narratives. A sweet like Mysore Pak, accessible and beloved across caste, class, and religion, becomes a point of division rather than unity.

Alternate Perspectives: Reclaiming Identity or Revising It?

Supporters of renaming argue that it helps cleanse the public space of colonial and religious influences that continue to shape Indian consciousness. They view these acts as necessary for asserting a proud, decolonized identity. For them, renaming Mysore Pak, however, stretched the logic, maybe, is part of a broader nationalist awakening.

Yet, intent does not always align with impact. Renaming without education, dialogue, or cultural sensitivity risks replacing one imposed identity with another. It prioritizes symbolism over cultural understanding and sentiment over scholarship.

Toward a Reflective Nationalism: What Should Be Done?

India must strike a balance between cultural pride and historical honesty. Renaming can be a powerful act—but only when done with rigorous understanding, inclusive consultation, and transparent motives. Rather than superficially altering names, efforts should focus on preserving intangible heritage, documenting local histories, and fostering pluralistic education.

In the case of Mysore Pak, the name carries legacy, not offense. Any decision to rename such culturally rooted traditions should emerge from scholarly discussion, not political calculation. Naming should unite, not divide.

India’s strength lies in its complexity. Its names—be they of sweets, cities, or streets—should reflect the depth of that legacy, not shrink it into ideological boxes. Cultural symbols are not just words; they are expressions of coexistence, memory, and meaning.

.    .    .