The point isn’t what the people using the name are thinking. The point is that they’re NOT thinking about how potentially harmful their name choice is. If you don’t have a connection to [name]India[/name], don’t name your daughter [name]India[/name]. No one is going to divorce that from the country, and the less privileged CAN’T divorce it from colonialism and murder. Is it really worth it to give your daughter a name that is a political statement, whether you mean it to be or not?
The Brits were in [name]India[/name] during the 16th and 17th C. People not using the name because of the ugly colonial history doesn’t mean the name doesn’t have an ugly colonial history. The existence of British Indians is equally irrelevant. I don’t have a problem with the UK and I wouldn’t really expect people of [name]Indian[/name] descent to either. That doesn’t mean the UK didn’t do some horrible things during the time of the British [name]Raj[/name] which are implicit in the name [name]India[/name], whether the givers of the name do so intentionally or not.
I don’t care for it. I have only heard about the controversy surrounding the use of [name]India[/name] as a name here on Nameberry, so I’m not going to address that except to say I would probably avoid any name that I heard might be controversial, if only to spare my child from having to deal with the consequences of having a potentially offensive name when they grow up. But, here’s why I really dislike it: when I hear [name]India[/name] (or any place name, really) being used as a given name, I wonder why the parents chose it. [name]Do[/name] they have some connection to the country? If so, why not use an actual [name]Indian[/name] name? And if not, is it just being used because it sounds exotic? If so…why not use an actual [name]Indian[/name] name (or any other actual name that sounds exotic to you)? I’m not 100% against the use of place names in names, but maybe in the middle spot if it has significance (I feel the same about word names)? I just can’t help but wonder how awkward a person named [name]India[/name] would feel if they ever traveled to [name]India[/name]. So, basically…it’s just not my style. Ha!
My sources say the British were active there from around 1610. I’ve found baptisms (in various countries) starting from the middle of the 1500s, thus using it beofre it had a history.
Anyway, the country has a colonial history, yes. I know what happened was horrible and I’m not denying it happened. I think where we disagree is what is implied by the name [name]India[/name]. I don’t have a problem with, nor does anyone I know and, it seems, most of the UK. But some people here on NB do- fine. That’s your prerogative. Thus, we must agree to disagree. I don’t think we’ll ever convince each other otherwise 
cassandrah, sorry for hijacking your thread!
I don’t want to poke the hornet’s nest of [name]India[/name], but I just wanted to point out that I don’t think [name]Indiana[/name] is a suitable alternative. The etymology of [name]Indiana[/name] is “land of the Indians,” and this is culturally offensive as well. My Cherokee grandfather doesn’t look very favorably upon being called an [name]Indian[/name]. He’s not from [name]India[/name]. Sorry to get a bit off-topic, but I just bristle when I hear of people naming their kid [name]Indiana[/name] and then the nonchalant suggestion of [name]Indiana[/name] as a benign alternative to [name]India[/name].
I have Jewish Ukrainian heritage so I should be pissed if a Catholic named his child [name]Odessa[/name]? That’s rather silly, really. Why be offended of names, don’t we have another offensive things in the world? Better find other things to argue about, I don’t think we need to recall all that events again.
Anyway, if there is such a fuss about [name]India[/name], go with [name]Indigo[/name].
What is all this fuss about [name]Britain[/name]'s colonial history in [name]India[/name]. [name]Don[/name]'t you realise that [name]Britain[/name] was the largest colonial power of its time? It is understood by us today that their actions were untenable by todays standards as were the actions of other colonial powers of the time. If we are going to worry about [name]India[/name] why not Australia or indeed any of their other territories? Are we going to wipe out [name]Aurora[/name], [name]Adelaide[/name] and [name]Sydney[/name] from the naming books too due to the problems encountered in Australia’s colonial history? I think not. I am tired of hearing how ‘offended’ everyone is by ‘everything’ I had expected a lot more tolerance from today’s generation than mine or my parent’s generation where my father’s generation fought the Japanese in WW2. I have never heard an Aussie ‘Digger’ denigrate the Japanese despite the atrocities the Australians suffered at their hands in WW2, and for me that says everything.
[name]Aurora[/name], [name]Adelaide[/name], and [name]Sydney[/name] are names separate from Australia. [name]India[/name] is directly related to [name]India[/name].
[name]How[/name] wrong can you be these names mean Australia and are directly related to Australia in a big way!
I asked my [name]Indian[/name] landlord and his wife and they both said “[name]Don[/name]'t be silly, why would that offend us!?” and they are very proud of their heritage. They also said that RE the colonization of [name]Britain[/name], that [name]Britain[/name] also did good for the country. It wasn’t all bad! And they carry no ill feelings towards the Brits now and would never be offended by the name [name]India[/name] in any what way. We’ve moved on from then on, yes you can and should remember the horrible things that happened, but at one point you’ve got to let go and move on…
There are many names that come with negative connotations, that could possible be offensive - but I honestly think its a minority of people who scrutinize a name THAT much unless its [name]Adolf[/name] Hitler or [name]Pol[/name] Pot.
I’ve tried my best to stay out of this one, but I just wanted to come in and support C&P.
In one of the former threads where [name]India[/name]'s been discussed we came to the conclusion (well, some of us anyway), that if the fact that people were killed is the reason why it can’t be used we can’t really use any names anymore. All countries have bloody pasts, some more than others, and if we’re going to eliminate anything even slightly associated with cruelty there won’t be that much left.
I’m also at a loss at seeing why it is the occupied and brutalised party that shouldn’t be used, wouldn’t it make more sense to “ban” the one that carried out the violence? I’ve asked myself this a few times, but never out loud, in some of my own threads when I’ve brought up [name]Callisto[/name] and people have said “I wouldn’t use that because of the rape thing”, and I’ve been saddened that people think we shouldn’t use these names that were worn by people (or in this case country) that were mistreated.
Anyway, [name]Cass[/name], sorry about this. To your question: I think [name]India[/name] is a beautiful, warm and sweet name, and I’m always excited when I meet little [name]India[/name]'s! I think [name]Didi[/name] is an adorable nickname.
[name]EDIT[/name]: And none of the Indians I know has any problems with this. [name]Both[/name] British-Indians and [name]India[/name]-Indians.
I was just re-thinking this, and it occurred to me that the average American (Possibly Australian/[name]Brit[/name]) probably wouldn’t know that [name]India[/name] has such strong ties to colonialism nowadays. The only reason I know about this is via Nameberry and researching names.
All it’s going to take before [name]India[/name] becomes mainstream is some actress/character/ becoming very popular (or if an A-list celeb uses it for their daughter). I’d give it a few years. It’s a place name with a pleasant sound.
However, as with all place names, I’d try to make sure I had a connection to the location. [name]Remember[/name] when [name]Katie[/name] Hopkins was being interviewed about pre-judging kids on their names and said one of her pet peeves was geographical names? Her own daughter is named [name]India[/name]- and Hopkins said “That’s not related to a place." With the popularity of [name]London[/name], [name]Brooklyn[/name] and [name]Paris[/name], as well as trending names like [name]Bronx[/name], [name]Camden[/name] and [name]Knox[/name], they are slowly losing the connection to the city. But [name]India[/name] still brings up questions about, “Oh? [name]Do[/name] you like the country?”
That may be the case for Australians but for most, the names aren’t related to Australia except being names. [name]Adelaide[/name] and [name]Sydney[/name] don’t result in a “like the city in Australia?” as much as [name]India[/name] gets “like the country?” [name]Adelaide[/name] and [name]Sydney[/name] were both named after people and are common as given names/surnames. [name]India[/name] wasn’t named after anyone. It’s a country. I understand what you’re trying to do but it doesn’t work.
No they’re not.
[name]Adelaide[/name] was a [name]German[/name] name dating to the 10th C. and borne by a saint. It has a long history as a given name. Additionally, [name]Adelaide[/name] Australia is not very well known on a global scale and the people who name their kid [name]Adelaide[/name] in other nations are NOT trying to evoke any sort of exoticism or glamour of the city or in fact necessarily know it IS a city. It was only named after a woman named [name]Adelaide[/name]. The name has much to do with Australia as [name]Katherine[/name] does.
[name]Sydney[/name] can at least make a case for being known to have an Australia connection.
It wasn’t just us. Portugal, the Netherlands and [name]France[/name] were also pretty involved.
What I am trying to do is to educate you to the fact that our country is represented in our minds by those names and that this fact should not be trivialised as it means a great deal to us, Australians.
You expect us to understand the implications of certain names in your culture and would be quick to criticise if certain names were used, but surely it is a two way street? You need to understand where we are coming from too as our culture is very important to us.