>>513545574
>"My logic is that my name is my identity"
That's actually not a reason, justification, or excuse for refusing to take your husband's last name. After all, by getting married, your identity has changed a bit. You're no longer a single, lone, virginal person, you're now part of a union, partnered with somebody else for life, for the explicit purpose of producing offspring. These are two very different identities. Don't Indians have some cultural thing like that married women have the dot painted on their forehead? And in the West we wear wedding rings. The name change is pretty similar, in being a marker for your identity. Single, or married. Solo, or duo.

By this logic, she's saying that she wants to retain her solo identity while also being married. This is a contradiction. It shows a lack of commitment to the union. Her boyfriend shouldn't cite "tradition" as the reason for his desire, he should cite assurance, fidelity, loyalty. Does she want to be on the same team as him, or not? You can't join a team and then say you want to wear the uniform and rep the name of the opposing team. You're either on board, or you're not.