Why didn't Smita's father change their name back to their family name after settling in America?

Why didn't Smita's father change their name back to their family name after settling in America? Do you understand why he didn't?

Even though it might have seemed like a flimsy excuse, her father explained it would be terribly difficult because all of their "papers" reflected their new identity. The bureaucracy would have been daunting. And he had given his word he would not change. Honor to him rose above all even if he despised the situation that resulted in the change of name.

He had given his word that he wouldn't change his name. I think he wanted to leave the past behind and just move forward. There were more important issues than changing their names. He just wanted his family to be safe.

It was a matter of honor to those her promised that he would not plus the practicality of doing so could affect his right to be in this country.

He was honoring his promise, but the book hints at the fact that all of their travel papers were in their new names and it probably would have been a bureaucratic nightmare to change back to their original names.

This is a part of the story I really did not like, nor understand. Smita's father went above and beyond to live his life as an example for others. He was generous, kind, accepting, and inclusive of all. To honor an agreement he made under duress, after his children had been assaulted in the street, in front of their friends and neighbors, doesn't sit well with me. There are numerous ways you can teach and model keeping your word to others to your children. Personally, I don't think honoring a promise made to an extorter, racist, violent man is the best way to do so. Smita and her brother already knew what a great man their father was and how he lived his life differently than those around him. I don't think they would have been disappointed in him for breaking this promise. It may have even helped Smita resolve some of her feelings about India. I think he could have taught his children a more important lesson by reclaiming one small piece of what was taken from them.

I am not sure how one goes about converting to Islam, but it may not have been necessary to even change official paperwork. It seems to me that the family could have gone to a mosque in their new community, spoken with the imam, and been able to "convert"-or at least they could have shared their experience and received support. Honoring a promise made with a dishonorable person is not "taking the high ground" in my opinion. I would rather, Smita's father honored the history of his and his wife's family and that of their children.

Honor seems to be the prevailing reason for everything and Smita's father gave his word. Also, It appears that the entire family tried to avoid even thinking about the past once they came to the US. Smita didn't want to go to India even now and she didn't tell her father she was there. Keeping the name they came to the US with would be in keeping with that "turning a new leaf" thinking.

A child of mine has always told her child that a man's word is the most important characteristic he has to offer. If a man's word is worth nothing, so is the rest of his life. A promise made is a promise kept.

He gave his word and being a scholar of Hinduism, it probably did lend credibility to his writings to have a Hindu name rather than a Muslim name.

He had given his word that he would not change his name back. He was moving forward in a new country and I believe he wanted to leave the past behind. He and his family were treated so unkindly.

I agree with the many comments that specify the honor involved in keeping a promise as the reason for Smita’s father to retain the name imposed on him in his “conversion.” And though I don’t know what I might have done in those circumstances, I admire him for this attitude. I think his decision is important to the theme of honor which is the center of this book. I also think it has a bearing on Smita’s decision to keep her promise to Meena to personally be responsible for Abru.

As previously noted, Smith’s father was an honorable man who had given his word. The book shows both the positive and the truly awful consequences associated with the concept.

It was mentioned several times that Smita's father was not religious - converting and taking a Hindu name seemed the least of his problems. Protecting his family, avoiding a bureaucratic nightmare and being honorable in his own fashion were far more important.

I believe his choice reflects the title of the book. He gave his word. Also with all the prejudices in the US it would be easier to go with the new name.

While there were practical reasons for not changing their names back upon arriving in the US, specifically, all the documents were in their Hindu names and it was easier to publish under a Hindu name than a Muslim name. The main reason Asif didn’t change their names back because above all else he was a man of honor, keeping his word even to those who arguably didn’t deserve that respect.

He had made a promise/

I think he kept his promise to honor his own integrity. They wouldn’t have to deal with the dishonorable man who subjected him and his children to so much hate anymore but he would have to live with himself and the fact he broke his word if he had changed their names back.

Although he maintains that he wanted to honor the promise he made and he is also reluctant to confront the bureaucracy involved with changing one's name, I wondered as I read about his move to a new country and city if he thought perhaps he would be safer without a Muslim name. He did not know what his family would encounter in Ohio but surely he was aware of prejudice in American culture.

Honoring a promise? Or perhaps the difficulty of document changes, especially for an immigrant--as noted above. And then as a Hindu scholar it does give him more credibility. However, I found this part difficult. I cannot imagine honoring this promise after I've left the place that required me to live like this. After what they had endured, I would have left as soon as possible -- which I guess it took time to get an appointment in America -- but could not have kept my conversion because of "honoring a promise". If its for practical reasons that different.

He promised he would not change his name back. He cited all the paperwork it would take to do so. Along with his promise I felt he did not want to go back to his name,

That was one aspect of the novel that didn't ring true to me. I would have thought that, despite his promise, made through coercion, he would have changed his name back. His excuse of a forced promise, too many documents, red tape, and bureaucracy, seemed like a cop-out to me.

He was a man of his word. Also he was trying to move forward in a new country and as a scholar of Hinduism he probably felt it was safest to remain Hindu.