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?
Created: 10/27/22
Replies: 21
Join Date: 10/15/10
Posts: 3442
Join Date: 01/22/18
Posts: 192
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.
Join Date: 02/08/16
Posts: 514
Join Date: 10/19/20
Posts: 237
Join Date: 04/07/22
Posts: 15
Join Date: 02/06/17
Posts: 450
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.
Join Date: 03/25/17
Posts: 190
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.
Join Date: 08/19/11
Posts: 214
Join Date: 04/13/22
Posts: 49
Join Date: 01/01/16
Posts: 454
Join Date: 07/15/21
Posts: 27
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.
Join Date: 07/03/18
Posts: 132
Join Date: 01/06/18
Posts: 65
Join Date: 09/26/12
Posts: 181
Join Date: 02/22/21
Posts: 99
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.
Join Date: 06/25/13
Posts: 347
Join Date: 03/14/21
Posts: 145
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.
Join Date: 06/05/18
Posts: 41
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.
Join Date: 06/06/21
Posts: 52
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.
Join Date: 06/25/13
Posts: 347
Join Date: 09/11/11
Posts: 132
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.
Join Date: 04/14/20
Posts: 121
Reply
Please login to post a response.