www.outlookindia.com | A Pilgrimage Of Denial

Review

A Pilgrimage Of Denial

Kumar sets out on a journey of discovery, but ends up as the nowhere man

Swapan Dasgupta

PRINT	SHARE	COMMENTS

Search:

Husband Of A Fanatic
By Amitava Kumar
Penguin
Pages: 356; Rs 295

On August 3, the British police arrested eight men on charges of planning acts of terrorism. Seven of them were, predictably, of Pakistani origin. However, the identity of the alleged kingpin of the Al Qaeda cell took many by surprise. Initial reports indicated he was Dhiren Barot, a 32-year-old British Gujarati whose parents had arrived from Kenya.

It was a half-truth. The arrested terrorist was indeed the man who was born Dhiren Barot.


	Kumar could have dismissed his conversion as meaningless ritual or railed at the orthodoxy. He did neither and became a poseur.

However, following a visit to India in the early '90s, the young Barot snapped ties with his family, rejected his ancestral faith and recreated himself as Eisa al-Hindi. Within a decade, Eisa progressed from jehad in Kashmir to planning terrorist strikes in New York.

Throughout history, some converts have tended to flaunt a new loyalty by viciously disavowing their inheritance. This curious blend of new realisation and self-hate has had both horrific and farcical consequences. From the Baader-Meinhof terrorists in Germany to the hippies who found nirvana in dope, counterculture became experiments in declasse.

These were extreme reactions to convoluted pangs of imaginary guilt. By the '80s, liberal academia found a more acceptable outlet in multiculturalism, the newest battering ram against dominant cultures. A contrived cosmopolitanism provided a cover for what conservative writer Roger Scruton described as a "relentless scoffing at ordinary prohibitions and decencies and the shrill advocacy of alternatives that ordinary people are unable in their hearts to recognise".

Amitava Kumar's journeys of self-discovery through India and Pakistan belong to this genre of multicultural perversity. A gifted writer from a normal, middle-class Bihari Hindu family, Kumar was one of those many Indians for whom the Ayodhya demolition of 1992 was a watershed. It filled him with fear and hatred of Hindu nationalism, transformed him into a secularist and made him more sensitive to the vulnerabilities of the 'other'. In time, he joined the annual September influx of Indians to American universities and settled into the cultural studies industry.

Something else also happened. He met a Pakistani girl from a well-off Karachi family and they decided to get married in 1999, around the time India and Pakistan were fighting in the forbidding heights of Kargil.

It's a touching story but not an unusual one. What was unusual, at least for a secularist, was that apart from a civil marriage, which would have sufficed in North America, he went through a Muslim ceremony. It involved him converting to Islam and assuming a Muslim name. His wife's grandmother was pleased. "The groom is from Hindustan. And he has accepted Islam," she proudly told her friends and neighbours in Karachi.

The experience scarred Kumar. He could have dismissed the whole thing as a meaningless ritual aimed at placating some old biddies. He could, alternatively, have railed against an orthodoxy that tied the convergence of emotions to a convergence of faith.

He did neither. Instead, he became a poseur. "I felt good about myself for marrying 'the enemy'. The thought gave me a small thrill. I was suddenly awash in altruism; its tepid tide cleansed me of a narrow, binding form of self-love. I also found others to partake of this feeling of well-being which I was experiencing." Later, in a slightly pathetic attempt to distract from his weakness of character, he rationalised his conversion as "the exploration of doubt or what I would call the benefits of half-faith."

Sadly, the "exploration of doubt" ends up as an exercise in repudiation. The India Kumar explores is riddled with hate, intolerance, petrified Muslims and provincial Hindus reeking of bigotry. Take this as a sample of his post-riot Gujarat: "There was now not even one Muslim business left in Gujarat. Men with beards were not being served in the restaurants as well as shops in the entire state." His conclusion is stark: "For any ordinary Muslim in India, the difficulty of ever crossing over into a larger community of the nation is a challenge."

This is not Gujarat; this is not 'secular' India; this is a caricature. Kumar also travels to Pakistan. What he finds there isn't exactly appetising but he finds a way out: moral equivalence. To him, Pakistan is just a mirror image of India. When he thinks of the Hindus in Pakistan, his thoughts turn inevitably to the plight of Muslims in India. When he thinks of Kargil he doesn't think of Pakistan's unfinished agenda, he thinks of the army widows on both sides. It's not a journey of discovery; it is a voyage of denial.

Veer Savarkar used to say a change of nationality need not accompany a change of religion. This book suggests his optimism was misplaced. Kumar and Barot, is there a difference?

PRINT	SHARE	COMMENTS

Filed In Topics: , Swapan Dasgupta, Amitava Kumar

More In: Books, Reviews

Daily Mail

COLLAPSE COMMENTS :

HAVE YOUR SAY

Sep 09, 2004 12:00 AM 17	Frankly speaking, Safdar Ali's book is very mediocre, written in a tired and pretentious prose. He has made his private life public and now can hardly complain if his readers mock his private life. The fact remains that Amitava Kumar caved in to Islamic fanaticism and converted to Islam officially. If he had any sense of fairness, he would have asked his wife to convert to Hindu Dharma. Or if she had genuine love for him, she would have reciprocated his gesture by converting to Hindu Dharma herself. Let us consider the position Shariah takes on inter-religion marraiges: 1. A Muslim woman CANNOT marry a non-Muslim man. Such a nuptial is not recognized by Koran and their union is considered adultery. The couple can be stoned to death for this offence. 2. A Muslim woman CANNOT convert to her non-Muslim spouse's faith in order to marry him if she was born of Muslim parents. Such a case of apostasy is punishable by death. 3. A non-Muslim man can covert to Islam if he wishes to marry a Muslim woman, just as Safdar Ali nee Amitava Kumar did. 4. A Muslim man can 'marry' a non-Muslim woman but his 'wife' does not really have the status of a 'wife' and is subsumed in the category 'the women your right hand possesses' (Koranic euphemism for concubine). As examples, Prophet Muhammad had Muslim wives but his consorts such as Reyhana the Jewess and Miriam the Coptic Christian are NOT considered his wives though he consummated his 'marraige' with them and one of them bore a child for him. By any modern yardstick, this Islamic law is misogynist and anti-Kafir against humane principles and by converting to Islam, Safdar has merely lent his support to a discrimatory law that is based upon the inequality of man and woman in Islam, and between Muslims and non-Muslims in Islam. Safdar was never true to the faith of his parents. So he was not honest to Hindu Dharma. He says his conversion to Islam was merely a formality meant to fool his inlaws so that he could marry his wife in Pakistan. Therefore he is not honest to Islam. He presents his mother in a bad light in his book. So he is not honest to his parents. He is not honest to his wife's family because he did not genuinely convert. If his wife really loves him, why did she also not convert to Hinduism when he converted to Islam? THAT would alone demonstrate true love on her part. Safdar's entire life is therefore a lie, a fraud, and a dishonest endeavor. By his formal conversion however, he has ensured heaven (with houris and male consorts or gilmans et al) to his wife's grandmother! No amount of posturing can get rid of the image that he carries - a conceited coward who converted to please his manipulative wife. A bad son who ridiculed his parents in public. A deluded person who does not know who he is and where he is from and who therefore does not know where he is heading. While he tells us that his daughter is Ila Ali, he perhaps tells his in laws that she is actually Illah Ali ! Like a neo-convert to Communism that must denounce his parents and his roots, Safdar denounces Hindus and Hindu Dharma. When was the last time this self seeking, cowardly convert visited camps of Hindu refugees in Kashmir, Bangladesh, NE India and Pakistan?? Sincerely, Vishal Agarwal Vishal Agarwal Minneapolis, USA
Sep 07, 2004 12:00 AM 16	You secularists would be most dissatisfied if the Muslims decide that they will live in peace with the Hindus, and respect the memory of their ancestors. It would then mean that you will have to make an honest effort for living. I am constantly amazed of how low the secularist stoop for pecuniary reasons. I thought I would point to some material which would disabuse your mind. But then it would mean that you would find it difficult to look at yourself in the mirror. I do not wish you to nick yourself while shaving. Namaste. Ashok Chowgule. Dharmayudh Singh Philadelphia, USA
Sep 07, 2004 12:00 AM 15	Letter Sent to Amitava Kumar by Ashok Chowgulen(VHP) Subject: Your book "Husband of a fanatic" Dear Amitavaji, Pranam, I read your book "Husband of a fanatic" and it fully met my expecations. During our meeting in Mumbai, you had hinted that you would write about our encounter, and that it would not be something to my liking. As is the standard operating procedure in the secular intellectual circles, you had already decided what your book was going to be all about, and then went about getting the data which would confirm your conclusions. You wrote about Prof Dinesh Agarwal, yet you decided to 'hide' his identity. I checked with Dineshji and asked him if he had asked you not to disclose his identity. He said he did no such thing. Your doing so, and the fact that you used the name 'Dalmiya' shows the cruel streak in you. I guess it goes with the territory called secular intellectual. Your book set about to demonise the Hindus and glorify the Muslims. You think you might have succeeded - but please do not think that the reader is a fool. Only those who have not read your book will speak well of it, as Shri Anurag Kashyap is supposed to have done, as per a report in the Free Press Journal, copy enclosed. On page 9 you say: "The act (at Godhra) was BELIEVED to be the work of Muslims, and in the days that followed, Hindu mobs raped and burned with IMPUNITY in towns and villages all over Gujarat." (Emphasis added.) So you have a doubt whether those who burnt the 58 Hindus at Godhra were Muslims. But you have no doubt that the reaction of the Hindus was with impunity. I guess given where you come from nothing different was expected. Upon your conversion, you chose to call yourself Safdar, "after Safdar Hasmi, a dynamic, young theatre activists in India who had been killed on the streets outside Delhi by political goons". (pg 205.) By not specifically identifying the goons as Congressmen, you would like to convey an impression that Safdarji was murdered by those whom you would call as Hindu fundamentalist. You will, of course, protest that you had no such intention. But then do not waste your breath trying to do so. You wanted to demonise the Hindus, and so you HAD to write the way did. And you had to resort to lies since it is difficult to take your agenda forward by telling the truth. We Hindu fundamentalist are amazed that those who today speak in the name of Safdarji have no compunction of using money handed over to them by the very party which was responsible for his killing. A few questions. Why do you not used the name Safdar officially? Would that not be a better way to glorify the person whom you obviously admire so much? Or is it that you reconverted to Hinduism for the Hindu ceremony at your parents place? And if so, did your wife convert to Hinduism prior to the Hindu ceremony? Right at the very end you say that you 'tried to learn about love and tolerance, not in religion but in everyday life' from you wife. Does this mean that your parents did not teach you such things, an essential part of a Hindu life? Your coverage of your visit to the camp of the Kashmiri Hindu refugee camps is really an insult to them. I know you were forced to cover this, because of the Hindu awakening, and if you are accused of being anti-Hindu, you can say that you did mention about these refugees. You have no sympathy about their plight. I guess what your wife tried to teach you is only love and tolerance to the non-Hindus. It would have been better if you had not written on this issue at all. Or you could have said what your friend Smt Teesta Setalvad once said when asked why she did not visit the refugee camps of the Kashmiri Hindus, namely "They are not part of my agenda". ...contd... Dharmayudh Singh Philadelphia, USA
Sep 03, 2004 12:00 AM 14	Hey Ek Hindustani, Look at the irony ...People in India are perfectly OK about a foreigner ruling over us ... but they dont want to hear NRIs comment about their own sacred motherland ? Dharmayudh Singh Philadelphia, USA
Sep 03, 2004 12:00 AM 13	Dear Dharamyudh, Lalit and others, I have often come across comments from Indians deprecating and criticizing NRI for their opinions on R&R on various issues facing India. I can think of two reasons why they do this: One, Indians are self-righteous about India and believe that they alone are capable of observing, analyzing and commenting on the various issues confronting India and Indian society. This is a typical attitude of what-do-you-know-about-India-n-Indian society to NRIs. And equally wrong. NRIs have as much a right to comment on the issues facing us as Indians have, and we are lucky to have clear-headed people with much less bias towards issues to remark objectively on what is ailing India. Let us get out of this frog-in-the-pond mentality and try to understand, appreciate and if possible implement the suggestions of NRIs, wherever possible.Sometimes yr views may be rpttv, but still we welcome them all the same. The second and more negative aspect of this symptom is the jealousy that some of the Indians may feel towards the NRIs. It is typical ‘just because you live in US/UK/Canada (and we could'nt, despite our best efforts), and drive that big car, have better home and all the western facilities (How I wish I had them too!), you think you are smarter (u R), richer (u certainly r) and more capable of commenting on thingz Indian. Some of the readers even ask the NRI to comment on their own country’s issue and not to delve into ours. This is such a crock! NRIs- we are happy to read yr contributions and it is such a pleasure to read yr comments. Sometime, you may be a bit patronizing by attempting to offer simplistic solutions to our complex problems, but we respect yr feelings and the spirit in which they are made n take them in a stride, I assure u. So right on, brothers! Ek Hindustani NewDelhi, India
Sep 02, 2004 12:00 AM 12	People rationalize their cowardice in various ways. Amitav Kumar's way of doing it is to brazen it out. Having lacked the courage to refuse to convert, Kumar is all eager to turn his capitulation to fundamentalists into an act of secular heroics. The dude can lecture his readers on secularism, but couldn't persuade his in-laws-to-be not to pester him to convert! There's someone out there who can write a book titled: "Married to a guy who needed a ball-transplant", and Kumar knows who it is. Raghu Reddy Bangalore, India
Sep 02, 2004 12:00 AM 11	I have to agree with Amrita Rajan. Its obvious Swapan did not like the book. From the one paragraph that Swapan speaks about the book I dont think I will like it either. Swapan writings are very good but here he has not been germane. Doubtless the authors background dictates what the tome is about ... but I was unable to draw the line between Swapans ad hominems and Swapans review. Anyways, with his conversion, Amitava is no longer a part of humanity but of the ummah. Like Barot aka al Hindi or the American Taliban or whoever. So one can very much guess what his book will be about. He has to bash India .. and Hinduism. He has to look for reasons why he left Hinduism. He knows that he was conned by his wife & her relatives. Somebody mentioned something about a trophy wife. Nah. Amitavas the trophy. A Hindu from India whom they managed to convert. And he also wears a suit & boot ... and talks & writes Englistani. I feel sorry for this guy. He seems to be trapped in wagah-like limbo. A Hindu mind & soul in a Muslim body. I think I can understand why he wants to undo partition. Dharmayudh Singh Philadelphia, USA
Sep 01, 2004 12:00 AM 10	It is also detestable how Amitav Kumar resorts to that standard secularist(so called) trick of India-Pakistan equal-equal. Forget the fact that Pakistan does not call itself secular, does not acknowledge the validity of other religions, is a country based solely on hatred of India, Hindus and secularism. Still , the two countries must be equated in their minds! As for Hindus in Pakistan, they are a tiny non-threatening, utterly non-violent minority whose population has come down to 1% of the population! And still Kumar wants, has to, compare. Ridiculous! Varun Shekhar Toronto, CANADA
Sep 01, 2004 12:00 AM 9	Dear Amrita Rajan, Having the 'Pakistani "chick"' -- is that some kind of score that ordinary Indians like Swapan should aspire to? Is she, like, a trophy wife? And why would that be? Do you, Amrita, perhaps suffer from some inferiority complex vis-a-vis Pakistani 'chicks'? And where did Amitava Kumar aka Safdar get his 'big bucks'? From his 'chick' wife? Or are you assuming (incorrectly) that his trite books are raking in the moolah? Talk of unsupportable assumptions! Karan Goyal San Francisco, USA
Sep 01, 2004 12:00 AM 8	Dear Nina I hear you and I agree with a lot of what you have to say. But you and I seem to be talking at cross-purposes. Here is what my deal is: The article in question i.e. ‘Pilgrimage of Denial’ is purported to be a book review of Amitav Kumar’s ‘Husband of Fanatic’. Mr. Dasgupta begins his critique by introducing us to a man called Barot who converted to Islam from Hinduism and subsequently became a terrorist in the fight against India. A couple of paragraphs in, I sincerely thought the book was a biography of Barot. Then, somewhat inexplicably if that was the case, Mr. Dasgupta launched into a highly personal attack on Mr. Kumar and his life. Again I wondered if this was because Mr. Dasgupta wanted to say Mr. Kumar is writing a book about Barot because he (AK) feels there is thus a parallel between their stories. I was astonished – it is an absurd comparison but if Mr. Kumar really feels that way, well, it’s his book! Eventually, somewhere in the middle of the review I am given to understand that the book is actually about Mr. Kumar’s marriage to a Pakistani Muslim. Then I am handed a couple of lines that the reviewer found offensive. I am then treated to the reviewer’s own opinion of the writer and his possible social relevance. A light comes on in my brain and I see that Mr. Kumar has nothing to do with Barot – it is Mr. Dasgupta who came up with this silly parallel. Mr. Dasgupta thus takes the award for the most unhelpful and badly written review I have come across in a long, long time. I now know more than I wanted to about Mr. Kumar (and his critic), but little about the book. So much for my grouse with the ‘review’. Addressing your issues, I have to point out again, that I have not read the book and probably would not have in the normal run of things. I will definitely give it a dekko now, if only to see what the fuss is all about. But regarding the conversion issue, yes I agree it seems to be strange (hypocritical, if you like) that he prefers to be known as Amitav Kumar unless there are legal complications of some kind (visas and things) or perhaps it is because his professional career hinges on that name. Not being Mr. Kumar or having even met him, I do not know. Your thought upon the matter – that it may have something to do with avoiding the stigma attached to Islam in America right now, may well have something to it. But as far as I know this is a really good time to be a Muslim writer in America. Everyone really wants to know what’s going on in their minds. :) And even if he did convert, it’s no big loss. Lots of little Hindus in this world to take up the slack. I don’t know about you, but my religion (Hinduism) is far greater than any one man and it is a matter of supreme indifference to me if one man decides he would rather find a way to the divine by calling him Allah rather than Bhagwan. He’s an adult, educated, presumably in good financial shape and it’s a democratic country – both, the one of his residence and his birth. I really couldn’t care less about what he does to keep his wife happy and neither should you. If you don’t like what Mr. Kumar has to say then don’t buy his book. Simple. But I repeat, I found Mr. Dasgupta’s review to be nonsensical. If he felt he couldn’t attack the writing (he notes Mr. Kumar is gifted) then he should have refused the brief. The whole thing was packaged as a book review and instead I found a lot of tabloid fodder mixed with the reviewer’s political beliefs. PS – I just read the article by Amitav Kumar mentioned by someone else in this forum and in it he says he’s confused about his conversion – is he or isn’t he? So there’s the answer to your question. It’ll probably drive you up the wall, but you did want to know. Amrita Rajan New York, USA
Aug 31, 2004 12:00 AM 7	Nina..Well expressed. Fully agree with your Issues. Anima Sarkar Kolkata, India
Aug 31, 2004 12:00 AM 6	To Amrita Rajan, I don't believe the main grouse with Mr Kumar is that he married a muslim or even a Pakistani at that. It is that he has delusions of being a 'liberal secularist' when infact he is nothing of the sort. For eg, at a press conference for his book launch he mentioned that he has named his daughter Ila Ali Kumar as some sort of token symbol on hindu-muslim amity. Considering that both he and his wife are muslims (since he converted) this strikes me as a complete farce. Why not be honest to the fact that he is now a muslim and give his daughter a wholly muslim name? Who is he trying to fool with this pseudo half hindu identity? I find his attitude hypocritical in the extreme. Secondly, since he has rejected his hindu identity to embrace a new Islamic one why does he continue to call himself Amitrava Kumar and not go by his new muslim name? Is it because he wants to avoid the stigma attached to Islam in the West post 9/11? Again I find his shallow pretences to be just that, pretences. Mr Kumar is more concernd with his image as that of a liberal secular hindu than with living by the tenets of being a secularist. If he were a true secularist, his remaining a hindu while married to a muslim would have been enough. By converting, he has disproved his secular credentials by rejecting one faith outright, that which he was born into. Infact by converting to Islam, Mr Kumar has only proved the RSS point that hindus and muslims cannot live as equals but that hindus are expected to deny their own identiity to get along with muslims. For a true secularist, look at Gandhiji, who remained a devout hindu while also embracing other faiths. Mr Kumar is just another convert, another weak man who has denied his own heritage to please the woman he loves. Please do not glorify him as anything more than that. Nina london, UK
Aug 30, 2004 12:00 AM 5	Amitava Kumar wrote elsewhere in this Outlook.com, "I was asked to choose a Muslim name. I was told that in Pakistan, the marriage of a Muslim to a non-Muslim is not recognised" (http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fname=travel ogue&fodname=20010319&sid=1 (no space)). Mr. Kumar would have done justice to his "fighting liberal" image, if he had taken issue with this basic Human Rights violation. Probably his "future" relative Respected Asma Jehangir would have helped him going to The International Court, at the Hague ! Give us a break, Mr. Kumar ! Tanmoy Ghosh Burdwan, USA
Aug 30, 2004 12:00 AM 4	As I have yet to read the book and it is fairly evident from the critique that the reviewer is right on the other end of the intellectual divide, I will wait to make up my mind. Re: the review, Mr. Dasgupta asks, “Kumar and Barot, is there a difference?” Well, let’s see – one was a bomb-bearing terrorist bent upon murder and the other (and I quote Mr. Dasgupta here) is a “slightly pathetic” writer whose main sin seems to be that he is married to a woman whose nationality and religion are disliked by the reviewer. If one were to go by Mr. Dasgupta’s concluding argument, he is of Mani Shankar Aiyer’s frame of mind i.e. if your thoughts connect at a point, any point, with a terrorist, you are equally a terrorist. If that is so then he is advised to seek a new set of friends for I presume his present friends in politics won’t look too kindly upon him. The problem with extremists is that they are eventually incapable of formulating a sane and nuanced argument, if they were at all capable in the first place. This descent into insanity and unintelligibility is not confined to any particular faith or international border. So perhaps the real question here is, “Kumar and Dasgupta, is there a difference?” Oh, wait, I know – Kumar got the big bucks…and the Pakistani chick. Amrita Rajan New York, USA
Aug 30, 2004 12:00 AM 3	Amitava Kumaris spineless like all those other converts. He has rejected his anicent fairth out of ignorance and now mistakenlu believes himself to be a 'secularist' when in fact he is nothing but a fundamentalist muslim now. And yes, its interesting that he is trying to portray himnself as a secular hindu by using his hindu name. Nina london, UK
Aug 30, 2004 12:00 AM 2	Later, in a slightly pathetic attempt to distract from his weakness of character, he rationalised his conversion as "the exploration of doubt or what I would call the benefits of half-faith." Verry well put by Mr Dasgupta. Why is Amitava Kumar retaining his Hindu name after converitng to Islam ? Prasenjit Delhi, Delhi
Aug 30, 2004 12:00 AM 1	Agree with you 100% percent. People like kumar are the most disgusting characters. These are the agents of weekness and doubt. There are people I would agree with and there are those who I dis-agree. This one is simply dis-agreeable Srini Jasti San Jose, USA

Aug 30, 2004 12:00 AM 1	Agree with you 100% percent. People like kumar are the most disgusting characters. These are the agents of weekness and doubt. There are people I would agree with and there are those who I dis-agree. This one is simply dis-agreeable Srini Jasti San Jose, USA
Aug 30, 2004 12:00 AM 2	Later, in a slightly pathetic attempt to distract from his weakness of character, he rationalised his conversion as "the exploration of doubt or what I would call the benefits of half-faith." Verry well put by Mr Dasgupta. Why is Amitava Kumar retaining his Hindu name after converitng to Islam ? Prasenjit Delhi, Delhi
Aug 30, 2004 12:00 AM 3	Amitava Kumaris spineless like all those other converts. He has rejected his anicent fairth out of ignorance and now mistakenlu believes himself to be a 'secularist' when in fact he is nothing but a fundamentalist muslim now. And yes, its interesting that he is trying to portray himnself as a secular hindu by using his hindu name. Nina london, UK
Aug 30, 2004 12:00 AM 4	As I have yet to read the book and it is fairly evident from the critique that the reviewer is right on the other end of the intellectual divide, I will wait to make up my mind. Re: the review, Mr. Dasgupta asks, “Kumar and Barot, is there a difference?” Well, let’s see – one was a bomb-bearing terrorist bent upon murder and the other (and I quote Mr. Dasgupta here) is a “slightly pathetic” writer whose main sin seems to be that he is married to a woman whose nationality and religion are disliked by the reviewer. If one were to go by Mr. Dasgupta’s concluding argument, he is of Mani Shankar Aiyer’s frame of mind i.e. if your thoughts connect at a point, any point, with a terrorist, you are equally a terrorist. If that is so then he is advised to seek a new set of friends for I presume his present friends in politics won’t look too kindly upon him. The problem with extremists is that they are eventually incapable of formulating a sane and nuanced argument, if they were at all capable in the first place. This descent into insanity and unintelligibility is not confined to any particular faith or international border. So perhaps the real question here is, “Kumar and Dasgupta, is there a difference?” Oh, wait, I know – Kumar got the big bucks…and the Pakistani chick. Amrita Rajan New York, USA
Aug 30, 2004 12:00 AM 5	Amitava Kumar wrote elsewhere in this Outlook.com, "I was asked to choose a Muslim name. I was told that in Pakistan, the marriage of a Muslim to a non-Muslim is not recognised" (http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fname=travel ogue&fodname=20010319&sid=1 (no space)). Mr. Kumar would have done justice to his "fighting liberal" image, if he had taken issue with this basic Human Rights violation. Probably his "future" relative Respected Asma Jehangir would have helped him going to The International Court, at the Hague ! Give us a break, Mr. Kumar ! Tanmoy Ghosh Burdwan, USA
Aug 31, 2004 12:00 AM 6	To Amrita Rajan, I don't believe the main grouse with Mr Kumar is that he married a muslim or even a Pakistani at that. It is that he has delusions of being a 'liberal secularist' when infact he is nothing of the sort. For eg, at a press conference for his book launch he mentioned that he has named his daughter Ila Ali Kumar as some sort of token symbol on hindu-muslim amity. Considering that both he and his wife are muslims (since he converted) this strikes me as a complete farce. Why not be honest to the fact that he is now a muslim and give his daughter a wholly muslim name? Who is he trying to fool with this pseudo half hindu identity? I find his attitude hypocritical in the extreme. Secondly, since he has rejected his hindu identity to embrace a new Islamic one why does he continue to call himself Amitrava Kumar and not go by his new muslim name? Is it because he wants to avoid the stigma attached to Islam in the West post 9/11? Again I find his shallow pretences to be just that, pretences. Mr Kumar is more concernd with his image as that of a liberal secular hindu than with living by the tenets of being a secularist. If he were a true secularist, his remaining a hindu while married to a muslim would have been enough. By converting, he has disproved his secular credentials by rejecting one faith outright, that which he was born into. Infact by converting to Islam, Mr Kumar has only proved the RSS point that hindus and muslims cannot live as equals but that hindus are expected to deny their own identiity to get along with muslims. For a true secularist, look at Gandhiji, who remained a devout hindu while also embracing other faiths. Mr Kumar is just another convert, another weak man who has denied his own heritage to please the woman he loves. Please do not glorify him as anything more than that. Nina london, UK
Aug 31, 2004 12:00 AM 7	Nina..Well expressed. Fully agree with your Issues. Anima Sarkar Kolkata, India
Sep 01, 2004 12:00 AM 8	Dear Nina I hear you and I agree with a lot of what you have to say. But you and I seem to be talking at cross-purposes. Here is what my deal is: The article in question i.e. ‘Pilgrimage of Denial’ is purported to be a book review of Amitav Kumar’s ‘Husband of Fanatic’. Mr. Dasgupta begins his critique by introducing us to a man called Barot who converted to Islam from Hinduism and subsequently became a terrorist in the fight against India. A couple of paragraphs in, I sincerely thought the book was a biography of Barot. Then, somewhat inexplicably if that was the case, Mr. Dasgupta launched into a highly personal attack on Mr. Kumar and his life. Again I wondered if this was because Mr. Dasgupta wanted to say Mr. Kumar is writing a book about Barot because he (AK) feels there is thus a parallel between their stories. I was astonished – it is an absurd comparison but if Mr. Kumar really feels that way, well, it’s his book! Eventually, somewhere in the middle of the review I am given to understand that the book is actually about Mr. Kumar’s marriage to a Pakistani Muslim. Then I am handed a couple of lines that the reviewer found offensive. I am then treated to the reviewer’s own opinion of the writer and his possible social relevance. A light comes on in my brain and I see that Mr. Kumar has nothing to do with Barot – it is Mr. Dasgupta who came up with this silly parallel. Mr. Dasgupta thus takes the award for the most unhelpful and badly written review I have come across in a long, long time. I now know more than I wanted to about Mr. Kumar (and his critic), but little about the book. So much for my grouse with the ‘review’. Addressing your issues, I have to point out again, that I have not read the book and probably would not have in the normal run of things. I will definitely give it a dekko now, if only to see what the fuss is all about. But regarding the conversion issue, yes I agree it seems to be strange (hypocritical, if you like) that he prefers to be known as Amitav Kumar unless there are legal complications of some kind (visas and things) or perhaps it is because his professional career hinges on that name. Not being Mr. Kumar or having even met him, I do not know. Your thought upon the matter – that it may have something to do with avoiding the stigma attached to Islam in America right now, may well have something to it. But as far as I know this is a really good time to be a Muslim writer in America. Everyone really wants to know what’s going on in their minds. :) And even if he did convert, it’s no big loss. Lots of little Hindus in this world to take up the slack. I don’t know about you, but my religion (Hinduism) is far greater than any one man and it is a matter of supreme indifference to me if one man decides he would rather find a way to the divine by calling him Allah rather than Bhagwan. He’s an adult, educated, presumably in good financial shape and it’s a democratic country – both, the one of his residence and his birth. I really couldn’t care less about what he does to keep his wife happy and neither should you. If you don’t like what Mr. Kumar has to say then don’t buy his book. Simple. But I repeat, I found Mr. Dasgupta’s review to be nonsensical. If he felt he couldn’t attack the writing (he notes Mr. Kumar is gifted) then he should have refused the brief. The whole thing was packaged as a book review and instead I found a lot of tabloid fodder mixed with the reviewer’s political beliefs. PS – I just read the article by Amitav Kumar mentioned by someone else in this forum and in it he says he’s confused about his conversion – is he or isn’t he? So there’s the answer to your question. It’ll probably drive you up the wall, but you did want to know. Amrita Rajan New York, USA
Sep 01, 2004 12:00 AM 9	Dear Amrita Rajan, Having the 'Pakistani "chick"' -- is that some kind of score that ordinary Indians like Swapan should aspire to? Is she, like, a trophy wife? And why would that be? Do you, Amrita, perhaps suffer from some inferiority complex vis-a-vis Pakistani 'chicks'? And where did Amitava Kumar aka Safdar get his 'big bucks'? From his 'chick' wife? Or are you assuming (incorrectly) that his trite books are raking in the moolah? Talk of unsupportable assumptions! Karan Goyal San Francisco, USA
Sep 01, 2004 12:00 AM 10	It is also detestable how Amitav Kumar resorts to that standard secularist(so called) trick of India-Pakistan equal-equal. Forget the fact that Pakistan does not call itself secular, does not acknowledge the validity of other religions, is a country based solely on hatred of India, Hindus and secularism. Still , the two countries must be equated in their minds! As for Hindus in Pakistan, they are a tiny non-threatening, utterly non-violent minority whose population has come down to 1% of the population! And still Kumar wants, has to, compare. Ridiculous! Varun Shekhar Toronto, CANADA
Sep 02, 2004 12:00 AM 11	I have to agree with Amrita Rajan. Its obvious Swapan did not like the book. From the one paragraph that Swapan speaks about the book I dont think I will like it either. Swapan writings are very good but here he has not been germane. Doubtless the authors background dictates what the tome is about ... but I was unable to draw the line between Swapans ad hominems and Swapans review. Anyways, with his conversion, Amitava is no longer a part of humanity but of the ummah. Like Barot aka al Hindi or the American Taliban or whoever. So one can very much guess what his book will be about. He has to bash India .. and Hinduism. He has to look for reasons why he left Hinduism. He knows that he was conned by his wife & her relatives. Somebody mentioned something about a trophy wife. Nah. Amitavas the trophy. A Hindu from India whom they managed to convert. And he also wears a suit & boot ... and talks & writes Englistani. I feel sorry for this guy. He seems to be trapped in wagah-like limbo. A Hindu mind & soul in a Muslim body. I think I can understand why he wants to undo partition. Dharmayudh Singh Philadelphia, USA
Sep 02, 2004 12:00 AM 12	People rationalize their cowardice in various ways. Amitav Kumar's way of doing it is to brazen it out. Having lacked the courage to refuse to convert, Kumar is all eager to turn his capitulation to fundamentalists into an act of secular heroics. The dude can lecture his readers on secularism, but couldn't persuade his in-laws-to-be not to pester him to convert! There's someone out there who can write a book titled: "Married to a guy who needed a ball-transplant", and Kumar knows who it is. Raghu Reddy Bangalore, India
Sep 03, 2004 12:00 AM 13	Dear Dharamyudh, Lalit and others, I have often come across comments from Indians deprecating and criticizing NRI for their opinions on R&R on various issues facing India. I can think of two reasons why they do this: One, Indians are self-righteous about India and believe that they alone are capable of observing, analyzing and commenting on the various issues confronting India and Indian society. This is a typical attitude of what-do-you-know-about-India-n-Indian society to NRIs. And equally wrong. NRIs have as much a right to comment on the issues facing us as Indians have, and we are lucky to have clear-headed people with much less bias towards issues to remark objectively on what is ailing India. Let us get out of this frog-in-the-pond mentality and try to understand, appreciate and if possible implement the suggestions of NRIs, wherever possible.Sometimes yr views may be rpttv, but still we welcome them all the same. The second and more negative aspect of this symptom is the jealousy that some of the Indians may feel towards the NRIs. It is typical ‘just because you live in US/UK/Canada (and we could'nt, despite our best efforts), and drive that big car, have better home and all the western facilities (How I wish I had them too!), you think you are smarter (u R), richer (u certainly r) and more capable of commenting on thingz Indian. Some of the readers even ask the NRI to comment on their own country’s issue and not to delve into ours. This is such a crock! NRIs- we are happy to read yr contributions and it is such a pleasure to read yr comments. Sometime, you may be a bit patronizing by attempting to offer simplistic solutions to our complex problems, but we respect yr feelings and the spirit in which they are made n take them in a stride, I assure u. So right on, brothers! Ek Hindustani NewDelhi, India
Sep 03, 2004 12:00 AM 14	Hey Ek Hindustani, Look at the irony ...People in India are perfectly OK about a foreigner ruling over us ... but they dont want to hear NRIs comment about their own sacred motherland ? Dharmayudh Singh Philadelphia, USA
Sep 07, 2004 12:00 AM 15	Letter Sent to Amitava Kumar by Ashok Chowgulen(VHP) Subject: Your book "Husband of a fanatic" Dear Amitavaji, Pranam, I read your book "Husband of a fanatic" and it fully met my expecations. During our meeting in Mumbai, you had hinted that you would write about our encounter, and that it would not be something to my liking. As is the standard operating procedure in the secular intellectual circles, you had already decided what your book was going to be all about, and then went about getting the data which would confirm your conclusions. You wrote about Prof Dinesh Agarwal, yet you decided to 'hide' his identity. I checked with Dineshji and asked him if he had asked you not to disclose his identity. He said he did no such thing. Your doing so, and the fact that you used the name 'Dalmiya' shows the cruel streak in you. I guess it goes with the territory called secular intellectual. Your book set about to demonise the Hindus and glorify the Muslims. You think you might have succeeded - but please do not think that the reader is a fool. Only those who have not read your book will speak well of it, as Shri Anurag Kashyap is supposed to have done, as per a report in the Free Press Journal, copy enclosed. On page 9 you say: "The act (at Godhra) was BELIEVED to be the work of Muslims, and in the days that followed, Hindu mobs raped and burned with IMPUNITY in towns and villages all over Gujarat." (Emphasis added.) So you have a doubt whether those who burnt the 58 Hindus at Godhra were Muslims. But you have no doubt that the reaction of the Hindus was with impunity. I guess given where you come from nothing different was expected. Upon your conversion, you chose to call yourself Safdar, "after Safdar Hasmi, a dynamic, young theatre activists in India who had been killed on the streets outside Delhi by political goons". (pg 205.) By not specifically identifying the goons as Congressmen, you would like to convey an impression that Safdarji was murdered by those whom you would call as Hindu fundamentalist. You will, of course, protest that you had no such intention. But then do not waste your breath trying to do so. You wanted to demonise the Hindus, and so you HAD to write the way did. And you had to resort to lies since it is difficult to take your agenda forward by telling the truth. We Hindu fundamentalist are amazed that those who today speak in the name of Safdarji have no compunction of using money handed over to them by the very party which was responsible for his killing. A few questions. Why do you not used the name Safdar officially? Would that not be a better way to glorify the person whom you obviously admire so much? Or is it that you reconverted to Hinduism for the Hindu ceremony at your parents place? And if so, did your wife convert to Hinduism prior to the Hindu ceremony? Right at the very end you say that you 'tried to learn about love and tolerance, not in religion but in everyday life' from you wife. Does this mean that your parents did not teach you such things, an essential part of a Hindu life? Your coverage of your visit to the camp of the Kashmiri Hindu refugee camps is really an insult to them. I know you were forced to cover this, because of the Hindu awakening, and if you are accused of being anti-Hindu, you can say that you did mention about these refugees. You have no sympathy about their plight. I guess what your wife tried to teach you is only love and tolerance to the non-Hindus. It would have been better if you had not written on this issue at all. Or you could have said what your friend Smt Teesta Setalvad once said when asked why she did not visit the refugee camps of the Kashmiri Hindus, namely "They are not part of my agenda". ...contd... Dharmayudh Singh Philadelphia, USA
Sep 07, 2004 12:00 AM 16	You secularists would be most dissatisfied if the Muslims decide that they will live in peace with the Hindus, and respect the memory of their ancestors. It would then mean that you will have to make an honest effort for living. I am constantly amazed of how low the secularist stoop for pecuniary reasons. I thought I would point to some material which would disabuse your mind. But then it would mean that you would find it difficult to look at yourself in the mirror. I do not wish you to nick yourself while shaving. Namaste. Ashok Chowgule. Dharmayudh Singh Philadelphia, USA
Sep 09, 2004 12:00 AM 17	Frankly speaking, Safdar Ali's book is very mediocre, written in a tired and pretentious prose. He has made his private life public and now can hardly complain if his readers mock his private life. The fact remains that Amitava Kumar caved in to Islamic fanaticism and converted to Islam officially. If he had any sense of fairness, he would have asked his wife to convert to Hindu Dharma. Or if she had genuine love for him, she would have reciprocated his gesture by converting to Hindu Dharma herself. Let us consider the position Shariah takes on inter-religion marraiges: 1. A Muslim woman CANNOT marry a non-Muslim man. Such a nuptial is not recognized by Koran and their union is considered adultery. The couple can be stoned to death for this offence. 2. A Muslim woman CANNOT convert to her non-Muslim spouse's faith in order to marry him if she was born of Muslim parents. Such a case of apostasy is punishable by death. 3. A non-Muslim man can covert to Islam if he wishes to marry a Muslim woman, just as Safdar Ali nee Amitava Kumar did. 4. A Muslim man can 'marry' a non-Muslim woman but his 'wife' does not really have the status of a 'wife' and is subsumed in the category 'the women your right hand possesses' (Koranic euphemism for concubine). As examples, Prophet Muhammad had Muslim wives but his consorts such as Reyhana the Jewess and Miriam the Coptic Christian are NOT considered his wives though he consummated his 'marraige' with them and one of them bore a child for him. By any modern yardstick, this Islamic law is misogynist and anti-Kafir against humane principles and by converting to Islam, Safdar has merely lent his support to a discrimatory law that is based upon the inequality of man and woman in Islam, and between Muslims and non-Muslims in Islam. Safdar was never true to the faith of his parents. So he was not honest to Hindu Dharma. He says his conversion to Islam was merely a formality meant to fool his inlaws so that he could marry his wife in Pakistan. Therefore he is not honest to Islam. He presents his mother in a bad light in his book. So he is not honest to his parents. He is not honest to his wife's family because he did not genuinely convert. If his wife really loves him, why did she also not convert to Hinduism when he converted to Islam? THAT would alone demonstrate true love on her part. Safdar's entire life is therefore a lie, a fraud, and a dishonest endeavor. By his formal conversion however, he has ensured heaven (with houris and male consorts or gilmans et al) to his wife's grandmother! No amount of posturing can get rid of the image that he carries - a conceited coward who converted to please his manipulative wife. A bad son who ridiculed his parents in public. A deluded person who does not know who he is and where he is from and who therefore does not know where he is heading. While he tells us that his daughter is Ila Ali, he perhaps tells his in laws that she is actually Illah Ali ! Like a neo-convert to Communism that must denounce his parents and his roots, Safdar denounces Hindus and Hindu Dharma. When was the last time this self seeking, cowardly convert visited camps of Hindu refugees in Kashmir, Bangladesh, NE India and Pakistan?? Sincerely, Vishal Agarwal Vishal Agarwal Minneapolis, USA

COLLAPSE COMMENTS


Post a Comment
You are not logged in, please log in or register

Comments Policy

We at outlookindia.com welcome your feedback to the articles, stories and blogs featured by us.

But please note the following:

1. Please keep your comments/feedback limited to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all. It is for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site. Please try and keep your comments concise and clear. Short messages tend to get noticed and also have a high probability of getting published in our respective print magazines.

2. Please do not spam us. Please do not post the same message again and again. Even in different threads.

3. Scathing, passionate, even angry, critique is welcome; abuse and invective is not. We request civility and urge our readers to try and express their disagreements, if any, without being disagreeable. There is just no space for personal attacks. No ad hominem please.

4. If any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and/or also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser(s).

Please note that it may not be possible for our moderators to sift through your messages and if they find more than one instance of abuse, they may decide to delete all your messages ever posted by you rather than spend time trying to locate all the abusive ones. Therefore, if you want us to take you seriously and for your messages to be retained on the site, please ensure that you do not cross the civil lines of propriety.

Please note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.

Our endeavour is to keep these forums un-moderated and unexpurgated. Please help us help you.

5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not stoop to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message with links to the offending mails at the following email address: Mail AT outlookindia DOT com. Please put "COMPLAINT" in the subject-header of your mail.

6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you think that an article on another site has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered "fair-use" and provide a link to the article under question.

7. There is no particular Outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and do not necessarily reflect the views of Outlookindia.com

8. Please also note that the sole responsibility for the comments posted on the site is that of the relevant registered user posting the comment. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of a comment's existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of its contents. Outlookindia.com however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever.

9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays the comments posted by you. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:

a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially show up on search engines such as Google, Bing etc.

10. There is an online thread for our comments policy. You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT.

We look forward to your feedback.