M.J. Akbar denies paternity

British press are having a field day at the expense of The Asian Age editor MJ Akbar. In the latest sex scandal to rock London, the dailies reported that Akbar fathered the one month old baby boy, Lorcan, second child of Kimberley Fortier Quinn, 44, publisher of The Spectator magazine. She is famously known as the ex-lover of David Blunkett, who had to resign last December as Britain’s home secretary after an inquiry into how Quinn’s Filipina nanny got a visa.

During the three year affair, Blunkett fathered Quinn’s firstborn William. The affair ended badly and she reconciled with her husband Stephen Quinn, 60, who works for Vogue magazine. He has never claimed to be the “biological” father of either child. His only interest, he has repeatedly stressed, is to protect his wife and his family.

A dna test confirmed that Blunkett was not the biological father of Lorcan. Blunkett is currently suing Quinn for visitation rights to William. The Quinns blame Blunkett for having leaked the paternity report. Britian’s general elections are in May this year.

Akbar, 54, vehemently denies the alleged paternity. He admits to being “friends” with Quinn but denies they had any “improper association”.

“Of course I know her,” he is reported to have said. “We have a professional relationship as I publish Spectator pieces in my newspaper. But if you are implying anything else that’s not true.”

To drive home the point, he insisted that they had not even shared...‘‘a Bill Clinton moment”.

Akbar’s wife Mallika was said to be “more amused than angry” when contacted by The Mail on Sunday.

“I’ve only just heard about it,” she told the paper, laughing. “It’s amazing. It’s not that he’s not capable of doing such a thing, but for once I don’t think it’s true.” She also said: “I met Kimberly in London. She was very friendly and very sweet. If it were true, I would be very disappointed, but I don’t think it is.”

Akbar claims that he was not in London in May last year, when the baby was conceived. He claimed to be busy with the general elections (in India) during that time. Outraged over what he termed as “malicious” he has slapped legal notices on them seeking substantial damages, apology and retraction.

This could very well be tantamount to waving a red flag under nose of the British tabloid press, which will go to great lengths to expose any skeleton that might be rattling in Akbar’s past, in a bid to prove their story.

March 19, 2005