The Death of Rajon

Adnan R. Amin:

[WARNING: explicit/graphic topic] a tragic, blood-curling video surfaced on Bangladeshi social media recently. It showed a boy of twelve being beaten to death. In latest updates, absconding killer has been arrested in Saudi Arabia and is currently being extradited. Here’s to demanding exemplary punishment.

Originally posted on Alal O Dulal:

Thirteen year old Rajon being tortured. Images taken from video uploaded by his torturers. Source: Dhaka Tribune. Thirteen year old Rajon being tortured. Images taken from video uploaded by his torturers. Source: Dhaka Tribune.

The Death of Rajon

by Adnan R. Amin for AlalODulal.org

A thirteen year old boy has been beaten to death.

Samiul Alam Rajon had studied up to the fourth grade and used to sell vegetables to make a living. His father is a microbus driver by profession. He and unnamed accomplices were suspected of stealing a rickshaw van. The boy was beaten, poked, tortured for nearly half an hour, resulting in his death.

View original 1,018 more words

Return of the Other: Thoughts on Human Divisions

Reblogged from Alochonaa.org

These are a layman’s thoughts on Human divisions. The innumerable slits, cuts and boxes that divide people, century after century, are of our own devise. Given the wars, skirmishes, riots, discrimination, apartheid, systemic-racism and sexism thriving in our post-modern societies, the jubilant theme of ‘celebrating diversity’ seems more like wishful, sentimental rhetoric, witnessed only in artificially conjured greenhouses; it feels like talk not walked. To foster Tolerance, if not true Diversity, the roots of division need to be examined and understood again and again.

1. Xenophobia: A Sort of ‘They’

“All good people agree,
And all good people say,
All nice people, like Us, are We
And every one else is They:
But if you cross over the sea,
Instead of over the way,
You may end by (think of it!) looking on We
As only a sort of They!”
Rudyard Kipling

Mutual mistrust between people of different races, ethnicities, communities or tribes – I will argue – is only human. It would have sent shudders through upright spines when Neanderthals first laid eyes on a band of modern humans. Even had they known it, they would not have been comforted by the fact that the difference in their DNA was a mere 0.12 percent. Sure, in time, they would even interbreed. But one may speculate that a tribalist instinct would have remained in both camps. That is human nature for you: we fear the Unknown. We compare, we distinguish, we discriminateEven in the post-Enlightenment world, this phenomenon manifests itself in the form of irrational fear, hatred, and suspicion of Others: aliens, foreigners, infidels, atheists, homosexuals, Aboriginals, immigrants, midgets, hermaphrodites and so on. This fear has a name.

xeno

The Primitive Roots of Xenophobia: Clearly, Xenophobia is culturally-inculcated and socially-transmitted but it also has historical roots. During primitive times, humans noted the benefit of intra-group cooperation that went beyond selfish motivations or wanting to help close kin. Pooling energy, efforts and resources – even among strangers – achieved better survival or economic results for a group. Thus cooperating with strangers set humankind apart from animals.[1] It also led to the development of social institutions based on common goals and ambitions.

But this cooperation often stopped short of an ‘outsider’ i.e. a non-member of a defined group. Such interaction was more likely to bring harm (or loss of profitable exchanges), rather than benefit. It is also possible that outsiders were viewed as ‘free-riders’ (an Other), not party to the group’s cooperation norms, yet intent upon getting a share of the group’s public goods. It was in the group’s and the individuals’ interests to thwart this attempt. This exclusionary behavior also strengthened the coherence of groups.

other in popculture

It’s easy to assume xenophobia to be a fancy term for racism but that would be confusing. Firstly, racist mentalities are a type of xenophobia. And secondly, despite its dictionary meaning, in common parlance the word ‘racism’ has become inextricably intertwined with the American experience of the white oppression of black peoples, thus altering its political implications. This is partly why terms like ‘reverse racism’ and ‘white guilt’ emerged in Western discourse on Racism.

While ‘racism’ has been used to describe many other instances of discrimination, the sheer volume of discourse, cultural depictions and artifacts produced about American racism often skews its meaning. Thus the economic exigency of 17th century America is brought to overshadow the xenophobia that was systematically cultivated to rationalize slavery (e.g. Negroes have no souls). Xenophobia, on the other hand, is a larger, wider and more common phenomenon, so common that we often do not recognize it in ourselves. Ironically, the reason why we don’t find the word ‘xenophobia’ in books quite as frequently as we do ‘homophobia’, ‘racism’ or ‘Islamophobia’, may just be that xenophobia is so universal a syndrome.

ngram

I will also contend that generally, such fear or hatred is not very intense, unless triggered, shaped, nurtured by confirmatory opinions or experiences. Learning, dialog, interaction, art and travel may largely allay it, as evidenced in highly cosmopolitan cities like New York or London.

So it can be said that people tend to have a categorical awareness of other races, genders, ethnicities, religion and/or tongues (variations in lesser discriminators – castes, professions, hair colors, addresses, church affiliations – hypothetically, will create weaker impressions). And that leads to a comparison with only other dataset available: people’s own. Are they shorter? Are they louder? Do they sleep naked? Do they think and dream like us? Are they as principled? Do they have the same goals? Do they worship our God? Do they like Robin Thicke? Do they subscribe to my notion of propriety and tradition? Do they hate me too?

Naturally, this cannot be an active cognitive process. Or else most people would just stand around processing new data as they encountered new individuals. It is more like PRISM, running in the background lapping up conversations and ‘intel’ to be stored under particular categories. The level of activity varies with – among other things – the intensity of the interaction and the perceived, inherent appeal or significance of the observed specimen. Some psychologists argue that distinguishing between ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ is a neuro-psychological capacity.

It has been demonstrated that even grouping based on trivial distinctions like ‘the color of shirts’ create strong in-group favoritism (Tajfel, 1970) People choose to associate with others who are similar to themselves in some salient respect. Among the salient characteristics on which this choice operates are racial and ethnic identification, and religion.[1]

In another study, exposure to (unfamiliar) faces of African American males (by comparison to the faces of European Americans), European American subjects exhibited heightened activation of the amygdala, an area of the brain associated with fear processing (Phelps 2000).

Either way, in the long term, this leads to the formation of stereotypes, which are meant to act as a template for understanding Others, but are often ethnocentric, misinformed, prejudiced and injudicious in general. Common examples stretch from drawing inferences based on hair color (blondes are dumb) to professions (lawyers are crooks), from economic status (the poor are lazy) to nationalities (Canadians are boring). Herein lies the beginnings of ethnocentrism: the attitude that one’s own group or culture is superior to that of others’.

2. Othering: Leaders As Stepmothers

Human collectives have long relied on ‘Others’ to give meaning to their own existence, preferences, traditions, practices, beliefs and behaviors. How they view a particular Other is naturally tinged by Xenophobia, Ethnocentrism (superiority complex), racial bias, prejudice etc. As groups evolve into tribes, empires and nations – leaders must organize and consolidate their identity, mythologies and heritage; simultaneously, the need to better define corresponding Other(s) also becomes more urgent.

Leaders of tribes, empires and nations have long been proffering such distinctions. In fact, leaders have indeed been cultivating it to Otherize (i.e. make distinct as aliens) inconvenient, intractable or threatening minorities. Othering (orOtherizing) is useful: not only can it provide a canvass to contextualize the dominant identity and thus improve social-coherence, it can also deepen divisions, fuel sectarian violence and unify an apathetic collective. Fanning a hatred of or distaste for Others has also proven to be an extremely effective electioneering strategy (e.g. pandering to anti-immigrant sentiments). Thus, through leaders’ actions, a society’s superiority, in relation to an Other’s inferiority, becomes ingrained in legislature, history, governance and foreign policy.

How the 'Ours' and 'Theirs' lenses change worldviews (illustration: Tom Gauld)

With systematic Othering, it is the difference between groups that becomes prominent, and not what binds them together. The result is an overly-competitive environment, reduced inter-group collaboration and group members who prefer group gains to his/her own benefit or to that of the Others.[1]

All nations that came to believe that they possessed the one, absolute Truth, have used that belief to elevate themselves above neighboring tribes and nations. The Jewish ascribe(d) to the notion of the ‘Chosen People’. By definition that meant that the rest had not been chosen and were, therefore, unworthy. Hindus subscribed to systems of caste that helped divide and distinguish its believers. In 6th century Arabia, Muhammad Ibn Abdullah – by defining specific faith parameters to be considered a ‘Muslim’ and thus separating true believers from non-believers and traitors – started a tradition that Otherized all other faiths. Combined with subsequent East-West conflicts and conquests, Islam’s exclusivist nature may have laid the foundations for a massive counter-Othering project to take place in the 21st century. In this century of nation-states, Othering reduces a target community (or a group of Others) to the point where action against it can be justified, even celebrated as national achievement.

Laws are only one of the ways Othering is implemented. Black Codes (1865, USA), Chinese Exclusion Act (1923, Canada) Nuremberg Laws (1935, Germany), Apartheid Laws (1948, South Africa), Absentee Landlord Laws (1950, Israel) and Anti-LGBT Laws (2013, Russia) are visible symptoms of a course of Othering adopted against each relevant group. At the time, each of these provisions were used to glorify and protect a group, by demeaning and attacking another. That is the essence of Othering.

Naturally, Othering is more often used against weaker races, nations, tribes or communities. This is the privilege, the prerogative, the fetish and the destiny of majority rule. Othering is achieved through various means: portraying Others negatively in national myths, commissioning and producing ‘knowledge’ of Others, indoctrination of fear through education, consistent & selective demonization of Others, portraying rivalries with (and treachery of) Others, holding Others responsible for collective misery, surveillance & policing of Others, shaping of media narratives, influencing of art, literature & cinema and sustenance of a general environment of fear.

Nazi propaganda poster

The Hutu used ‘Human Virtues‘ to slander the Tutsi in Rwanda. Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich chose ‘Purity of Blood‘ as a discriminator to Otherize the Jewish community. Before that, ancient Romans considered the ‘degree of civilization’ – as illustrated by the term ‘Barbarians’, used to contrast Roman citizens – to Otherize the Turkish, Persian or Germanic peoples.

Hutu extremists used a foul-mouthed ‘Hate Radio‘ that directly issued kill orders. Nazi Germany unleashed a hate campaign that has virtually become a model for dehumanization. “Today,” Hitler proclaimed in 1943, “international Jewry is the ferment of decomposition of peoples and states, just as it was in antiquity. It will remain that way as long as peoples do not find the strength to get rid of the virus.”

Having a distinct fear of Others may not be harmful per se. But an inevitable outcome of systematic Othering is that it reduces people: it essentializes them down to a race, gender, ethnicity or caste. This, in turn, opens up avenues that lead to what I will call the “4Ds ofOthering”: discrimination, demonization, dehumanization and domination.

Discrimination may be thought of a preliminary phase where an Other is clearly separated from a (usually superior) group. Consider how White people working abroad are dubbed ‘expats’, while all others are ‘immigrants’. Note howmore stringent visa requirements apply for citizens of developing countries. Dehumanization examples abound in recent history. Some are explicit and oozing with hate. In the instances cited earlier, there was systematic Othering of the Tutsi, Jewish and Oriental peoplesThe Jewish people were dubbed ‘rats’ and the Tutsis, ‘cockroaches’. [4] The self-proclaimed Herrenvolk (Master Race), in describing the Polish, called them “an East European species of cockroach.”

Figure: the 4Ds of Human Cruelty (building on Zimbardo's Lucifer Effect)

Other dehumanization attempts are more sophisticated in nature and operate under the guise of civility. Until the 1920s and 1960s respectively, women and Black people were not allowed to vote in the USA. In 1947, the French instituted a two-tier parliament as an attempt to include Algerian Muslims in decision-making. But they made one European’s vote equal to seven Muslim votes. Until this day, the Saudi government bans women from driving. Such legislation only reinforced the prevailing notion that women / Blacks / Muslims were a subhuman species.

Whatever the manner, the end result of dehumanization is that it makes cruelty against the target population permissible. In case of the Jewish people in Germany or Tutsi in Rwanda, Othering escalated to virulent hate-campaigns, ghettoization, oppression and bloodshed against the victims, without decisive soul-searching, opposition or rebellion on the part of the aggressors. It may be said that dehumanization of the Other had been completed in these societies, allowing citizens to condone, or at least tolerate, actions against a dehumanized minority. This is what Philip Zimbardo (of the Stanford Prison Experiment fame) calls the ‘Lucifer Effect‘.

What must be noted is that periods of motivated, systematic and institutional discrimination, slander and dehumanization preceded violence and bloodshed in each case. It was not generic xenophobic reactions, but organized campaigns of hate with political motives that enabled the violence to take place. Othering is, therefore, a deliberate exercise of political power.

3. The Others: Browns Are the New Blacks

In 1967, while China was busy detonating its first Hydrogen Bomb, British psychedelic rock band Pink Floyd released their album Pipers at the Gates of Dawn. During the same time, in the United States, mobs of white parents were trying to turn away black children from newly-desegregated schools. Today, such outright, naked racism is quite unthinkable but this indignation is a 1970’s trend. We need to recognize that a powerful idea, leadership, legislation, bloodshed, civil disobedience and endless dialog had to come together to root it out of a modern, 21st century, democratic society. There may be two lessons here. Firstly, to even modern societies that Otherize, it may seem like the perfectly normal and ethical thing to do at a given time. And secondly, the primitive and spontaneous nature of Xenophobia (first component of the Othering funnel) means that it is routinely overlooked in evaluating how progressive a society is.

While, in the West, systemic racism against blacks has been largely reduced, new ‘blacks’ have sprung up in every direction. With rising immigration, mixed marriages, human trafficking and study abroad programs, largely white nations have been flooded by Hispanics, Asians, Arabs, Africans and Indians. Note that I use the social, non-scientific, construct of ‘race’ to describe these new Others. This is merely to convey the idea that the racism may appear diminished because its targets are more diffused, underlying reasons more varied, and forms of oppression more sophisticated.

In the 21st century, every nation has a hierarchy of Others: a ranking of the reviled/resented to the highly preferred collectives. This is a fundamental identity component of the nation state. In addition, there is a consensus – enforced by superpowers, economic blocs, supranational organizations, organized conflicts and corporate media – identifying a global hierarchy of Others. As it was with Eurasia and Eastasia in George Orwell’s ‘1984’, declared rivals consolidate the identity of a society (what do we stand against?) and thereby improve goal-coherence. Manipulation of information allows consistently blaming an Other for society’s miseries (e.g. immigrants stealing jobs, bankers siphoning off savings etc). Thus the Other is the constant, governmental scapegoat.

Because Othering is a deliberate exercise of political power, the responsibility to pinpoint the Other and highlight the factors that set them apart invariably falls on the powerful. Because wealthier nations can invest more in Othering, their narratives are more likely to make it to the mainstream. Thus, in the post-Soviet, unipolar world, the United States and its closest allies have emerged as the final arbiters of who is an ally and who, an Other.

Lost for Words: Appropriation of Descriptive Terms

A key problem in the global narrative on discrimination is that current patterns do not fit the template of (anti-African) racism, which is irredeemably imbued with historic meaning and significance and, as such, does not lend itself to current forms of discrimination. The tragic saga of slavery, overt discrimination and oppression of the progeny of African slaves in the USA has virtually appropriated the term ‘racism’ in Western narratives. Perhaps, it is deemed too deep a historical wound to have to share nomenclature with other, regular tragedies. However, in doing so, ‘racism’ has been stowed away on a pedestal as a historic phenomenon, to be studied, researched, featured in blues songs and recreated in Hollywood.

Secondly, racism has become politically appropriated to describe the white experience with transplanted, black populations. In some view, slavery is a sacrifice made at the altar of economic progress, necessary birth-pangs for the US emergence on the world stage. That is precisely why so many (mostly white) commentators asserted that “racism is over” after Barack Obama was elected to the Oval Office. For those not on the receiving end, it is easy to think that a black president cancels out centuries of crimes against humanity with its deadly historical, legislative, social, attitudinal and educational legacy. The modern racism narrative is not as much an upheaval against discrimination, as it is an apology for such events of the distant past.

There have been attempts to conceptualize modern divisions. For instance, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia may be treated as more specific or semantic attempts at overcoming the severe limitations on language. But unlike ‘racism’, where the reason for discrimination is built into the term, Islamophobia only describes symptoms, not root causes. Unlike racism, which could be retroactively understood to mean a quasi-unified set of policies, practices & attitudes, these terms are immediately applied to events on a case-by-case basis, causing boundaries (of meaning) to remain in a state of flux. This renders them weak and unstable as a framework for analyzing modern patterns of discrimination.

Currently, if you do an online search for xenophobia you will see that it relates almost exclusively to recent stories from South Africa, where (black) South Africans are attacking and killing Somali, Ethiopian and other migrants. While this is indeed a spurred on by xenophobia, a world that understands discrimination based only on ‘race’ runs the risk of coming to understand xenophobia as being intra-racial. Like with ‘racism’, this term too is being appropriated to apply to a particular time and space. What this all means is that the language to describe and analyze other varieties of discrimination is being drastically constricted.

To recap, a chain-reaction of Othering (discrimination, demonization and dehumanization) and subsequent oppression has repeated itself over and over again in world history. Building on xenophobia, Othering is a deliberate process used to political ends. As Othering intensifies, it spills from political rhetoric onto legislation, media, education, commerce, literature and art, which come together to form a system that decisively, irrevocably disenfranchises a (weaker) group. In an increasingly polarized post-WWII world, the USA and its closest allies have the power to dictate which group/nation is an Other.

Muslims – having inherited the curse from the Soviets – have been the target of a strong wave of discrimination over the last three decades or so and especially after the nearly-mythological 9/11 attacks. The ‘Muslim World’ (not a geographic entity but an approximation of a spiritual unity) has been singled out by the War on Terror, causing anti-Muslim sentiments to percolate into various spheres of public life. These symptoms have been given the label of ‘Islamophobia’ – a catch-all term to embody and explain away every anti-Muslim sentiment, content or act. But by applying the Othering framework, I will argue that ‘Islam’ is not the root-cause for Islamophobia; rather it has more to do how Muslim immigrants are systematically Otherized and how they are viewed as a result of such a process.

The Problem With ‘Islamophobia’

Islamophobia is an inadequate concept. Consider that 100% of Islamophobic sentiments, speeches, incidents et cetera – almost by definition – take place in Western, non-Muslim majority countries. Islamophobia is a notion that has its roots in the West, presumably because it was necessitated by events that transpired in the West. In the UK, Islamophobic attackers were found to be predominantly (75%) white males (Hopkins, Peter 2014). But let us note that roughly 1400 years of Islam in the so-called Orient did not give rise to it; virtually no Muslim was ever accused of being Islamophobic. It manifests itself as domestic, garden-variety backlash against Muslim immigrants (Others), for perceived large-scale or international aggressions by their coreligionists. Almost invariably, it takes place in a non Muslim-majority, white land. Islamophobia, then, is a construct wherein native Westerners come to terms with their attitudes and behavior towards Muslim immigrants. To apply the same framework to incidents in Muslims countries is to ignore the age-old domestic, political conflicts.

Secondly, all of the Islamophobic attacks – operating under the assumption that the ‘Muslim Ummah’ connects all races, sects and colors of Muslim – are retaliatory and symbolic. They are carried out in non-Muslim countries, against Muslim immigrants. It is noteworthy that in popular perception, a Muslim is of a non-White ethnicity and an outsider regardless of his/her citizenship status. Thus Islamophobia, residing in non-Muslim minds, is a system of reconciliation of fear and hatred towards Muslim immigrants.

In Islamophobic acts, Muslims are mere subjects to whom horrible things are done. It is also a construct widely accepted by the same immigrant community to showcase their victimhood and thereby obtain concessions or be viewed with empathy in foreign lands where they seek to settle down. Had these attacks been carried out against blacks, they would be called racist. Had Muslims carried out these attacks, they would be labeled terrorists. But white supremacist terrorists are kept away from these regular Othering narratives and dubbed Islamophobic. Perhaps the phrasing succeeds in apportioning part of the blame to Islam.

Thirdly and most crucially, Islamophobia only has meaning when studied as a response to global terrorism. Terrorism provides a sort of preemptive, sociological rationalization for Islamophobic attacks. For example, anti-Muslim attacks increased 500% following the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Similar spikes were recorded in the aftermath of 9/11. But as it stands, ‘Islamophobia’ is an inadequate term for analyzing scenarios where Othering or violence is used as a tool of aggression, and not only as retribution. It undermines Western excesses in Muslim lands. To understand how Muslims are being Otherized, situations must be extricable from the black-and-white narrative of ‘Islamic’ terrorism and the binary lens of good vs. evil that it hinges on.

Due to these limitations of the current understanding of Islamophobia, I shall continue with the framework of ‘Othering of Muslims’. While Western accounts from the early 1300s demonstrate a measure of respect for certain Middle Eastern peoples, this vanishes with the decline of the Islamic Golden Age and the rise of an industrialized Europe. Edward Said’s seminal work on ‘Orientalism’ argues that this culture of stereotyping Eastern peoples arose as a rationalization for Western colonialism and therefore provides a broad understanding of the Othering of Orientals. Said critically examined the binary relationships of subject and object, of the dominant Occident and the inferior Orient. He noted how laws, fact-finding missions, books and anecdotal accounts of the ‘Oriental man’ depicted him as a man with low morals, little courage and infinite greed. To understand the European view of Orientals, consider this statement about eighteenth century colonizers: “By the process of Othering, the colonizers treat the colonized as ‘not fully human’, and as a result, it dehumanizes natives. Othering codifies and fixes the self as the true human and the other as other than human. The Colonizers consider themselves as the embodiment of “proper self” while label the colonized as “savages”” (Moosavinia et al, 2011).

It is only in the past century, coinciding with waning European colonialism, that we see the USA involved directly in dealing with the Muslim World. The USA, unlike European countries, was a colony itself and that has had important ramifications for brand of Orientalism it has produced and engendered. Said argues that there never having been American colonies in the Muslim world or other avenues for direct contact with what is thought of as the Orient,  American Orientalism is very indirect and made up of broad abstractions (as opposed to experiences). It is much more an intellectual exercise. It is no surprise then that the line of reasoning used to Otherize Muslims today, is of an intellectual nature. And we see evidence of such Othering in a variety of social expressions.

The first aspect to examine is that of the origin of national myths, dramatic anecdotes or narratives that serve as nations’ symbols. ‘Manifest Destiny’, ‘American Exceptionalism’, ‘Muslim Ummah’, ‘Clash of Civilizations’, ‘Mao’s New Democracy’ are some other examples of political myths. Until modernity, most of such myths were deeply infused in religious morality and/or royal imagery. In modern times, myths are more terrestrial and borne by memorialized heroes and eulogized martyrs. The Orientalist ‘white Savior’ myth, now frequently reviled and discredited, served to posit the greatness of Europe over other continents. A diverse range of characters and organizations have been used to further this notion, starting from the British East India Company to Lawrence of Arabia, from David Livingstone to Tarzan. The so-called ‘USA as the World Police’ or ‘Democratization mission for the Orient’ are newer derivations of this very view.

The latest, shared myth emblazoned on collective memory, began with the destruction of the Twin Towers in the terrorist attack of 11 September, 2001. The blatant attack ‘by Muslims’ was recorded, relayed, interpreted and forever embedded in the global psyche. The story that followed has defied detractors, swept aside scientific evidence and helped legitimize at least one illegal war, to become an enduring instance that epitomizes ‘Muslims vs. America’ sentiments. The post-9/11 political and media narratives clearly articulated that ‘Muslims have attacked America’ (hence, they are not one of us). A second theme that flitted across televisions screens was the notion that Muslims are inherently violent, and as such, may be considered guilty until proven innocent. In the decade that followed 9/11, this myth has dominated the conversation and served as an able wingman to the US national security hegemony.

The power of national myths lies in their extraordinary ability to interpret the past, generate consensus and guide policy. The 9/11 myth has made ‘terrorism’ the dominant framework for illegitimate, political violence. It has inextricably associated terrorism with Muslims. But its greatest achievement may be turning Othering of Muslims into a profitable industry, complete with its own thinkers, producers, advertisers and consumers.

Satirizing the JetBlue profiling incident (illustration: mic.com)

It is in the shadow of the 9/11 myth that Islamist terrorism started gaining disproportionately high mentions and preventive funding. Until today, the FBI’s ongoing sting operations (targeting Muslim, would-be terrorists) consistently elude the label of ‘entrapment'; mosque trawling programs are authorized. Profiling of Muslim-looking persons is now a recorded practice. Notice how each example serves to overplay crimes committed by Muslims.

A second aspect involves knowledge production. A millennium of overt conflicts between what may be imagined as East and West, starting with the crusades, continuing through colonialism and culminating in WWI, has coincided with a massive imbalance in knowledge production. This was buoyed by Guttenberg’s invention of the printing press. As much as Muslim nations enjoy delving in their glorious past of empire, wealth, knowledge, scientific discovery, art, literature and technology, the plain truth is it is over. The current monopoly on knowledge production operates from the United States and Europe.

The market economy is rapidly privatizing knowledge. Copyrights, patents, closed communities of academics and price tags on journals – among other factors – have created a finite pool of acceptable knowledge that, instead of circulating in society, stands stagnant in echo chambers, offering itself to paying consumers. The price tag gives it legitimacy and the suppression of dissent is completed by labeling everything outside it as fringe or conspiracy theories. To seal the deal, any one not subscribing to this knowledge orthodoxy is not admitted into academia. Presently, this vulnerable body of knowledge is being distorted by corporate motives, leading top oil companies to fund environmental research and pharmaceutical companies to contribute to knowledge that favor their products. In 2005, more than half the scientists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed that “commercial interests have inappropriately induced the reversal or withdrawal of scientific conclusions or decisions through political intervention.” This testifies to frequent political interference in academic work.

It is not difficult to imagine the outcome when strong-willed state agenda meets weakened standards of academic rigor. For example, despite a surge in terrorism research and literature that suggest the opposite, a majority of ‘experts’ and mainstream media continue to treat terrorists as purveyors of mindless violence and devoid of any rational thought (the academic consensus is the exact opposite). This omission of rational motives behind political attacks and insurgency – problematized as terrorism circa 1973 – only magnifies the appearance of irreconcilable ideologies. Today, Terrorism experts constitute an “industry,” funded and organized by the state and other elite interests (Chomsky 2001).

Interpretive Hegemony: the power to ascribe meaning to persons, acts and events is virtually equal to the power to shape the Past.

Terrorism is only one field where Western knowledge production is monopolizing meaning. The history, culture, beliefs, conflicts and wars of the Orient are sometimes described and interpreted by Western ‘experts’. When Western experts are called upon to explain everything from African poverty to the Arab Spring, from Indian gods to Iranian people, it reinforces the interpretive hegemony. ‘Native’ experts are almost always Western educated. The entire system has been made foolproof by the advent of Internet searches, which, theoretically, have the power to limit the spectrum of content accessed by a user.

Another major contributor to knowledge production has been mainstream media and entertainment. The “Top 12 Television Channels in the World” list does not contain a single Eastern name. Besides Al Jazeera, there are very few international news channels that are not based in the West. Media reports use leading questions as their premise, such as are Muslims to blame for terrorism?” or “is the Qur’an inherently violent?” As seen in media reporting of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, by essentializing Muslim perpetrators, their Muslimness is instantaneously held accountable.

Death_and_Dollar1

It is here that we start to see the processes of demonization (reminder: demonization starts with the under-reporting of good deeds and over-reporting of crimes by a targeted community). According to Dixon and Williams (2014), past research has documented that news programs over-represent African Americans as criminals and over-represent whites as victims and officers (Dixon & Linz, 2000a2000b; Entman&Rojecki, 2000; Gilliam &Iyengar, 2000). A similar, contemporary study reveals that Muslim perpetrators were much more likely to be portrayed as terrorists (81%) than to actually be terrorists in U.S. society (6%)[11]. However, the finding that in the U.K., Muslims give most in charity, ahead of Jew and Christians, is largely ignored in programming.

Fictional content in the realms of art and literature also play their part in Othering. For long, Subcontinental peoples have been portrayed as servile, Africans as ignorant and Middle Easterners as violent. In movies, Muslims are portrayed as villains, traitors and people of low morals in general. The cartoon Aladdin originally featured a song that referred to a place where “they cut off your nose if they don’t like your face”. Shaheen (1997) notes that in contemporary Hollywood movies, Muslims (especially Arabs) were represented as entities trying to get hold of media conglomerates (Network, 1977), demolish the world’s economy (Rollover, 1981), kidnap Western women (Jewel of the Nile, 19850), direct nuclear weapons at Israel and the United States (Frantic, 1988) and influence foreign policies (American Ninja 4:The Annihilation, 1991).

Muslims thus become villains who die at the hands of white heroes. They become physically, militarily and intellectually inferior enemies, backward peoples hungering for the democracy and freedom of the white man, or petty, corrupt warlords and mercenaries without a just cause. They become minions stirred to action only by the likes of T. E. Lawrence.

The movie portrayal of Muslims becomes even more interesting when we consider that governments and intelligence apparatus often directly influence historical/political movies. The CIA regularly organizes tours, provides resources, obtains rewrites of scripts and places former agents as ‘advisors’ on movie-sets. A number of rewrites were requested and obtained by the agency for ‘Zero Dark Thirty’, based on the hunt for and end of Osama Bin Laden. For another example:

“[Former CIA agent BiltBeardon took the advisory role on] Charlie Wilson’s War, the story of US covert efforts to supply the Afghan Mujahideen with weaponry during the Soviet occupation of the 80s. In reality, this was a story that ended badly, as the Afghan freedom fighters helped give birth to the terrorists of al-Qaida. In the movie, however, that was not the case. As Beardon – who had been the CIA man responsible for the weapons reaching the Afghans – observed shortly before the movie came out, the film would “put aside the notion that because we did that [supply arms], we had 9/11″.” (The Guardian, November 14, 2014).

A New Phase of Othering

There’s been a paradigm shift in the Othering campaign.  Anti-Islamic content and acts are not only tacitly allowed, they now have their own market, with financial investments and incentives. Milder forms include sheltering, recognizing and glorifying persons with Muslim heritage who can be utilized to further a broad criticism of Muslim culture and orthodoxies. Salman Rushdie, Ayan Hirsi Ali, TaslimaNasreen and Malala Yousufzai are widely viewed as the faces of dissent-suppression, genital mutilation and general repression of women (respectively) in Muslim countries.

A more virulent form of paid Othering takes place through institutional support for anti-Muslim activities. A study by the Center for American Progress identified seven think tanks and/or charitable foundations that had disbursed US$42.6 million to Islamophobia think tanks over 10 years since 9/11 (Fear, Inc. 2011). These recipients, in turn, draft policy-briefs, write articles, produce documentaries or develop websites that further the ‘America vs. Islam’ narrative. Creeping Shariah Laws and the Ground Zero Megamosque are two stories that stemmed from this very myth.

There is also anecdotal evidence that anti-Muslim initiatives and campaigns receive institutional support. After the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the magazine received more than 30 million Euros in donations – including from states and mega-corporations. It is reasonable to speculate that the expectation – if not the knowledge – that anti-Muslim propaganda will garner funding and/or support – is out there. That is why Jon Ritzheimer, the organizer of the anti-Islam protests in Phoenix, USA in 2015, promptly came out with a plea and a crowdfunding plan. Because he had risked so much in going up against the Muslims, he reasoned, he should receive US$10 million. Whether Ritzheimer got the money is irrelevant. But the fact that he feels so entitled, says something about prevalent expectations from American citizens.

But all of the above is ignored in mainstream conversations. The Islamophobia lens ignores aggression and only purports to address backlash against Muslims. It portrays anti-Muslim aggressors as monsters or deviants, stirred to action by their own bigoted/hateful worldview, but never motivated by group/community sentiments. It steers clear of the terrorism label, designating white perpetrators (such as Stockham, Breivik or Roof) as lone actors or mentally handicapped individuals. The Othering framework, in contrast, recognizes the role of the state in reinforcing xenophobia and thus contributing to unleashing a series of events that are retroactively dubbed ‘Islamophobic’.

Elected to the unenviable position of ‘Global Other’ to the fabled, undefeatable, indefatigable West, the Muslim world has been forced to grapple with its own ancient power vacuums, fractures and ossified myths. While all eyes are on Muslim communities, they will do well to remember that such major shifts in global relations do not come about organically. Such policy shifts have to be conceived, planned and executed with statesman-like vision, general-like strategy, merchant-like wealth and soldier-like strength. What that means is that between two social collectives, heightened rivalry, jingoism and hatred have to be cultivated. This realization has the power to shift popular perception away from the prophets, presidents and propagandists who claim that people’s happiness, freedom and development are constantly being obstructed by faceless nemeses.

It would be a stretch to conceptualize a world without Othering. I hold that, in this regard, Huntington was not too off with the core of his ‘civilizational conflict’ hypothesis.  He and I part ways in our thinking when it comes to the motivation and forces that cause these conflicts. In the end, I think a major thrust comes from economic, not civilizational, forces. Othering is profitable for some. The resulting allegiances, famines, revolutions, sanctions, credit structure and rebuilding profiteering are strong economic incentives. For the power elites – whoever they may be – continuing along the divisive route is the rational choice.

Quick Recap of Key Arguments 

As any patient reader might have noticed, my essay tries to tie together three salient points: there are now global ‘Others’, Otherized not only for ideological or cultural, but also trade and cooperation reasons. This is indicative of a strong hegemony of thought on the global stage and, with the possible exception of the Nazi Party, never have so few done so much to demonize so many. Islamophobia singles out alleged criminals like Craig Hicks (the Chapel Hill shooter, 2015), labeling them as monsters and aberrations. But the Othering framework takes into account the role of state machinery in creating requisite environments and fomenting xenophobia.

Secondly, the growing xenophobia against Muslims should not be expected to convey meaning all by itself – it is better viewed as part of a pattern of periodic Othering for political motives. Then the flimsy and inadequate construct of ‘Islamophobia’ can be contrasted against historic instances of Othering and thus, perhaps, be understood as a politically motivated campaign on a massive scale. Such a frame – elaborating on the impersonal nature of anti-Muslim matters – could potentially stem impassioned resistance and thus help the ailing stream of conversation between Muslim immigrants and natives. It can also help undermine the radical premise that America is at war with Islam. Thirdly, I touched lightly upon the hegemony of knowledge production and the various means employed to sustain this hegemony. While there are much better informed and argued critical analyses of the ethnocentricity of knowledge production and dissemination, the phenomenon itself forms a part of the Othering framework as propounded in this essay.

Even today, Rohingyas in Myanmar, Tamils in Sri Lanka, Biharis in Bangladesh, Kurds in Iraq, Hazara in Afghanistan, Uighurs in China, Aboriginals in Australia and Canada and dozens other such groups still face grievous discrimination. Unlike the African-American community, their voices are seldom heard.  They are the invisible Others, existing largely to give meaning to the glorious inheritors of their respective lands. There is a systematic process of Othering being planned, financed and executed against each of these groups. Unless this machinery is taken apart and analyzed, we will not understand why societies hate or fear each other so. It is high time we held a mirror to our own faces.

References

Idiocracy 103: Can Everything Be Right?

Can everything be right?

That’s it. That’s the question. No details, no embellishments. What would you say?

Would you take a minute to consider all those things lurking at the peripheries of your comfort zone? Unabated high-school sex, perhaps? Or underage prostitution? Methamphetamine? Filibustering? How about free porn? Jeggings?

Of course, instead, you will probably ask, “right …according to whom?”

And that muddies it all. When did we, as a species, completely lose trust on our sense of Right and Wrong? Yes, there have been those who said they were channeling ‘Divine Will’ as they unsheathed their swords. And those whose ambition led them to enslave other peoples. Yes, there have been those who partook in private genocides and public murders. And those who have violated people and raped ideas.

But we have gotten so much right: largely stable social settlements with protection, food, amenities, health and education are now either realities or epitomes of aspiration. Our species’ sense of direction has guided us well, though admittedly not without its share of tragic mistakes. But the fact is: death from wars have declined. Commerce is ushering in racial diversity and tolerance. Surely the exceptions should not be cited as examples?

war is declining

And hasn’t History, passing over with its majesty and invincibility, stripped the villains and restored the heroes? Has not Time, with its power to assuage, heal and distance, set the records straight? History is, at best, a short-term possession. In course, the Universe repossesses it.

And say: “Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish.” (Qur’an 17:81)

Is it really so inconceivable that the universe may have a line that separates Right and Wrong? I know it is the rational, erudite and sophisticated thing to ask: right, but according to whom? But we know that stealing is wrong. And stealing – the mother of all offenses – is said to manifest itself as burglary (theft of possessions), corruption (theft of currency or salary), perjury (theft of Truth), rape (theft of will, agency & dignity), murder (theft of life) etc.

Theft: the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

Sure, it gets confusing with issues like Abortion. Up pops the question of questions: when does Life begin? For a species that barely understands or controls Life, that is quite a presumptuous question. Still we try. For me, this is how it works: if I know that an aircraft will arrive at the terminal in two hours, but I don’t know if it’s airborne yet, then the logical choice would be to assume that it’s in the air. Likewise, if I know that a new life will arrive on or around a predetermined day, but I fail to ascertain whether such Life has already been initiated, then the logical choice would be to accept that the Life exists right now. It existed from the moment it was promised, from the moment it was heralded. Till we know more.

But let’s leave the difficult ones aside. Let’s think simple. If ‘theft’ is the mother, then the father of all wrongdoing is lying (presumably, to cover up the stealing). True and false are the oldest binary and are seldom open to interpretation outside the realm of Philosophy. If you declare that Christopher Columbus was the first man to reach America, you are lying. If you say you are 150 years old, you are probably lying. If you just wrote that you are an astronaut on some online form, I’d guess you were lying. However well my knowledge (or lack thereof) may verify your claims, the truth is that your statements are either true or false.

But the reality is very different. There is a mantra being aggressively marketed. It is this:

Everything right should be legal; Everything wrong should be illegal.

This is an unspoken premise of human societies, which before they could create massive societies, early humans had establish. It is this truism that leads us to still unquestioningly accept laws passed on our behalf. Seldom do we question the merit or morality of laws of the land. But in a switch-and-bait move, what we are handed in the name of ‘right’, is ‘legal’. And that’s good enough for a world that has forgotten to test the veracity of legislation.

These days, ‘Legality’ functions like a young, hillbilly, trigger-happy cousin of ‘Righteousness’. Both come from the same family of human values: permissiveness, but ‘Legality’ just doesn’t have that old stamp of moral authority. We don’t argue with things that are quite likely wrong, but somehow also legal. There are now governments that can have own citizens taken out; murdered. Made to sleep with the fishes; without a trial too. Think about that.

In our world, apartheid still thrives. It is now okay to detain and torture people without charges. The reason why there is no great hue and cry is because half a dozen conglomerates are deemed fit to effectively tailor our information. Commercial elites have usurped premiere institutions of knowledge and use it to fortify their businesses. Corporations are given the right to harm consumers and farmers.

public-interest-public-awareness-ads-35-2

Without condoning, I can understand a world with terrorism, insurgency and violent revolutions. These actions are enacted by fringe minorities. But broad-based acceptance of government misconduct, favoritism, crony capitalism, cover-up and persecution is unacceptable. We all know Right from Wrong. In the rare case that we don’t, Apathy will suffice. But Apathy will not suffice when wrongdoing, disguised in legal robes, passes as right. What is wrong, is wrong.

Ferrywallahs: Development and Vanishing Trades

You know what’s a great proxy indicator for a nation’s state of Development? Ferrywallahs! Yup, ferrywallahs (also, ‘feriwala’s). In case you don’t know what that is, let me explain.

In Bangladesh and possibly, the rest of the subcontinent, Ferrywallahs are door-to-door salesmen. Or street-peddlers. From what I remember of the 1980s, I can still conjure up a man – visibly hard-up and humbled – ferrying his thousand wares around the serpentine alleys and gulleys of Dhaka. This is the archetypical ferrywallah, ubiquitous, familiar, trustworthy, servile and grateful. The yoke would land on his shoulders from early in the morning. On either end he’d tie a basket or a cloth-bag to place his wares. If he’s not that affluent, he would heave a single, bamboo basket up on to his head and start the rounds. He knew to stick to a fixed route: you see, there was a honor-code dividing up the metropolis into chunks serviced by a specific set of ferrywallahs.

banana_boy

Young ferrywallah selling bananas. (Photo: Nicholas Rapp)

Walking up and down alleyways lined by unambitious buildings, yelling out a singsong description of his wares, he’d look to windows for a familiar face. And there were plenty. They’d beckon him through the window and ask to see his spoils. He knew the mothers and wives. He knew what color bangles they liked and what their financial dealings were like. He knew exactly when the brat from the blue, tin-shed house would start a tantrum demanding pickles. He knew for whom the young girl from 14/B kept buying stationery and wooden pencils.

feriwala

“Feriwala” photo by: Tanveer Hassan Rohan, Flickr used under CC 2.0

There were, of course, types of street-peddlers. The boring, but most awaited, ones peddled gourds, spinach and radishes. The elite ones brought around salt-water sprinkled fish: carps, eels and catfish. Some ferrywallahs sold pink, spherical cotton-candies in glass-boxes. Some had balls of cheese and traditional flat-breads. Glass bangles, hair-ribbons and mirrors were the prime merchandize of others. Some would even drag in enormous, writhing beehives – freshly smoked and plucked from some tree in the southerly mangrove forests.

Whatever he was peddling, the one thing that no ferrywallah ever forgot was the measuring scale. Anything you bought, would be measured in front of your eyes. It would be done with a clan of iron weights, called batkharas. Each weight was a testament to the ferrywallah’s honesty and his compliance with Islamic Law that strictly forbids sellers from tinkering with weights and volumes.

I had some favorites among the ferrywallahs. Some offered triangular, savory pastries in glass boxes and fried-batter strips splattered with sugar, locally known as Kotkoti. The girls’ favorite was the pickle-seller, smelling of tamarind and syrup. My absolute favorite was the cheese-seller, who would invariably cut me a slice of his salted farmers’ cheese. I would sample from multiple balls, before finally delivering a verdict on the purchase.

Over time, regular ferrywallahs would become like extensions of a household – engaged in the affairs of the family, running errands, dropping children to school, sourcing items for the mistress, making demands of snacks or tea and becoming privy to domestic secrets. They’d sometimes take payment in old recyclable paper and weren’t shy to ask for a loan from the mistress / master of the house.

***

Ferrywallahs are by no means a dying breed. But they have certainly evolved. Those who do come around, don’t have time for little packets of pickle or cotton-candy (i.e. items priced as low as 10 cents). The margin just isn’t worth their while anymore. Bangladesh’s per capita income has almost reached US$1000. Now you need higher volume, greater margins to get ferrywallahs out of their homes.

batkhara

The modern ‘batkhara’ or weights no longer measure the unimpeachable integrity of the ferrywallahs; instead they are certified by the state’s Standard Testing Agency.

They come with fish, chicken and calculators. Reassuring other patrons over cellphones, they insist that you buy in bulk and do it quickly. Not only do they not need loans from you, they will extend a line of credit to you. The ferrywallah of 2015 doesn’t have time for bargaining or small-talk. He has been well integrated into the rat-race. And it’s the trade that has turned more impersonal. Besides, security guards in urban apartment complexes don’t like allowing ferrywallahs inside the compound. There isn’t enough time or space for him and his baskets.

The economic standing of the ferrywallah has improved – they can afford to hold out for higher profits. They can follow route-maps and schedule visits. And that in its self is a functional indicator of how these people, from the demographic pyramid-base, have experienced economic growth. But what also becomes clear is that street-peddlers’ (and many other lowly professions’) social standing hasn’t come far. The stigma of going door-to-door peddling wares is still strong. Even in the case of an indispensable service.

The trade is facing serious competition: reinforcing the argument that the ferrywallahs’ service is a vital one. There are now online entrepreneurs promising to save you the trouble of dealing with busy, inconvenient ferrywallahs: just click on the items you want, enter quantities and you can pay cash on delivery. In a world that is increasingly inclined to avoid face-to-face interaction, the online option is gaining in popularity. As market transactions turn more and more impersonal and people increasingly choose to hide behind their screens, small trades like that of the ferrywallahs will be sorely missed. Perhaps it is a longing for a bygone time.

Perhaps it is a hunger for human interactions.

Sustaining Those Who Have Passed On

It’s only intriguing in hindsight: my actions that followed in the months after my father’s death. You know what? Let me tell you the story. August, 2002: it was the day we buried my father – our family’s patriarch – and returned to a house full of hushed mourners and fragrant Biryani.

death

Painting: Edvard Munch, Death in the Sickroom

Biryani, for those who have never tasted it, is aromatic spice -infused rice, meat and potatoes, slow-cooked simultaneously in a clay-sealed pot, sprinkled with raisins, sugar-cubes and dried-fruits – a majestic culinary wonder that allegedly inherited from Mongol rulers who cooked carbohydrates and proteins together in mammoth cauldrons for their vast armies.

In our culture, households in mourning turn off their stoves for a week or two …leaving relatives and friends to ensure a steady stream of meals for the family and a constant throng of mourners. As with Mongol armies, a cauldron of Biryani is a convenient, economic and child-friendly option for a grieving mass.

Anyway …sitting in that house full of guilt and small-talk and the fragrance of Biryani – my eyes wandered. And I could not avert my father’s material possessions. A pair of socks (frayed at the heels), the spectacles, the Old Spice aftershave lotion, the medical briefcase, the shoe rack, the income-tax files and a thousand other items lay spread over all about. What a waste – I thought – this archiving, this collecting, this curating, this maintenance! A lifetime of dedication to accumulation of possessions …reduced, by an uninvited death, to a pile of used stuff that needs bagging and storing.

I figure it’s customary in Western cultures to stuff such belongings into a cardboard box, label it ‘dad’ (read: ‘closure’), place it in the garage and move on. Or at least, that’s what I gather from American television. But we hold on. If we can afford to, we hold on to the clothes, the bed, the toiletries, the papers and the utensils. It is perhaps a tacit acknowledgement of, and a resignation to, the fact that the soul has passed on and can now only live on in our hearts and minds. Perhaps, old belongings help make that fragile, ethereal notion more concrete: as though they were evidence that the deceased had, indeed, once existed.

“People do not die for us immediately, but remain bathed in a sort of aura of life which bears no relation to true immortality but through which they continue to occupy our thoughts in the same way as when they were alive. It is as though they were traveling abroad.” (Marcel Proust)

It was around that time that I heard that a relative was going on a pilgrimage to Makkah (Hajj). Instantly, I remembered that my father had once translated and printed, with his own money, an easy guide to Hajj for Bangla-speakers. I located the stash and quickly delivered two copies to the would-be pilgrims. Giving due credit, I also began to repeat some of his dinner-table anecdotes. The same thing happened when my mother finally decided to part with some belongings: she made sure that they were given to an honest, worthy recipient.  In retrospect, I now see that we were trying to protect / sustain my father’s footprint on this Earth; campaigning against the dirt of Time that threatened to cover it up.

silver-bird-music-boxI think this represents a universal, human desire: to protect the hollow, negative space left by a dear one’s passing: protect it against newcomers who are clearly more relevant, more alive. With every memento, every utensil that we part with – leaving us with less and less tangible reminders – we evaluate and ensure the worthiness of that gift. We make sure that whatever was left behind in this worldly life, is invested in the best possible scheme; perhaps, in an effort to the maximize the true value and utility such things can offer to the universe. It’s a pity then that – knowing a similar fate awaits us – we don’t maximize the value of our belongings while we’re alive.

Arabic Notices on Dhaka Walls: Reinforcing Misconceptions and Uninformed Choice

Adnan R. Amin:

Bangladesh’s Ministry of Religious Affairs, with its advertising agency Grey (Dhaka) has produced a slick video that shows how posting anti-urination messages in Arabic is keeping the roads and walls clean. But how appropriate are such solutions?

Originally posted on Alal O Dulal:

Copyright Adnan Karim

Adnan R. Amin for AlalaODulal.org
 A video titled ‘Language Matters’ has been making the rounds in Bangladeshi social-media circles. It explores the utility of Arabic warnings to ward off public urinators. The using of a religious misconception to prevent a social evil is clever. But what if it also reinforces and lends credence to that misconception?

View original 1,239 more words

Midnight’s Evangelists

Adnan R. Amin:

Writing about the anachronistic phenomenon of Bangladeshi televangelists targeting semi-literate, helpless migrant workers.

Originally posted on Alal O Dulal:

"Bangladeshi migrants waiting for a flight home." by stablisation unit/DFID, licensed under CC by 2.0 “Bangladeshi migrants waiting for a flight home.” (photo: stablisation unit/DFID, licensed under CC by 2.0)

Each day, all year round, as Bangladesh goes to sleep – a group of fortunetellers, mystics, and magicians wake up to start casting their spell. You probably have never seen or heard them. Yet they are neither invisible nor quiet. In fact, they actually advertise their messages and locations loud and clear.

View original 2,857 more words

#AskHamas: Hashtag Goes Viral Before the Campaign

Hamas – the Palestinian ‘Islamic’ organization, dubbed a terrorist one by the United States, had been planning a social media campaign. They were evidently planning to target English speakers and get them to engage actual Hamas leaders on Twitter. Hence the hashtag #AskHamas.

ask

But before the campaign could even begin, the hashtag had been used over 5000 times. It has now gone viral. For all the wrong reasons.

It happened that news outlets picked up on the story last week and Israelis decided to have a little fun. They preempted Hamas and started tweeting with the hashtag. The World joined in minutes later.

ask4ask5ask9

But like with all things involving Palestine and Israel, it heated up. Some of it got very dark and hateful. Sometimes tweets started revealing vicious hatred against the Palestinian people in general.

ask2ask3ask6ask7ask8

Perhaps, this could be a good opportunity to really engage Hamas and give them a good idea of how the world views them. Regardless of the ineptitude, propaganda and marketing ploys, the opening of doors is a rare event in our world and must not be greeted with the hurling of racial slurs and verbal abuse.

India’s Rapists and Saviors

WARNING: “India’s Daughter” the BBC documentary is very hard to watch. Viewer discretion is strongly advised.

In December 2012, an Indian girl was brutally raped and murdered in Delhi. Her male companion was beaten up bad. They had been returning by bus after watching a movie. Six men cornered them during their journey home. Delhi erupted in protests and citizens clashed with the police. Two weeks later, the girl died from internal injuries and trauma. Five men and a boy were arrested a week later and charged with the crime(s). But the protests continued: laws needed revision. Some days ago, Leslee Udwin directed and produced a documentary called “India’s Daughter” for the BBC. It features interviews of one of the accused rapists and is facing a ban from the Indian Government. 

Already assaulted by international and domestic instances of rape and violence, the 2012 rape of ‘Nirbhaya’ (fearless) garnered international criticism and consolidated Delhi’s perception as the ‘Rape Capital‘ of the world. Led by students of the Jawaharlal Nehru College (JNU), protests raged all across India. It was as though a dam had suddenly burst and no longer was it taboo to challenge entrenched structures of patriarchy and violence against women.

It was the waves of month-long protests that caught the intrigue of Leslee Udwin. The Israeli-born, UK-based director-produced decided to make the documentary about this girl, Jyoti Singh, a 23-year old physiotherapy student. The documentary is a bone-chilling story of normalized violence against women. It is a damning account of entitled men who still expect women to endure violence without resistance. It is a heartbreaking narrative of how a kind, bright flame went out before she could spread her light.

It all begins with a narrative of the crime and interviews from Jyoti Singh’s parents. Mukesh, one of the convicted rapists, gets uninterrupted airtime to shed light on a general discomfort of Indian men upon seeing women dressed ‘inappropriately’, being out with ‘strange men’ or late at night. Defense lawyers are allowed to speak in similar veins. Mukesh narrates every detail from the day, including horrific details of the actual crime. At one point he tells Udwin that the victim should not have fought back while she was being raped. He seems surprised that everyone made such a big deal of it; there are so many worse crimes going on, he insists. Plus, hanging rapists may be a bad idea, he suggests. Next, rapists will start killing the girls. It still doesn’t occur to him that effective rape-prevention may even be a likely scenario in India. On the other hand, interwoven into his blood-curling narrative, is Jyoti’s parents talking about their daughter and the unbearable pain of having to cremate her so prematurely. The other minor storylines revolve around the families of the rapists.

But reception of ‘India’s Daughter’ has been mixed. Many have hailed it as a landmark conversation starter. An ice-breaker if you will. The Indian Government tried to get restrict its distribution. The BBC responded by releasing it prematurely. The government has managed to get the video banned and force YouTube to take it down. In fact, Leslee has fled India in fear of arrest.

Leslee Udwin speaks to the press. The ban on her documentary has raised questions about Freedom of Speech.

Leslee Udwin speaks to the press. The ban on her documentary has raised questions about Freedom of Speech. (Photo: Wall Street Journal)

But why is there so much controversy around the documentary? The first clue may lie in the style of storytelling: the documentary is a series of statements, news clippings and subtle reconstruction of actual events. Questions have been edited out – giving it the impression of an organic, overlapping narrative. The story is mostly led by Mukesh (interviewed rapist) – and then followed-up by reactions or commentaries from Jyoti’s parents, friend, Indian and English social-workers or academics. I should not have to elaborate on the political problems of allowing India’s Daughter’s story to be told by her rapist. Piyasree Dasgupta does a good job of point out how, stylistically, the documentary aimed for the sensational instead of aspiring to journalistic integrity in storytelling. Which explains this blogger’s reaction: “Shame on “India”. What a society! What a backward culture! It’s not only the uneducated and criminals, but watching these educated Indians talk about women in their Indian culture is sickening, no respect whatsoever.”

Secondly, the documentary’s oversimplified narrative hinges on ‘monsters’ and ‘victims’. Like with Kony2012, Evil is given a face and it gathers blind hate, devoid of nuanced understanding. That is acceptable for a tabloid, but not a BBC documentary set to be released on International Women’s Day. It fails to explore why the Nirbhaya case jolted India like it did; and what intelligence is to be gleaned from the identities of the rapists? For example, the social impact of having vast slums in the middle of a sprawling, urban metropolises is nowhere explored. Neither investigated is the supposed, social disapproval of ‘women out at night’. How does the ubiquitous portrayal of rape-scenes in Bollywood films affect the psyche of young, semi-literate youth? For a film that purports to tell a bigger story than the crime, the failure to investigate broad themes like the urban-rural divide, micro-aggression across these lines, gender & economic inequality and ghettoization of the poor is at least an oversight.

It is not surprising then – given it is a rapist who channels the narrative – that it emerges is misogynistic, sexist and insensitive. That it is a fringe view is never made clear. In fact, the sexism is further reinforced through the (outrageous and sexist) testimonies of the defense lawyers. There’s no attempt to balance their views. That’s where the third problem lies: it misrepresents India. The documentary is (intentionally or otherwise) transformed into a portrayal of Indian men. In his testimony, Mukesh confesses that most of them were heavily drunk that night and wanted to ‘party’. At one point, he states (presumably in reply to a question) that he hadn’t had sex in five years. The viewer is forced to reflect upon this Indian man’s needs and how he may choose to fulfill them. Such unbalanced reporting is why the world is ready to believe that the Assam Rape Festival is real. The rapists’ lawyers are called upon to speak about women’s rights. Leslee fails to include educated and progressive – or even traditionally-protective – Indian men in the film.

Fourthly, India’s Daughter’ has an interventionist approach where it feels as though an ‘outsider’ (BBC or Leslee herself) is collaborating with Indian urbanites to reflect on the crimes among the slum-dwelling Poor. Of course, it seems to say, the Poor cannot comment on their plight; we shall do it for them. As a result, the economically-disadvantaged characters speak of their pain (be it for the victim or the perpetrators), while activists, judges, academics and development workers are invited to speak about what has been / can be done to arrest this evil. Leslee even appears to lecture Indian PM Narendra Modi to “be a hero globally” and live up to his promises of Gender Equality. All of this takes ‘India’s Daughter’ dangerously close to being dubbed a ‘White Savior’ charity. And then, talking about her work, Leslee Udwin said, “My whole purpose was to give a gift of gratitude to India, to actually praise India, to single India out as a country that was exemplary in its response to this rape […]” Can you imagine her lecturing the leader of the country with the highest rape cases – Barack Obama – like this on the normalized high-school rape epidemic?

rape

‘India’s Daughter’ is a victim’s story, narrated mostly by her rapist. (Photo: rte.ie)

The heartbreaking case of Nirbhaya has sparked important conversations in India. There have been articles, reports, plays and even fashion photography that centers on her. India has tried to spell out its problems in many different ways. However, in the end, it is important to let India sort out its problems. No amount of shaming or guilt-trips will cure what is clearly a global, socio-economic malady. I say this because I think India has been shamed by ‘India’s Daughter’. Indian men have been shamed. Women too.

It could be that global knowledge of a rape culture is seen as more mortifying than actual instances of rape. Or it could be that a civilization with strong social institutions was humiliated for failure to protect its own. Perhaps it is a matter of national pride and the documentary’s narrative is perceived as no less than an affront, an insult to Indian culture. It is not possible for an outsider like me to understand the nature of their offense. But so inflamed is the situation that, after the release of the documentary, two alleged rapists have been beaten to death by mobs. In one case, a mob breached the walls of a prison, snatched the alleged rapist, beat him to death and hung him from a clocktower in front of thousands of flashing cameras.

In the end, ‘India’s Daughter’ has mostly exploited the cliched narrative of primitive Indian men and subjugated, objectified women to spin a riveting story out of a tragic crime. To do this, Leslee Udwin even allegedly misrepresented her intentions: she committed to filming a non-commercial documentary, but later sold it to BBC; she also hid some footage from the jail authorities, which later surfaced in the the film. In that sense, the documentary is an exploitation, a rape of India as well.

***

There’s a part in the documentary where a friend narrates a story from Jyoti’s (Nirbhaya’s) life. One day, at the mall, a 10-year old street urchin snatched her purse and dashed. A policeman caught him and was giving him a beating, when Jyoti intervened. Later she asked the boy why he had done what he had done. He replied that he, too, should have the right to nice clothes or to a hamburger. Moved, the girl bought him all the things he wanted and made the boy promise he would never try this again. It is ironic that the film-makers still failed to see the act in light of the Gandhian precept of “Hate the Crime, Not the Criminal”. But Jyoti – a daughter of India – had grown up with it. She could see beyond the behavior and into the intention. In Hindi / Bengali, ‘Jyoti’ means a ray of light, a beam. On her way out, this girl has lit a flame that will be difficult to put out. Her flame will burn and one day, the fire will purify age-old, ossified structures of discrimination and violence. I hope that, in death, she will become India’s savior.

Constructing Islamophobia: The Hate Preacher

Let this post be an example of how snippets of seemingly-innocuous details quoted by the Media add to rising suspicion and hatred of Muslims in the West.

The Daily Telegraph alleged earlier today that a cross-Government working group on anti-Muslim hatred contained radicals or former radicals. The group, it was stated, is “pressing to lift bans on foreign hate preachers from entering Britain, including Zakir Naik, who has stated that “every Muslim should be a terrorist”.”

warsi

That is one, evil preacher-dude, right? Who, in his right mind, says something like that? Unequivocally, I advocate that hate preachers be excommunicated, especially ones calling Muslims to terrorism. But here’s the thing. As a Bangladeshi Muslim, I have seen the lecture in question. In fact, it’s on YouTube (see transcription below).

cherrypick1

(Preacher) Zakir Naik’s talk: complete sentences vs. phrase quoted by The Daily Telegraph

Aware of the common media trickery of cherry-picking phrases, Naik goes on to add, “I am aware that ‘terrorist’ – more commonly – is used for a person who terrorizes an innocent person. In this context, no Muslim should even terrorize a single human being.”

While there are controversies surrounding Naik’s views, they are theological, not political, in nature. He certainly isn’t advocating Terrorism in this particular case. Yet, anyone who hasn’t seen the video, would take The Telegraph’s summation of Zakir Naik at face value. And why not? What does the Telegraph have to gain by smearing a lisping, Muslim preacher?

Let me repeat that question for you: What does the Telegraph have to gain by smearing a lisping, Muslim preacher?