A picture speaks a thousand words. Well the above photograph screams, screams words counting way beyond thousand. At first look it is the story of the victory of Delhi Police who has in record time apparently solved the Delhi blasts case and blasts in Jaipur, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad too.
With this feat the Delhi Police claims to have caught the men behind INDIAN MUJAHIDEEN, a terror group being run by college students who apparently have a bomb manufacturing expert as a 10 year old kid. (The very alert Delhi Police is on a look out for that kid too)
Have a look at it again and it tells you another story. A very important one.
The story of symbols, those play deep in our sub conscious minds and carefully shape our prejudices.
Images can be said to be a collection of signs or symbolic signs. Roland Barthes described the chain of associations or signs that make up a picture’s narrative. He uses the term CODES for the chain of associations. He says that through history and customs, a society develops a complex system of codes. Individual signs are combined to communicate complicated ideas in the form of these codes.
A metonymic code is a collection of signs that cause the viewer to make associations or assumptions. And thus, form perceptions in the minds of the viewer.
The photograph in question is a case of such a code. Here we see the alleged terrorists standing with their faces covered with a scarf that has a strong religious symbol. The Delhi police actually took pains to buy three new identical scarves for the alleged terrorists. Why?
The white and red checkered scarf is a strong symbol of the Muslim world. It is one of most visible and recognizable signs that associate any person wearing it to be a Muslim (Arab and non Arab both)
The student terrorists in question would have looked equally photogenic had their faces been covered with black or white or any other scarf. There appears to be a conscious effort from the part of Delhi Police to re-assert as much as possible the identity of the youths as being Muslims. The visual message conveyed is very strong and plays a role in creating stereotypes for the already stereotyped Muslim community in India.
As American philosopher, writer and pencil maker Henry David Thomas once said “The question is not what you look at but what you see”. And what you see is what you perceive.
Here in this image we see Muslims as terrorists, lets hope India doesn’t perceive what it sees in this image.
Photo Courtesy: The Hindu
Previously At Indian Muslims Blog: Delhi Police Looking For Bombs
@Mirza,
If this is indeed going to cause a subliminal propoganda within the media, it needs to be countered. Where Muslims may not be able to make a headway, avowed secularists like Ram Puniyani and Yoginder Sikan can do the needful.
I know that many dub them as “pseudo secularists”, but in my opinion, they are right thinking people who have the courage of their convictions. Any state bias against minorities is deplorable.
Zarine, Spot on!!!
I had warned on this very blog about future fringe Bomb Blasts. I hope Indians are employing Pyscho and Human dynamics to go into people’s mind, circumstances and motives. A free and fair enquiry will help India root out its real enemies. I have gone through number of Indian Boards and I have seen many Muslim and Hindu writers doubt Police in this scenario.
I believe Muslims should announce a big name such as their current vice president who is aware of Intelligence inputs and the remaining community can believe him. Intelligence inputs are not TV news which can be shared with everyone and I hope that if such a big name approves the police action then there will be no need of doubts.
Its imperative that India does not discriminate its minorities. There is religious violence in India it seems and it should be tackled by sensible people at all levels.
Anyone who raises the flag of secularism selectively and when convenient, and there’s a distinct pattern to their behavior, is without a doubt a pseudo-secularist. Doesn’t mean that they are wrong in raising the flag on those occasions when they do raise the flag, but just that they are interpreting secularism very narrowly based on their partisan outlook, and this bias is not stated upfront and has to be deduced from observing repeated behavior. As I understand it, the issue of secularism is (should be) above partisan politics and political party affiliation, though how it is implemented depends on the political parties.
I am glad that Ram and Yogi write in defense of M. F. Hussain when he is persecuted, but I’d encourage them to write in defense of Taslima Nasreen too, instead of remaining quiet, as both those issues are issues of secularism. If they claim to be fighting for secularism, then their silence in the second case is puzzling, as well as undermines their credibility somewhat.
@Amit,
Today, the Muslim community is in a difficult spot with pressures from all sides. Given this scenario, any help is welcome to reassure them and help them integrate.
I agree with the author that the scarf is indicative of Muslims (whether Arab or not). There need not be a verse or hadith for it to be associated with the Muslim culture. When someone wears this he is almost certainly identified as a Muslim.
I also agree that if the police made them wear these scarfs (which is the most likely scenario) then it needs condemnation.
Why do Muslims need to be hostage to a dress profile. Hindus, Christians, Jains do not need any support from clothes to emphasise their faith?
Sudie:
Every religious community has some symbols associated with it and kiffiyeh is associated with Muslims. Jews have skull-caps, Christians have long robes, Hindus have tilak and saffron clothes, Jains wear white and cover their face.
By virtue of sheer numbers, most of the rapists, murderers, robbers in India would be Hindus. Does it makes sense to have them wear tilak and saffron clothes when presented as criminals in front of the public?
Milind, I agree with you on integration, but I don’t see how NOT speaking out against MIM goons is helpful to the Muslim community. If anything, it’s actually harmful as those gundas give the entire Muslim community a bad name, and if secular folks keep quiet, they will rightly be labeled as pseudo-secular.
Look, if Shiv Sena gundas or Bajrang Dal gundas do gundagardi, people criticize them, including Hindus. So, why give a free pass to MIM gundas for the same kind of activity? It hurts India and it hurts Muslims. Have the same standards for the same activities and then we have a chance to get rid of communal divide.
@Amit,
I have never said that the Muslim community must not speak out against MIM goons. On the contrary, extremely strict action should be taken against them for preventing the screening of “The Message”.
Regarding the communal divide, in all fairness, recently a lot of Muslims HAVE stood up and condemned terrorism. So, the Ummah IS doing its bit.
Milind,
The question of whether you will stand up for “The Message” is an easy one. The question is whether you will stand up for the right of Taslima Nasreen to say what she has to say without being threatened? Will you stand up for “The Satanic Verses” to be allowed again in India? Will you condemn the MIM goons and ask for strict action against them for doing what they did at Taslima Nasreen’s press conference?
There are lots of people, me included, who are willing to say that M.F.Hussain should be allowed to paint what he wants, without being subject to threats or vandalism of his art exhibitions. Those who are offended by his painting should not look at them, but they have no right to prevent others from looking at them. There were lots of people who stood up for James Laine and his book on Shivaji. Why anybody else, even Vajpayee said that a ban on the book was not justified, whatever offense it may have caused some people through its questioning of Shivaji’s paternity. There are others who stood up for the rights of a prominent Bengali author (his name is slipping my mind) who wrote about how he was sexually aroused by thinking about Goddess Saraswati. Somebody filed a court case against him and lost.
Selective application of secularism, or at the very least a widespread perception that this is the case, has led to the situation where the word “secular” is held in contempt by many people. I think self-proclaimed secularists such as many of our politicians, and people like Yogi Sikand and Ram Punyani, have made it harder for secularism to thrive in our country by demonstrating that they are not really secular. We need to retrieve secularism back from them and restore it to the high status it truly deserves.
Girish,
Each nation has its sensitivities, and we need to understand that.
I may find it pointless to get perturbed over Salman Rushdie or Taslima Nasreen, or M.F.Hussain for that matter.
Yet, by and large MF hurts Hindu sentiments big time and that is not acceptable. Likewise for Salman Rushdie vis a vis the Muslims. And I am NOT applying secularism selectively.
The average man on the street does not grasp the subtleties of debate the way we do on this forum. So, banning people like these is not about what we think, but what Indians by and large think.
Milind,
I understand what you’re saying, but we must keep the goal in our minds too. And, what you’re suggesting with your “average man on the street” approach will not move us closer to that goal, but rather away from it. In my humble opinion.
Another thing is that we must also reflect and introspect – and challenge others to do the same – on WHY freedom of speech is so important and so cherished in free societies, and why it is important in Indian society to defend that right for every citizen. What if I told you or someone who is criticizing Bajrang Dal/VHP to shut up because I am offended by it? And let’s say, I threaten you with violence if you don’t shut up? Just as you would want your right to criticize BD/VHP, so do others to express their grievances or speak their minds. It’s the most basic human right – to tell others how they feel about something, or to express themselves.
Freedom of expression is a basic fundamental right in free, democratic societies, and yes, it can be (and is) misused, but there’s no way to allow only good speech that no one will ever find objectionable. It’s the price of having this right that we have to sometimes tolerate speech that we may find objectionable. And the response to it (speech we may find objectionable) is by exercising our own freedom of speech to let the other person know how we feel, instead of forcing them to shut up or threatening them with violence.
Once we understand that concept and start with that foundation, it’ll be easier to fight for the right of Taslima Nasreen as well as M. F. Hussain (instead of picking and choosing), irrespective of religions involved. We – you and I and others who do understand this issue – need to educate others (about freedom and responsibility) and lift them up, instead of lowering the bar.
I think the issue of MF Hussain is quite tangled, and at this point, there is a lot of politics involved. I personally did not find his paintings hurtful, but I do understand if other people’s sentiments were hurt. So what would have been magnanimous on Miyan Hussain’s part is to withdraw those paintings when some folks objected, just like he did with his movie “Meenaxi” when some Muslims objected.
And yes, I understand it’s his freedom to decide which one he withdraws (movie) and which he doesn’t (painting), but that comes across as double-standards and it gives ammunition to the right wing.
To me, it’s not the objections or work-of-art that is problematic, it is different standards depending on which religion is involved, for the same issue of freedom of expression. That’s not secularism.
And again, Hindus have every right to be offended if they want to – being offended is covered under freedom of expression – but what they don’t have a right to is to resort to violence.
@Mahesh T
Mahesh , I Think i was talking about India.
Why are you giving examples from other countries?
Rashid, Agree why drag other countries. Anyways I have allready said that political sensitiveness should be taken care of. There are good muslims in the country and the 99% good people should not be held hostage to the 1% bad ones.
There is an article in India today where these 3 arrested people proudly admit their crimes. So will now the Muslim intelligentia stop being hyper about discrimination everywhere and start accepting that their is a problem. The need is not to build another conspiracy and say look 1 person from Hindu outfit was caught in nanded. Well the person caught should be punished but the ones that are guilty here also need to be punished and this demand should now come from the Muslim community.
As they are the ones who marched to the parliament, caused the police to feel down. Maybe it was all your propaganda that might have made some crackpot to wear these guys these scarfs. Maybe he knew that these are terrorists but seeing all Muslims support them he might have thought that support their identity as well. Wrong but think on those lines. If you support the guilty evidently innocents will get hurt as well. Do not blame the police blatantly for a few wrong incidents. And there is why I gave an example from police of other countries. The british police in afteramth of London Bombings had killed a Brazilian and made several arrests. Some of them were proved innocent later but the goverment applauded its police as many of the guilty were also found. Its the way any police force works. Non acceptance that educated wealthy Muslims are taking to terrorism and defending them is not going to root out the problem.
Amit
Maybe Hussain in his infinite intelligence understood that the so called fanatic Hindus did not have any support within the community and that the community was mature enough to understand Art for the sake of beauty. His paintings are not new and he has been honored as an artist in this land itself. However he felt that the leadership in his own religious community was too obscurantist and opportunist to appreciate art. He has in a way vindicated the tolerance of the Hindu society. Some may read that as impotency as evidenced by 1000 years of being ruled by a numerical minority. But we all know better don’t we?
Amit/Sudie,
There is no doubt that ON THE WHOLE and HISTORICALLY, the Hindu community has been very tolerant.
However, a thought process that has crept into the minds of many of them is that they have allowed themselves to be trampled over, and now need to stand up and fight. The Hindu right wingers feed on this in much the same way as Muslim extremists do on the “Islam in danger” bogey.
This kind of thinking needs to be checked.
Milind
Dont you see that these so called Hindutva right wingers are essentially anti-social elements taking the cover of religion. They do not have any ideological argument also to quote from as Hinduism in its essence is less of a religion and more of a cultural construct.
They manage to convince some people about their ambitions but they have no ideological grounds to spread mischief. A religion that preaches that you realize God through your own self, that every religion is equally right and that there are many streams to the same God, cannot be used to drive fanaticism. Thats why they misuse the Ramayana to drive a twisted agenda.
Ramayana is more of an Indian epic than a Hindu religious text. Its talk about the ideal man, the right conduct etc needs to be understood in context. Within its story itself it paints Rama as a flawed hero – just to highlight that one can stive for perfection and that we learn from the imperfections of our heros also. So today we don’t even have a one true version because Hinduism encourages re-interpretation. Unfortunately its not a religion for the weak minded who want direction or the fanatic who wants to force it. Its for those who can choose their own path.
Its a sad thing that our institutional systems have failed to keep these Hindu hooligans in check. But our systems have been over worked and we are a nation of talkers and less of do-ers.