MY NAME IS KHAN - MOVIE REVIEW
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
My Name is Khan -- Movie Review
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
My Name is Khan -- Movie Review
By Desh Kapoor
kavitachhibber.com
Last night, I went to watch "My Name is Khan". A lot has been said
about the movie by many parties, and it is best to see things for
yourself to make a sound judgment than to trash it or eulogize it by
hearsay.
First lets get the assessment of the movie related stuff out. Story-
wise and innovativeness wise it was a bummer. Shah Rukh was copying
Dustin Hoffman to the hilt. The story had a strong flavor of Rain
Man, of how Dustin Hoffman (Raymond) and Tom Cruise (Charlie) go
around the country and the sort of experiences they have. The parts
on how SRK goes to the small Georgian town of Wilhimena after the
hurricane was over dramatized and also the part on Obama. It wasn't
such an intelligent plot and in the end pretty melodramatic.
Compared to "3 Idiots", it was really mediocre.. and honestly there
were many weaknesses in "3 Idiots" itself.
Now, what was disturbing was not its mediocrity but three things:
Stereotypes, Exaggeration andContext. Lets talk about these aspects
of the movie.
Stereotypes
What was really sad about this movie was that it was made ostensibly
to disparage Stereotypes ("My name is Khan and I am not a
Terrorist"), and yet it tried to do that by RE-INFORCING stereotypes
for everyone else (Non-Muslims) in an attempt to bring home its
message. It was almost as if one wanted to appear Holy by throwing
mud at the others so one could look cleaner in comparison!
White people, overwhelmingly, were shown to be heartless or racial.
Black people were supposed to be dumb and poor, and therefore, nice.
Muslims, were shown to be besieged everywhere -- whether its India or
US, and therefore retaliating. Law enforcement officials in the US
were shown, as a generality, to be without any humanity or not
following any rule of law.. and above all, threatening.
I will speak to these in detail, but one small piece -- which was
specific and bad case of mis-information and lack of credible
research into this movie was Rizwan's (SRK) experience in the jail!
The torture of sleeplessness and other things (change of
temperatures, lack of access to information, unusable toilet seats)
are NOT from the US jail system (however bad it may be), but from
Guantanamo Bay prisons. Yes, the torture in Guantanamo has happened
and it is disturbing, but to suggest that every Muslim, despite his
or her medical condition, who goes to a US Jail, is subjected to such
torture as a regular means of treatment is farcical, very
mischievious and plays right in to the hands of the Jihadi
propaganda.
Now about the stereotypes that this movie promoted.
White people
Lets be clear. White man is generally taken to be a proxy of the
"West". So, when one talks of stereotypes of Whites or of the West,
the world talks of basically synonyms. Unfortunately, that is the
truth behind the scenes. Hence, I wanted to get that pretense of the
holier-than-thou liberals out of the way! When you are showing a
stereotype about Whites, you are basically trying to make a statement
on the West.
So, from the boys who killed Sam, to the people who threaten the shop
keepers to the law enforcement agencies..... it seems White people
are incarnations of devil and somehow highly insensitive! And
against their normal grain, they turn "human" only when they are
close to you as friends but change when they face any tough situation
(Reese abetted killing of Sam because of his anger). Somehow, it is
always a matter of celebration and something out of usual, if they
"act nicely" to you. If you listen to the Jihadi talk and read their
propaganda, this is precisely what they are always trying to portray
about the white man and the West!! MNIK's portrayal of the White Man
(and West by proxy) is a page out of Jihadi propaganda book and NOT
based on a liberal and secular sensibilities!
I have spoken on my blog against how Avatar shows as if unless White
man helps people of some other planet, even those tribes won't do
anything worthwhile (reinforcing the "White Man's burden"
construct!). So, stereotypes are perpetuated in both ways. And
trying to portray the other extreme because Hollywood portrays one is
very self-defeating indeed..
So, while James Cameron's stereotype in Avatar betrays a Colonial
mind-set and therefore offensive; Karan Johar and SRK's stereotype
betrays the "Muslim ghettoes and Jihadi brain-washing" mind-set and
therefore offensive.
Truth is somewhere in between.
Black People
Black People, whenever shown, are shown as "victims", "stupid" and
"downtrodden" who are nice to talk to simply because of their "subtly
projected" lower economic condition and IQ. Its the romantic
(socialist ideology driven primarily) notion that many times Raj
Kapoor showed of the poor slum dwellers vs Rich men in his movies.
Bollywood movies have many times been down this road of showing poor
men with humanity and rich men as heartless as a stereotype, which is
a completely Socialist and Communist construct. Not all poor and
downtrodden are nice and not all rich and privileged are inhuman.
And since, in the US, only blacks happen to be embodiment of poverty
and downtrodden and White men as the rich abettors of crime in the
popular folk-lore perpetuated around the world, especially so in the
Jehadi narratives, that's what somehow creeps into this movie as
well.
Muslims
Muslims are somehow shown as besieged every where. They are victims
incarnate. Whether it is the narrative after the riots or in the
speech of the extremist in the mosque (which was not the point Rizwan
counters, rather he clarifies a theological point of sacrifice of his
son's blood by Ishmael). Even in school its the same narrative as it
is in businesses.
Now, I have lived through the years since 9-11 in the US. I have
been working with Muslims and also seen the businesses in Houston,
the most conservative of cities as they come in the US. No other
businesses have prospered as much as those of people who worked hard
and had the right idea. There are Pakistani women and men who have
grown exponentially and from a strictly desi clientele gotten a
strong American clients on their roster of customers. Yes, and I am
talking of Salons more than any other businesses.. IN HOUSTON!! So,
if I were to talk of California, the most liberal state in the US and
San Francisco, one of the decidedly most liberal of cities in that
state, then the narrative of Mandira's salon going out of business
because of her Khan last name is nothing but a cruel caricature! It
is so misinformed and misinformingthat it could have easily been
written by the likes of Zaid Hamid and Hamid Gul than by a well
informed Secularist or Humanist Muslim.
To epitomize Muslims as Victims is a strong Jehadi need and
imperative. If you understand the historic narrative of Islam, you
will realize that Victimization has been very deeply stitched into
its fabric. And with the narrative of Victimization has come closely
the narrative of "fighting back" and killing the other. In Quran,
however, the narrative of Victimization is defined from the
standpoint of Belief (in the 3 main tenets of Islam -- Day of
Judgment, Belief in Allah, and following Muhammad's example) and
retaliation is to Non-Belief (or Kufr).
Victimization as a central precept has been the most effective way of
creating converts to any cause, with a apparently egalitarian agenda
but, which in reality, turns out to be an extremist agenda.
Communism is another great example of that.
There can never be an equality of human experiences, and it cannot be
enforced by any means ever. What is there however, scientifically
and spiritually, is the equality of existence itself. This equality
cannot be enforced but can be experienced.
The issue is that those who have set out to take their followers to
the "promised land of equality" have turned them into extremists who
fight the world which lives and revels in its diversity.
Enforcing Equality NECESSARILY leads to Suppression of Diversity.
It is no wonder therefore, that in the societies and the groups where
enforcement (not exploration) of Equality is the Central precept,
expression of desent is highest evil! Whether it is Islamic
societies or the Communist societies, heretical expression is
reserved the highest punishment.
It is in this context of the "Three Narratives", as I call them, that
the depiction of Victimization should be viewed. The Three
Narratives are:
Narrative # 1: Explicitly desire that you want to push your ideology
on the other guy and that the other guy should swear by your ideology
as the ONLY "Truth" and that such a desire is an order of your god.
Any action that bars you from carrying out such an action is
sufficient and legitimate proof of "Victimization".
Narrative #2: That, if you are "Victimized", you have enough and
sufficient justification to Kill the "perpetrator" -- the guy who
wanted to NOT go by your desires of swearing by your ideology and
bowing to your god.
Narrative #3: The ideology is not "Anti-Peace" or against humanity as
the Narrative #2 may suggest. Killing, after all, is only a
specialized punishment for those who "Harm" or "Victimize" you.
Otherwise, its all "good".
If you look Sura 2 from verse 191 through 192, the entire argument
for the three narratives is clearly and unequivocally established.
It is clear if one were to look closely, that Victimization as a
narrative is the CENTRAL argument that abets Terrorism, also called
Jihad. I know that there are diferent "types" of Jihad listed in the
book, but until now, I have not seen anyone practising them nor
discussing them as an anti-dote to violence and way to peace in the
world, specially in a dialog with the extremists. So, let's go by
what is being practised and not what exists merely in arguments.
Exaggeration
This was the most mischievious of the entire story line. Yes,
attacks happened on Sikhs and on Muslims in the US post 9-11, but
they were by NO MEANS or stretch of imagination, a trend! I was not
following all the attacks, but if I would have to hazard a guess not
more than maybe couple of dozen attacks may have occured on the
Muslim families and individuals due to religious intolerance. I know
a few Sikhs also got killed, but even those attacks were less than
half a dozen in the last 10 years.
I don't know of ANY incident where school kids would have targeted
the Muslim kids in a way to kill them or subject violence on them.
My daughter and those of my friends also go to schools in Texas,
which as I said before, is as conservative as any state in the US can
get. And these kids have Muslims, indeed my daughter had a Pakistani
Muslim in her class. I have asked her about him and what other kids
think of him. There is nothing different that they think of him than
her or other friends of a different enthnicity.
I have seen quite a few countries and interacted with people of still
many more countries, even those I have not visited. And I can say
categorically that US and Canada are perhaps the MOST tolerant
countries on the face the earth right now. The crimes of
discrimination get so much coverage because these societies accept
and encourage dissent and justice. The plight of minorities in say,
Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or even Malaysia (the most progressive of
Islamic nations) can only be imagined.
And that is what makes this attempt in MNIK, if it was to talk about
HUMANITY and not forward the Muslim agenda per se, seem even more
disingenuous. Which leads me to the next category of my assessment -
the Context of the movie.
Context
Throughout the movie, I was trying to understand -- who was the target
audience of the message?
Because there seemed to be many.
In your face was thrown that it was the Non-Muslim world at large,
which was, for no particular reason, mis-understanding the Muslims,
and therefore indulging in a monumental injustice to the "Humanity at
large". The misunderstanding of the Muslims was not just a
Perception issue but a Injustice to Humanity issue.
Let me take an example. Rizwan goes to a motel of a Gujarati Hindu -
Jitesh-bhai. While they are talking, some white man (again a white
mind you!) came and threw stone at his window and drove away. In
anger, Jitesh-bhai, who has been having such attacks, because a
"silly white American" cannot tell the difference between a Hindu and
a Muslim, starts to shout how he hates the Muslims for having brought
such attacks on him even though he has nothing to with Jihad or
Islam. In fact, he might consider his own to be at the receiving end
of the same Jihadis back home!!
Now, this is shown as his injustice against humanity or at least as
insensitivity. Now, if one were to look at it purely the standpoint
of an Indian Muslim, he might think it was bad. But think of it from
the standpoint of a Hindu Businessman, who understands perfectly well
that here he is targeted as a proxy for being Muslim, and in India
the Pakistani and Pakistan-trained Indian Mujahideen target his
kith/kin because he is NOT Muslim!
Don't you think his plight is even worse?
In some cases, the context was also to educate the Muslims, specially
the scene in the Mosque where the discussion on Ishmael story takes
place and in a scene where Rizwan refers to the verse which says that
"killing one innocent* is like killing humanity" (* What is an
innocent from a theological standpoint as it is
believed/progagated/interpreted in many Mullahs can be viewed in the
videos below.)
It is very clear in the eyes of these people and others who follow
them that equal rights are only reserved for Muslims. These guys
speak up which many believe in because of their interpretations.
By the way the verse that Rizwan cites is not as unequivocal for
peace promotion as it is made out to be.
The story was of two brothers, son of Adam, where one brother murders
the other and the one who dies, accepts death. The son of Adam, who
is the murderer of his own brother is then sent, by Allah, a raven
(crow) who digs the ground to show how the murderer could hide his
brother's corpse and cover him up. This brother then becomes
repentent of what he had done. (link to all verses in this Sura)
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/005.qmt.html
Then comes this verse, where it is said in context of the Children of
Israel or the Adam. However, this verse does NOT come without
conditions. Even though, killing any one from their own tribe/family
will be like killing the entire tribe, it can still be done if it is
believed:
(i) the other person murdered someone
(ii) spreading mischief in the land
Now, look at the video from Dr. Zakir Naik above to understand what
he is saying about the non-believers in Saudi Arabia. Non believers,
according to Ulemas cannot be allowed to propagate their faith in
Muslim lands, because that will create mischief. Now, one may be
tempted to ask the question, how does this logic change in the land
where Muslims live.. but as a minority? Mischief has nothing to do
with the numbers. It has to do with the faith/belief of one's own
self and that of the other!
005.032
YUSUFALI: On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel
that if any one slew a person -- unless it be for murder or for
spreading mischief in the land -- it would be as if he slew the whole
people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the
life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our
messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them
continued to commit excesses in the land.
PICKTHAL: For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel
that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or
corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind,
and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the
life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear
proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them
became prodigals in the earth.
SHAKIR: For this reason did We prescribe to the children of
Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or
for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and
whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and
certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even
after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.
So, if Muslims were indeed the target audience, wouldn't it have been
better to analyze strains like Sufism?
Religious beliefs have NOTHING to do with God or Liberation. So, if
any one -- SRK or any other person -- says that he wanted to reinforce
a certain religious context because he felt it took one to God, then
that is patent nonsense!
Honest spiritual exploration is the only credible way to liberation
of mankind from its limited belief systems and to a more larger
whole. Honestly, Quranic Islam is not necessarily equal to
Spirituality. Sufism has tried to break away from it and in a lot of
cases the Sufis were forced to tow the traditionalist agenda simply
because of the force and fear of death. Some did fight that but many
did not and served the agenda of the religious.
For example, Tansen and AR Rehman were Hindus by belief and on their
brush with a "Sufi" converted. Now, Sufis are taken as Spiritualists
extraordinaire without argument. But anyone who even begins on a
spiritual journey understands that conversion is a decidedly
tribalistic agenda and has nothing to do with an Infinite
consciousness known as God. A real spiritualist will never talk of
religion or conversion. The very fact that these individuals were
converted by so-called Sufis is more a comment on those "Sufis" than
on anyone else.
So, just as wearing saffron and calling one a Guru does not mean that
one is Enlightened, similarly wearing large hair locks and talking
Sufi mumbo-jumbo does not mean that one is Enlightened. Therefore,
one needs to explore honestly.
Mainstream Islam based on Hadith and Quran has issues, whether SRK
and others may like one to believe or not is another question. But
there is a major issue with regards to how it approaches the non-
believers. Here are some verses in Quran that one would need to
discuss before we actually get to the peaceful verse that Rizwan
utters.
Some Quranic Verses Justifying Violence against non-believers
2:193, 8:39, 8:73, 85:10, 9:14-15, 8:17, 9:13, 2:251, 2:154, 9:19,
9:11, 9:120, 2:44, 8:72, 9:38, 33:36, 4:89, 9:12, 2:178, 5:45, 42:39,
5:33, 8:12, 47:4, 9:5, 2:190-194, 2:216-218, 3:167-175, 4:66, 4:74-
78, 4:95-96, 4:104, 5:54, 6:162, 8:12-16, 8:38-40, 8:57-62, 8:65-66,
8:72-75, 9:12-14, 9:19-21, 9:29, 9:36, 9:39, 9:44-46, 9:52, 9:81,
9:36-38, 9:93-94, 9:100, 9:123, 16:110, 22:39-40, 22:58, 25:68,
26:227, 33:25, 33:60-62, 47:20-21, 47:35, 48:16-22, 48:29, 49:9-10,
49:15, 57:10-11, 59:13-14, 61:4, 61:11-12, 73:20
It is a matter of concern for both the Believers and Non-believers
that such discussion is not undertaken.
So, wouldn't it have been better if one were to make a movie to
explore the spiritual questions by a Muslim and take on the religion
itself? Taking on of religion by the spiritual has been done many
times fruitfully -- J. Krishnamurti has done it, Buddha did it, Nanak
did it. It is a worthy exploration.
Reinforcing of religion can hardly be an attempt in the direction of
peace of any durable nature.
In my considered view, if one is serious about humanity, from a
Humanistic perspective, Islam (or any other religion) is not
important. However, an honest and independent exploration of the
spiritual will be of far greater value! Reinforcing the greatness of
any religion, as MNIK tries to do, is a meaningless exercise.
Desh Kapoor is a consultant and loves writing on different things.
You can read his blog at http://www.drishtikone.com
End of forwarded article
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.