Depiction Of Muslims’ Experiences In America In The Movie My Name Is Khan

“My name is Khan and I am not a terrorist. ”

The aforementioned quote aptly highlights the lived experiences of Muslims in America - one in which they constantly have to defend themselves from allegations of being involved in terrorism.

My Name is Khan (2010) is a Bollywood film which recounts the journey of Rizvan Khan in America, who as a Muslim suffering from Asperger Syndrome, is often misperceived as a terrorist. Contextualised against the religious tension and political backdrop of post-9/11, his stepson (from his marriage to Mandira, a Hindu) is killed due to a hate crime by his White classmates. This motivates Rizvan to set out on a journey to meet the President with the aim of delivering the message that he is not a terrorist, only upon which would his wife forgive and accept him again. At this juncture, it is critical for us to acknowledge the conflation of ‘Muslim’ and ‘terrorist’ identities which dominates this film and aligns with the dominant representation of Muslim terrorism in Bollywood cinema. In this essay, ‘terrorism’ is understood as “the premeditated use of violence by a non-state group to obtain a political, religious, or social objective through fear or intimidation directed at a large audience”. I shall argue that despite being a Bollywood film, MNIK has largely adopted an Orientalist lens (Said) in its representation of terrorism. This is manifested in the following portrayals: terrorist as the ‘Other’ vis-à-vis the Western(ized) individual, the rationality of terrorism as contentious – while terrorism is represented as irrational in public spaces, it appears rational in private ones, and lastly, the national identities of terrorists being problematized due to their religion.

Terrorists as Others

Firstly, terrorists are portrayed as the ‘Other’ in MNIK vis-à-vis the White Americans, elucidating the Orientalist lens which the film adopts. Orientalism is an academic discourse based upon an ontological distinction between the ‘Occident’ (West) and the ‘Orient’ (East; mostly Asians). Borne out of post-colonialism, Said asserts that such discourse reflects Western superior definition of itself and “Western style for dominating restructuring, and having authority over the Orient” achieved through its representation of the latter as exotic, uncivilized and backward, thus Othering them. Othering is a process of casting an individual/community into the role of the ‘Other’ and thus establishes one’s own identity through binary opposition, and arguably through vilification of this Other. This ‘Otherness’ is exemplified in MNIK where Rizvan, dressed in his Indian-Muslim wear of kurta and taqiyah, stands in a sea of Christians at a funeral for 9/11 victims. Beyond his dressing, his ‘Otherness’ is heightened in him muttering seemingly incomprehensible Arabic prayers alone and competing against the collective English hymns sung by the Christians. Contextualized against the backdrop of 9/11 where America was plagued by religious tension against Muslims, the social disapproval and alienation shown toward Rizvan, exemplified by the Christians walking away from him, alludes to them imagining and establishing themselves as a collective that is antithetical to Rizvan and his religious affiliations. By making the latter weird, postulating it as evil and murderous, the Christians thus normalize themselves in the discourse. By positing the Orient within the Western European experience, the Occident are then able to define themselves – whatever the Orients are, the Occidents are not. More importantly, this elucidates Said’s assertion that orientalism is “a relationship of power, of domination, of varying degrees of a complex hegemony”, alluding that Orients are not being Othered simply because they are different but because they could be made Orientalized by the Occidents.

In the case of Rizvan, he could be Othered by the White Christians simply because the latter could exercise power over him, insofar that they formed the majority and had relative privileged lived experiences, and thus were able to exercise their agencies in Othering him. Additionally, Rizvan’s Otherness is made significant when viewed how he easily identifies with the Black community, another group that is arguably Othered in the American social context. His effortless acceptance into the Black community in Georgia is epitomized in a scene where they collectively sang “We Shall Overcome” in church – both in English and Hindi simultaneously, alluding to a shared coexistence and assimilation. The song choice is a significant one as it was written as an anthem sung by the Blacks during the Civil War movement in America, thus signifying Rizvan and the Black community’s collective protest for their individual rights to be afforded. Furthermore, the fact that Rizvan was able to openly mutter ‘Bismillah’ in front of said congregation with little condemnation from them, sharply contrasts the social disapproval he faced earlier from the White community. Ultimately, it shows how their collective experiences as oppressed Others – implicitly a non-Western (dominantly White) experience - transcends both religion and race. The moral panic that ensues from the racialization of the ‘Brown bodies’ (presumably Muslims) is not an isolated problem but rather part of a larger trend of racializing, antagonizing and vilifying non-White bodies, as aligned with Orientalism.

Rationality of terrorism as contentious

Secondly, the film shows the role of spatial openness is determining whether terrorism is represented as rational or otherwise. While terrorism is portrayed as irrational in public (American) spaces, the film shows it to be a rational choice in private intimate spaces, thus establishing a dual-narrative. The former is elucidated through the portrayal of terrorists as religious fanatics who overly-subscribe to the teachings of Islam, to the extent of willingly carrying out altruistic suicides. This is rooted in a misinterpreted understanding of jihad (holy war), and thus the need for them to be surveyed and policed in public spaces. Such irrationality is exemplified in the conflation of terrorist tendencies and development disabilities in the Western imagining of a ‘terrorist’, epitomized in Rizvan being misjudged as a terrorist due to behavioural ticks, which are manifestations of his Asperger’s Syndrome. This is seen established early on in the film where he is stopped for additional security check at the airport for exhibiting suspicious behaviour such as fiddling with stones and chanting Arabic prayers – behavioural mechanisms for him to copy with his condition. Through this, it shows the imposition of the Orientalist (Western) social construction of the visuals of terrorism – irrational, religious, Islamic. Its pervasiveness and penetration into public spaces firstly, alludes to the rhetoric’s popularity amongst Western masses who echo it and secondly, shows how it governs institutions of national security insofar that the security officer uses it to decide whether an individual constitutes a security threat to the state’s territorial boundaries.

While it is arguable that such imaginings of terrorism has legitimate groundings in real-life events, specifically Al-Qaeda who masterminded 9/11 terror attacks, it is critical to recognize that to disregard terrorism as irrational and purely religious is an overstatement and ignores the role of other parties involved. Such rhetoric is countered through MNIK’s portrayal of terrorism as rational, when discussed in private spaces and more significantly, through the perspective of the terrorist themselves who posits terrorism as a reactionary force to (destructive) actions that the Western countries have imposed onto their countries. This expounds largely on the understanding of the ‘world-system’ theory (WST), which is a globological lens in comprehending international acts of terrorism – involving at least two countries – henceforth asserting the need to acknowledge the interdependency and shared responsibility over these acts. Rooted in capitalism, this framework acknowledges the international division of labour and delineates the world into three economic zones. These zones are interconnected and make up a total social system, thus what happens in one zone bears repercussions onto the others. Thus in the film, in a private intimate space within the mosque, a Muslim male leader argues how their plans on carrying on terrorist attacks in America itself are motivated by the latter’s (core zone) actions towards Muslim countries (periphery) exemplified by invasion and bombing of the Muslim countries on basis of suspected terrorism, exploitation of their oil resources, imposing Western neoliberalism, amongst many others. Through such rationalization, we understand how terrorism does not exist or is manifested in a vacuum and instead, how the actions of both parties serve to reinforce the tension between them. More importantly, it depicts terrorism as more than just being caused by one’s religious ideological belief and rather the intersectionality of various factors – economic, political, etc. – and various actors, henceforth acknowledging the role of the West in the discourse on terrorism.

Thus, through discerning and scrutinizing the different spaces in which terrorism is being represented, we also see the discourse of ‘global war on terror’ and the power dynamics underlying it. By emphasizing the irrationality and Islamization of terrorism in public spaces, it makes visible the construction and dominance of the Western power in the discourse. The “persuasive power of a particular reading of terrorism [in Western societies] reflects forces which are external to its formulation”, illustrating the agencies of those in power in achieving so. On a micro level, it reveals how our understanding of ‘terrorism’ is a discursive formation, which constantly reproduces itself. As a post-positivist concept, it shows how such a discourse redefines how we think of war, terrorism and who ‘the enemy’ is, all of which are not innate and have instead been shaped by Western authorities who exercised power in both defining such terms and using institutions such as media to permeate such a narrative. Beyond reinforcing notions of Orientalism, it implies this ‘existential battle’ between the West and the rest (largely Muslims), thus explaining the religious (Islamic) overtone of the Western imagination of the ‘terrorist’, albeit it being time and space-specific. On a macro level, it exposes the power the West holds in dispensing terror and how it is often used as a national strategy to control and regulate its citizens, through forming a sense of solidarity against a common threat. The term itself is used as a mode of political activity by the (Western) states to both create and reflect a violent society where the “spectacle where pervasive feelings of fear, anxiety, and paranoia are reproduced daily”, affording the state unbridled imperial power through control over its citizens.

National identities questioned

Thirdly, the national identities of assumed (Muslim) terrorists are often questioned and portrayed as non/anti-American, regardless if they are American-born. While this posits one’s religious and national identities to be mutually exclusive – one has to choose either - it is critical to discern that only Muslims in the film are subjected to such treatment while individuals of other religions often have their national identities left unquestioned. This is instantiated in MNIK when Hasina, Rizvan’s hijab-wearing sister-in-law, has her hijab pulled off her head by a White student in her college while the latter shouts “you people…should get out of my country”. Beyond the imposition of linguistic othering of us-and-them, the irony lies in the fact that firstly, Hasina is American-born and secondly, such discrimination exists in a country which prides itself on freedom of religion and individuals’ rights to practice it. The assumption that one cannot be both Muslim and American derives from the internalized (mis)understanding that Islam is intolerant, demands autonomy from Western powers, and is antithetical to American values of democracy, equality and freedom of expression, a misunderstanding that is made more significant post-9/11 which directly contested Muslims (albeit from other countries) against Americans. Through this we see the problematization of assumed direct and linear relation between one’s national identity and the state he/she is born into and resides in. A state is defined as political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a certain geographical territory. While society has naturalized one’s national identity/citizenship as afforded by the state, we see how a national identity is not pre-determined and goes beyond being within the geographical boundaries of a state – you are not American simply by being born in America. Rather, one’s national identity is something that is being performed and constantly reproduced and reiterated through your actions. Such performativity is supported by Butler (1990) who argues that it is “repeated stylization of the body, a set of repeated acts within a highly rigid regulatory frame that congeal over time to produce the appearance of substance”. As such, one’s Americanness is not innate but rather a behaviour that individuals have been socialized into performing, as imposed by societal institutions.

This is exemplified in Hasina’s decision to not don her hijab, the most obvious mark of a Muslim woman’s religious identity, in response to the religious tension. Through this we see how in an attempt to reassert her American identity vis-à-vis reducing her Otherness, she is forced to compromise on her religious identity to prove her patriotism and have her national identity supersede. Interestingly, it also highlights the time-sensitivity element in the social construction of one’s national identity. While donning her hijab has never been a problem for Hasina pre-9/11, the veil now carries connotations of being anti-American in the political climate post-9/11, elucidating how a national identity is never fixed and rather, contextual. Evidently, there is an underlying preconceived expectation for Muslims to assimilate themselves into the American way of living – both spiritually and superficially. Perhaps, Zakir (Rizvan’s brother) words such contestation best by questioning “What’s wrong in an ordinary citizen wanting to meet the President of his country? Or is it just wrong for a Muslim man to even try?”. Ultimately, this pinpoints the American nation’s Orientalist views of Islam as backward and oppressive and that Muslims in America would innately pledge allegiance to their religion over the nation, thus invalidating their supposed national identities.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we see how MNIK has largely adopted an Orientalist lens in its portrayal of Muslim terrorism by portraying terrorists as the ‘Other’, questioning their national identities and highlighting the contestation of rationality of terrorism, which is dependent on the spatial openness in which it is discussed. While such portrayal is arguably problematic, the significance of this film is made prominent when contextualized against the trend of recent Bollywood films, such as Kurbaan and New York, which similarly portray terrorism in Orientalist light. This then posits the question – why despite being non-Western entities, do these films/Bollywood adopt an Orientalist lens?

Essentially, such adoption is rooted in two factors: pre-existing Hindu-Muslim tension in India and the growing Westernization of Bollywood. Henceforth, the adoption of Orientalist view towards the (Muslims) terrorists can be seen as Bollywood’s effort to align with its targeted audience and more global experiences, mostly achieved through commodification of the Orients as subjects of entertainment and spectacle. Through this, it provides distance and reconciles “the temporary experience of the film’s foreignness with audience expectations and perceptive frameworks” thus allowing the Westernized viewer to comfortably watch the Other, as they identify with recognisable Western characters in the film. It allows for Western viewers to express feelings openly towards the Other, be it sympathy or anger. The process locates histories of colonialism as a thing in the past, thus allowing the viewer to be “an enlightened self with no accountability” while still satisfying their preconceived biases against the Other. Beyond highlighting the imposition of Orientalism, MNIK is a great example on how films are rarely apolitical and thus, emphasizes the need for viewers to remain critical and contextualize films against geopolitical discourses, instead of passively internalizing subtle messages embedded in the film.