By TwoCircles.net staff reporter
Kolkata: Otherization of Muslims in movies is nothing new but a recent Bengali movie went over the top in its negative portrayel of Muslims. Zulfiqar directed by Srjit Mukherji is an adaptation of two plays of William Shakespeare- Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra. Former TwoCircles.net Assistant Editor and now an Assistant Professor at Aliah University Mohammad Reyaz wrote a critique of this stereotyping of Muslims which led to the director Srijit Mukherji responding with a note on facebook.
We are publishing here excerpts of the published at Dailyo.in website. And then note from the director and then response from Reyaz to that note.
Reyaz critique
Mukherji’s film, however, has gone much beyond these stereotypes. While so far, the imagery of “unruly, separatist and criminal-minded” Muslims would generally be implied subtly, Zulfiqar leaves nothing to the imagination.
The trailer begins with images of Howrah Bridge and Durga Puja celebration; and announces that in the land of bridges, Puja and Tagore, “there is another land”.
The visuals suddenly change to blood on the frame of Tagore with sounds of bullets in the background. The images that follow are about barbarity, bloodshed, butchery, betrayal, suggestions of infidelity and Muharram processions, where young boys are playing with swords and chains, children are reciting Quran, and men are offering prayers in congregation, etc.
All this while the background voice declares, perhaps in the voice of a city police personnel: “Dock area, consisting of Kidderpore, Metiabruz, Garden Reach (is) a small country, inside the city of Kolkata. Yes a country, only without a national anthem and a flag.”
Zulfiqar is a common name, but it was also the name of the legendary sword of fourth Caliph of the Muslims, Hazrat Imam Ali, that is believed to be a gift to him from his cousin and the Prophet of Islam.
…
In an extremely problematic and prejudicial way, however, Zulfiqar “others” these localities of Kolkata on two counts: one for being Muslim and the other for not being “Bengali”. It reflects on the superiority complex of the upper caste Bengali bhadralok – the custodians of high culture, after all, from Tagore to Satyajit Ray were Bengalis.
…
So Muslim prayers, Muharram mourning or children studying in maktab will remain alien to the bhadralok’s imagination of Kolkata even though it has existed in this land for centuries. And in the their imagination, this can never also be the land of Furfura Sharif, Kazi Nazrul Islam, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, S Wajid Ali; but only of Tagore and Puja!
Consequently, Muslim colonies may become the subject of a commercial film but these rarely attract the attention of social scientists for ground research, and hence little initiatives towards “mainstreaming” and “integrating” them.
Srijit’s note after Dailyo.in piece was published
In the context of the Zulfiqar trailer, I have recently come across some allegations of ‘otherization’ of the Muslim community, depicting Muslims in a stereotypical and inevitably negative way ‘like most Indian filmmakers’ and generalisation of particular areas as the hotbed of illegal and criminal activities. Since drawing conclusions from a trailer and not waiting for the actual film is in vogue, some clarifications are in order.
1. The ‘otherization’ line is spoken BY A CHARACTER in the film and is not the message of the film. Like in real life, there are many characters in the film who think like that and many who don’t. One needs to reflect both types to tell a story, and reflecting a bias either way is not the same as carrying it. Like making a film with a serial killer as a protagonist doesn’t tantamount to supporting serial killing.
2. There are multiple Muslim characters in the narrative – some of them stereotypical, some of them absolutely non-stereotypical, some liberal, some orthodox, some patriotic, some separatists, some progressive, some regressive, some peace-loving, some millitant – all kinds actually. So sorry to disappoint, no typification or racial hatred here. And talking the inevitable negative portrayal, the main villain of Zulfiqar is a HINDU. So there.
3. Finally, when the three areas in question are described in the film, it is clearly mentioned that there are two types of business activities in the area – LEGAL and as it is called locally, unlegal. So there is no question of ridiculously calling an entire area submerged in illegal activities or every resident of that area, criminal. However, as per Police records, the incidence of crime is actually very high in these areas due to their proximity to the port like every other dock area in the world where a parallel economy exists due to a leakage of money and goods. So it is a well-established fact which has nothing to do with any religious community and not a figment of any Islamophobic imagination.
Reyaz responds:
So Film maker Srijit Mukherji finally responds after 2 days of my article where I raised the issue of crass stereotyping of Muslim localities in his upcoming blockbuster Zulfiqar. His detailed response is below, but he makes three basic pints:
(1) I was too quick to judge his film based on trailer alone, (2)The ‘otherization’ line is spoken BY A CHARACTER and is not the message of the film, adding that some Muslims characters are ‘stereotypical and some are not. He further argues that the villain in Film is a HINDU. (3) Finally, that areas in question do have higher crime data as police record shows, adding, it is well-established fact which has nothing to do with any religious community and not a figment of any Islamophobic imagination.’’
I still stand by every word of my article. Srijit is trying to mislead by selectively speaking on the subject:
(1) If someone like Senior Bachhan is praising his trailer, he immediately re-tweets it. So praising of trailer is allowed not criticism! At No point I say that entire film is crass stereotypical representation, but argue how problematic the trailer is.
He mentions about ONE CHARACTER to justify his position but not the lines written in bold in the opening scenes of the teaser that announces ‘In the land of Bridges, Puja and Tagore’ and then changes barbarity, bloodshed, butchery, betrayal, suggestions of infidelity and Muharram processions, where young boys are playing with swords and chains, children are reciting Quran, and men are offering prayers in congregation, etc. My questions remains is this land of Tagore and Puja alone and not of can never also be the land of Furfura Sharif, Kazi Nazrul Islam, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, S Wajid Ali, etc.
(2) It is interesting that despite being such a reputed film maker he says the said message about ‘a country within the city’ is by one character and is not the message of the film. So is message of film only when some one stands up and give a moral lesson, not subtle ‘interpellation’ through different characters and dialogues???
He writes: ‘There are multiple Muslim characters in the narrative – some of them stereotypical, some of them absolutely non-stereotypical, some liberal, some orthodox, some patriotic, some separatists, some progressive, some regressive, some peace-loving, some millitant – all kinds actually. So sorry to disappoint, no typification or racial hatred here ’. One can write full essay on this, but I will wait for the film to further comment on it.
He also reminds in BLOCK Letters that the villain in the film is a HINDU. This is even more problematic. First, the film is about criminals and so the purported hero is no saint either, he maybe Robin Hood in some sense though. He saying that when you make a film on serial killer it does not “tantamount to supporting”. No one is saying that he is supporting, but questioning the problematic messages that come across such depiction. Further the fact that he is point in BOLD that the villain is a Hindu is itself problematic. So if ‘heroes’ were Muslim, villain would be Hindu. Sad how unintentionally we have internalised the schism on our society.
(3) While speaking about “dock area” how subtly he says everything while pretending to deny it. So he says that area in question has high rate of crimes but that has nothing to do with any community or ‘Islamophobic imagination’. Let’s wait for the movie to speak more on the subject.
Some friends, playing Devil’s Advocate, asked me there are many ‘underworld movies’ and not all are Muslims, pointing to films like Satya, Vastav, etc. Yes correct, but Bhiku Mahatre is not shown to do some “Jihad’’ like say Tabrez. Further, problem is Muslim depiction largely is in negative, very few films like My name is Khan or New York has sympathetic representation of films. So the message we sending across is that Muslims are overwhelmingly separatists, criminals and unpatriotic.
About me pointing that Zulfiqar means sword and a particular one that was gifted to Caliph Ali; that’s the point. There could be lakhs of name if the film maker chose name signifying sword, obviously he had certain things in mind. Lets not forget the visuals of young children playing with swords in the trailer.
And then that we Indians are increasingly turning touchy!
I am not being touchy and I am not even demanding a ban on film, the film maker has all the freedom to depict the movie the way he wants; but is it only his freedom and I don’t even have the freedom to critique?????