Strange-ness was projected onto those who posed a disruption into those norms and since this established notion of “family” was considered “moral,” those falling outside of it were rendered “immoral” and not fit to be a part of their society. Safoora Zargar faces this projected “immorality” on two fronts— her identity as a Muslim, and her pregnancy out of wedlock (which, again, is not true). Even though her family released her wedding photos, it becomes easier for nationalists to label her an outsider if they are able to attack one part of her identity, her faith, through another, her “morality.” This intersectional analysis is important, because it paints a larger and more comprehensive picture of othering that is occurring in India right now. If we go back to the images, keeping Safoora in mind, we begin to see distinct lines, or boundaries visible in them. In the first image, the police officers form one end, the wall becomes the boundary, and the people who put up those posters and painted all the graffiti become the other side. The police and BJP, along with their supporters, tried to paint the revolution as inherently Muslim, and they were proven wrong because Indians of all ages, religions, castes and social classes came together against them. It made it difficult to make it us versus them, when some of those they considered us, saw through the fascism. The Modi government tried to get other religions on their side by naming Sikhs, Christians, Jains, and other major religions in the Citizenship Amendment Act, but they still showed up to protest in solidarity. They tried to launch Women Empowerment schemes, but women led the protests against the government. So their tactic to project a threat to the nation onto individuals changed. They rendered dissent as anti-national and everyone who dissented had to be silenced. So that wall of
41. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-51308376.
posters represents a population that came together to fight fascism, and their efforts were silenced simply by ripping the posters during a lockdown. If no one could see dissent visibly, they would continue believing in the dream. In the second image, the police again form one line, the man with the gun forms the boundary and everything off camera becomes the other. The situation is uncanny because the police is meant to protect, and their position should be between the shooter and those off camera, but this image shows that only some identities are protected and the others are made to stare at the barrel of the gun that “protects” the “morality” and “law” of the nation. The irony of what is danger becomes apparent from these images and displays the power of belief in a promised dream. Things that are inherently dangerous, like a hate-filled man shooting a gun at peaceful protestors, is rendered a hero and a saviour of “homeland,” while a pregnant woman practicing her right to dissent is in prison, charged as a “terrorist.” Danger as a concept is convoluted and changes from person to person. But privilege is able to distinguish what is really dangerous, compared to what is rendered to be perceived as dangerous as a tool of oppression. The shooter, whose identity has been protected by the Delhi police posed an actual threat—he shot a person. The Delhi police poses an actual threat— they participated in the pogrom against Muslims in North-East Delhi and none of those participating officers have been named or suspended.41 Safoora Zargar, on the other hand has real and photoshopped images and fabricated porn clips circulating across the country. So, the next time anyone in the country has to imagine what a terrorist looks like, they are going to have a name and image associated with— it was fed to them by those who are hiding behind their privilege, and doing the work of terrorizing.
