Abstract
AbstractWhen Donald Trump imposed the “Muslim ban” what was surprising was the absence of any pretense to make it political. It wasn't a ban against some countries, it was a ban against Muslim countries or pithily against Muslims. But then what happens when the fear of intrusion underlying “banning” finds its realization in lynching? In the existing discourse on Islamophobia, how do we understand not only the Muslim who isn't allowed to enter but also the Muslim who is quite simply killed for having entered ages ago. In this paper, I share the trajectory of Muslims in India through history, politics, and psychoanalytic theory to present the case of Islamophobia in India. Developing on Edward Said's Orientalism (1978) and Gil Anidjar's, Secularism (2006), I explain how in the secular nation state of India, the phobia isn't of Islam; rather, it is of religion. The religion is identified as Islam. In this identification, national identity and religious identity are at loggerheads such that Muslims in between are left with an impossibility – they cannot be Indians as long as they are Muslims and they can never not be Muslims. In exploring the incidents of lynching, this paper presents a psycho‐political reading of Muslims in India and their impossibility of being Indian.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
