Wednesday 28 January 2015

reluctant fundamentalist ; analysis ; sociology of globalization

RELUCTANT FUNDAMENTALIST






QUESTION# 1
What effect would it have on Changez if he had belonged to a first world Muslim country like Turkey??
Answer:
In my opinion if Changez had belonged to a stable Muslim country like Turkey he would have faced a lot less troubles than he had to face by being a Pakistani. As turkey is in Europe, being from a stable part of the world would have helped him in coping with the crucial situation. As in that case, Changez would not have been recognizable as being someone forms the Muslim country.
As in the movie it has been shown at different times, Changez being harassed just because he was quickly recognized by many police officers and other people as being part of third world country that caused a lot of trouble for him. At one point in movie, as he was travelling with his boss and cliques, he finds himself being escorted by guards for investigation. In another scene, because of a disturbed man, he is taken down for investigation just because of his appearance.
The movie in itself focuses on the issue of how appearances can be deceptive as at 12:55 in the movie, Changez himself says “looks can be deceiving” which can be call the one line abstract of the movie. So, we can say that if Changez had belonged to first world country and looked like what in America’s view is appropriate, he would have a different story to tell.



QUESTION# 2
What kind of person Changez Khan would be if he and his loyalty were not questioned by Americans after 9/11?
Answer:
 Before 9/ 11 Changez Khan was an ambitious person and had dream of America but after 9/11 when his loyalty was questioned and doubted that rises him imp question about his identity he became aware to pick a side he decided to go back to his country to fight against war and violence in a peaceful way BUT  if he was not doubted or questioned he would  be a tool for western capitalism who taught him  to be a pragmatic and efficient business analyst, an American citizen might be married with Ericka too,   serving as an agent for expansion of American empire  and as a member for exploiting his own nation through American capitalism  BUT in all this he wouldn’t have got his own identity .

QUESTION# 3
What if the movie follows the same plot as described in the book by Mohsin Hamid?
Answer:
 Reluctant Fundamentalist by Mohsin Hamid was published in 2007. The book is not a political thriller in any conventional sense. Instead, it’s a parsing of Changez’s cross-cultural identity as it continuous, first by the promise of the American Dream, then by historical events. But the movie was political. The book leaves the reader with the concept of clear image of ending. It was in favor of Muslims but the movie ends with so many blur ideas and killing one Muslim explains the weakness. If the movie follows same plot from boo thee would have been a little conflict between Pakistan and America as the book favors Muslim agenda and this conflict may cause Pakistan at global level. Where the book’s plot is minimal, the film adds a kidnapping and turbulent crowd scenes. While Hamid never spells out the identity of his nameless American, movie tells him as a CIA agent (a restive, conflicted Liev Schreiber) almost from the start. The film works on its own terms. But in expanding the story’s canvas, it dilutes rather than translating the power of the book.
QUESTION# 4
Before 9/11 changaiz being Pakistani did not have many problems? Do you think if changaiz would have completely assimilated, 9/11 would have affected him in same manner? How this story is explaining this globalized phenomenon?
Answer:                                                               
Changez life was much more stable before incident of 9/11 happened. Although changez was a foreigner at Princeton yet he was holding on to his traditional manner which was helping him in moving forward in is carrier. Yet he always saw himself as a member of this community rather than Pakistani. As he said in start that ‘HE WAS LOVER OF AMERICA’.  He was trying to fit in culture by his financial pursuits. He considered himself as New Yorker. When 9/11 incident happened the perspective of chagez changed as community started to reject him as a new Yorker and started seeing him as a Pakistani. A Pakistani which will never be owned in this foreigner land. As his colleagues started to see him as one of the terrorist. It as shown in movie when Wainwright playfully warns Changez to beware the dark side ( Star Wars), it is a clue to his later moral dilemma.
If changez would have completely assimilated he still would have never accepted in the society as people who are brown were under radar and every person who has Pakistani background was considered as a threat and terrorist. When he was coming back from Chile he was stopped by security although he was on business tour and was with his business colleagues. He learned he cannot have dual citizenship in terms of loyalties. And later in movie when police took him to police station he was still wearing American outfit. This clearly give the message no matter how much you try to assimilate you will be still considered as Pakistani and your loyalty to American nation will be questioned
The same conditions were faced by all Pakistanis’ in foreign land as they were considered as a terrorist and Islam was publicized as violent religion
Although this book has tried to change the view of all world towards Pakistanis and Muslims . This book has shown that Pakistani is not terrorist yet this is the hatred of the world which made a stereotype belief that they are not peace makers
QUESTION# 5
Why Muslims are so reluctant to call themselves fundamentalists?  Why Muslims are always tagged as fundamentalists and terrorists in media?
Answer
I totally negate the concept shown in the movie and especially the title used for the film. Don’t understand what’s hit in the mind of the author that he came up with this creepy title without realizing the true meaning of fundamentalism. Why these movies and media portrays negative image of Muslims as ‘fundamentalist’.
What’s the true definition of Fundamentalism?
According to the Oxford dictionary ‘fundamentalism’ means ‘strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion, especially Islam’.
Today the moment a person uses the word fundamentalist he thinks of a Muslim who is a terrorist. Islamic fundamentalism means a movement favoring strict observance of the teachings of Quran and Islamic Law. The term 'fundamentalist' arose originally with reference to a tendency within American Christianity. Its usage was intended as a compliment. The Christianity fundamentalism (esp. among certain protestant sects) is the belief that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired and therefore true.
Categories of Fundamentalist as Good or Bad:
Not all the fundamentalists are same. Being fundamentalist could be good or bad depending upon in which field he is fundamentalist. For instance a fundamentalist criminal could cause harm to society while a fundamentalist doctor could be very useful for the whole mankind
.Every Muslim should be a Fundamentalist:
A Muslim should feel shy to call himself fundamentalist. The fundamentals of Islam are beneficial to humanity and the whole world. There is not a single fundamental of Islam that causes harm or is against the interests of the human race as a whole. Thus every Muslim should be a fundamentalist i.e. he should follow the fundamentals of the Religion of Peace: Islam. He should be a terrorist only towards the antisocial elements in order to promote peace and justice in the society.

Image of a Fundamentalist portrayed in the Movie:
There is a scene in the movie at the time duration of 1:45 when an anti-American “Mujeed”, Mustafa Fazil, came to persuade Changez and motivated him to stand beside him against the damage the U.S Army have done to the lives of our Muslims brothers and sisters in Afghanistan. Firstly the definition of a wise and effective majidin given by Mustafa to Changez was indeed quite offensive. Eventually Changez agreed to the offered made by him but Mustafa words, “our only hope as a people are the fundamental truths given to us in the holy Quran” made him change his decision. He linked the word Fundamentals of the Quran to the fundamentals being focused in the company he worked earlier which work merely on their own valuation of people. Being a Muslim himself the writer should have realized the very first selection of the title which hit the audience’s mind negatively portraying the lose image of Muslims as being fundamentalist.    
Similarly, there are many other movies in which the fundamentals of Holy Quran are portrayed negatively as in this movie which I think is the most prodigious catastrophe to the Muslim nation.

No comments:

Post a Comment