RACISM AS defined in Article I (1) of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: "Any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life." For example, there have been many incidents in schools where the minority east Indian students who look different are often called pejorative names such as, ’Paki,’ ’towel heads’ or ’snake charmers’.
There are many cases which prove that the media has helped in creating a racist identity. One amongst many is the Canadian Kanishka bombing case. Kanishka was the name of the Air India plane carrying mostly Indian passengers which was blown up in mid-air in the late 80's by terrorists asking for the formation of ’Khalistan’, a separate state for Sikhs. 329 lives were snuffed out, families were devastated and the perpetrators just walked away free.
A Canadian court, in a shocking judgment, aquitted Vancouver businessman Ripudaman Singh Malik (59) and Kamloops mill worker Ajaib Singh Bagri (55) of all charges for the Kanishka bombing, which was the most devastating terrorist attack before 9/11. At a time when the Western world is crying themselves hoarse about the need to distinguish terrorists from criminals in terms of jurisprudence, the Canadian justice system bizarrely absolved these two of all guilt - two terrorists against whom the case was rock-solid. “It seems solid but it isn’t" the Canadian court told the native media. One wonders whether this would have been the verdict if this were a plane full of Europeans.
What I find interesting was the reaction reported by the Indian media of a section of Sikhs in India who rejoiced because seemingly this verdict had absolved the Sikhs from bearing the label of terrorists.
Firstly, even if justice had been done and these low-lifes had been sent to their maker (Canada does not have death sentence) I still fail to understand how that would reflect negatively on the Sikh community as a whole. And the flip question is: Why is their release is a matter of celebration for Sikhs? And even if it is, why is the Indian media portraying these wrong sentiments? But let’s not criticise the Indian media alone, because this is a manifestation of the OJ syndrome, where African-Americans overwhelmingly supported OJ Simpson despite his obvious guilt — turning a simple murder trial into an issue of race. Due credit must be given to the American tabloids of that time. The Canadian media has been quick to jump to the defence of the murderers—since they have been absolved by a court of law they are innocent and deserve to be treated as such.
Well then, by that same logic, how is Narendra Modi a murderer? — He is also blameless from the point of view of the law. Yet the same liberals in the media, who love to have it both ways, take great pleasure in painting him as a Hitler avatar and their latest victory was when America rejected his visa application. The Indian media has considered Modi a murderer, modern day Nero, even though the law doesn’t agree with them but then again there are far worse who are welcomed in America with open arms, namely Khaled-a Zia, who presides over anti-Hindu programmes and yet the world media doesn’t report it or rather doesn’t choose to do so. Thanks to the strange collusion between Islamic organisations and the liberal left, America decides to make huge hue and cry only over Modi, which actually enhances Modi’s image as a persecuted Hindu leader representing Hindu pride under attack from Muslims and pseudo-secularists. Another very racist attitude was taken by the American media when The Santa Fe Reporter, published a turbaned man with buzzing "bees in his bonnet" on its cover immediately after the 9/11 attack took place and every turbaned man was looked down upon as a terrorist.
The picture had a tagline that read, ’know thy enemy’, clearly trying to tell Americans that turbaned people had a few killer bees in their turbans, so go ahead and get even with them. Later on, this created a lot of furor, but not before an elderly Sikh man was attacked, leading to his death just because he was a Sikh. This led to Sikh men wearing t-shirts that read: ’I am a Sikh, not a Muslim!’ and the editor of this daily asked an apology from the Khalsa Panth.
There have been many films, which depicted racism, out of which each generation remembers the Academy Award winner, "In the Heat of the Night" wherein Sydney Poitier played the role of a black man who wants his deserving job but has to face racial abuse just because the boss wants a white candidate for the post. The story is about how he convince's the boss to hire him, and it made Poitier the first black in the history of the Oscars to have won the best actor award. His acceptance speech, in which I said ”I promised not to cry and I will not” is one of the most famous speeches ever given at the Academy Awards.
Shortly after that came the film "Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner," wherein Poitier is shown facing racial abuse from a white woman’s father. The woman would be the first to marry a black and the white family calls for a dinner and the story is about how he wins them over. The production company, MGM, received threats from the white community saying that they would boycott the Kodak Theatre’s screening of the movie, but the movie went on to create history at the box office and Sydney Poitier became the highest paid actor of that time, making even more than his white counterparts.
This reminds one of Monster’s Ball, a 2001 American drama film directed by Marc Forester, starring Halle Berry, as a victim of racism. The title comes from a custom in the Medeival England where white jailers would execute the black prisoners and refer to them as monsters.
The night before their execution, their jailers would hold a feast known as Monster’s Ball. Billy Bob plays the son of one of these jailers whose wife committed suicide after seeing his atrocities towards blacks. He grows up to hate his father but never musters the courage to stand up to him. Things change, however, when he meets a wild and attractive black woman played by Halle Berry and falls in love with her. Then, of course, he must break this news to his father. This is a story about how a black woman makes a man out of a white boy. Halle won the best actress award for that year and was the first black American lady to do so. Whoopi Goldberg came very close to winning the award, but won the best supporting actress award instead for her role in "Ghost."
This is how the media paints a racist picture - sometimes portraying the racist and sometimes opposing racism. The question here is why only members of affluent societies are called racist. What I mean is that a film showing a black racist is yet to create history. On a lighter note, thanks to Tina Turner and Malcom X for bringing in the concept of sisterhood and brotherhood and not thinking of whites there!
