Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-2h6rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-15T02:22:10.354Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The language of suppression: Muslims, migrant workers, and India's response to COVID-19

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 November 2021

Ila Nagar Open the ORCID record for Ila Nagar [Opens in a new window]
Ila Nagar*
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University, USA
*
Address for correspondence: Ila Nagar Department of Near East Languages and Culture The Ohio State University 320 Hagerty Hall, 1775 College Road Columbus, OH 43210, USA nagar.5@osu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When a society faces a moment of crisis, its language can mirror, expose, and reinforce societal chaos and fault lines. As India came to terms with COVID-19, the coronavirus’ impacts on different populations exposed and widened India's deep social, economic, and religious divides. This article studies the language of India's response to COVID-19 surrounding three major events that occurred in the early months of the pandemic: the janta curfew, the Tablighi Jamaat incident, and the migrant worker crisis. Through an analysis of media reports, speeches made by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and representations on social media, we see how forms of linguistic trickery—silence, presuppositions, accommodations, othering, dog whistling, and povertyism—were used to suppress, harm, and marginalize two minority groups: Muslims and migrant workers. This article demonstrates how those in power use language to reflect, shape, and reinforce meaning, social hierarchies, and marginalization in a time of crisis. (Linguistic trickery, othering, silence, presupposition, accommodation, dog whistling, povertyism)

Type
Article
Information
Language in Society , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , April 2023 , pp. 321 - 344
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Beaver, David, & Stanley, Jason (2019). Toward a non-ideal philosophy of language. Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal 39:501–45.Google Scholar
Chakravartty, Paula, & Roy, Srirupa (2014). Mr. Modi goes to Delhi: Mediated populism and the 2014 Indian elections. Television and News Media 16(4):311–22.Google Scholar
Chatterjee, Partha (2004). The politics of the governed: Reflections on popular politics in most of the world. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Doron, Assa, & Jeffrey, Robin (2013). The great Indian phone book: How the cheap cell phone changes business, politics, and daily life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674074248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman (2000). Discourse, social theory, and social research: The discourse of welfare reform. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4:163–95.10.1111/1467-9481.00110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, Donna, & Hall, Kira (2017). Postelection surrealism and nostalgic racism in the hands of Donald Trump. Journal of Ethnographic Theory 7:397–406.10.14318/hau7.1.026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holden, Daphne (1997). On equal ground: Sustaining virtue among volunteers in a homeless shelter. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 26:117–45.10.1177/089124197026002001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaffrelot, Christophe (2015). The Modi-centric BJP 2014 election campaign: New techniques and old tactics. Contemporary South Asia 23:151–66.10.1080/09584935.2015.1027662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaffrelot, Christophe (2016). Narendra Modi between Hindutva and subnationalism: The Gujarati asmita of a Hindu Hriday Samrat. India Review 15(2):196–217.10.1080/14736489.2016.1165557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaur, Ravinder (2014). Good times, brought to you by brand Modi. Television and News Media 16(4):323–30.10.1177/1527476415575492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Robert (2001). The poisonous potency of script: Hindi and Urdu. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 150:43–59.Google Scholar
Krumer-Nevo, Michal (2002). The arena of othering: A life-story study with women living in poverty and social marginality. Qualitative Social Work 1(3):303–18.10.1177/1473325002001003642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krumer-Nevo, Michal, & Benjamin, Orly (2010). Critical poverty knowledge: Contesting othering and social distancing. Current Sociology 58:673–714.10.1177/0011392110372729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, Avinash (2011). Mass media and Muslims in India: Representation or subversion. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 31(1):59–77.10.1080/13602004.2011.556889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langton, Rae, & West, Caroline (1999). Scorekeeping in a pornographic language game. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 77(3):303–19.10.1080/00048409912349061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lister, Ruth (2008). Povertyism and ‘othering’: Why they matter. Lecture presented at Challenging Povertyism, Trades Union Congress, October 17, 2008. Online: https://www.tuc.org.uk/rese ; accessed June 1, 2020.Google Scholar
McIntosh, Janet (2020). Crybabies and snowflakes. In McIntosh, Janet & Mendoza-Denton, Norma (eds.), Language in the Trump era: Scandals and emergencies, 74–90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108887410.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKendrick, John; Sinclair, Stephen; Irwin, Anthea; O'Donnell, Hugh; Scott, Gill; & Dobbie, Louise (2008). The media, poverty and public opinion in the UK. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Online: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/media ; accessed June 1, 2020.Google Scholar
Moreno-Almeida, Cristina (2020). Memes as snapshots of participation: The role of digital amateur activists in authoritarian regimes. New Media & Society 22:1–22.Google Scholar
Munger, Frank (2002). Laboring below the line: The new ethnography of poverty, low-wage work and survival in the global economy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Prakash, Gyan (1994). Subaltern studies as postcolonial criticism. The American Historical Review 99(5):1475–90.10.2307/2168385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rai, Alok (2001). Hindi nationalism. New Delhi: Orient Longman.Google Scholar
Rai, Swapnil (2019). ‘May the force be with you’: Narendra Modi and the Celebritization of Indian Politics. Communication, Culture and Critique 12(3):323–39.10.1093/ccc/tcz013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saul, Jennifer (2018). Dogwhistles, manipulation, and philosophy of language. In Fogal, Daniel, Harris, Daniel, & Cross, Matt (eds.), New work on speech acts, 360–84. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schröter, Melani (2014). Empirical study of silence: A methodological proposal. In Silence and concealment in political discourse, 43–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shifman, Limor (2014). Memes in digital culture. Boston, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Slotta, James (2020). The significance of Trump's incoherence. In McIntosh, Janet & Mendoza-Denton, Norma (eds.), Language in the Trump era: Scandals and emergencies, 52–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108887410.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, Jason (2015). How propaganda works. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Teltumbde, Anand (2010). The persistence of caste: The Khairlanji murders and India's hidden apartheid. London: Zed Books.
Tirrell, Lynne (2012). Genocidal language games. In Maitra, Ishani & McGowan, Mary Kate (eds.), Speech and harm: Controversies over free speech, 174–221. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tirrell, Lynne (2017). Toxic speech: Toward an epidemiology of discursive harm. Philosophical Topics 45(2):139–61.10.5840/philtopics201745217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, Teun (1997). What is political discourse analysis? Belgian Journal of Linguistics 11(1):11–52.Google Scholar