When 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.

中文翻译：

---

宗教恐惧症：作为伊斯兰教的宗教是印度伊斯兰恐惧症的政治论点和精神分析调查

当唐纳德特朗普实施“穆斯林禁令”时，令人惊讶的是没有任何借口使其政治化。这不是针对某些国家的禁令，而是针对穆斯林国家的禁令，或者是针对穆斯林的严厉禁令。但是，当“禁止”背后的入侵恐惧在私刑中得以实现时，会发生什么？在现有的关于伊斯兰恐惧症的话语中，我们如何理解不仅是不允许进入的穆斯林，而且是因为很久以前进入而被杀死的穆斯林。在本文中，我通过历史、政治和精神分析理论分享了印度穆斯林的发展轨迹，以展示印度的伊斯兰恐惧症案例。在 Edward Said 的东方主义（1978 年）和 Gil Anidjar 的世俗主义（2006 年）的基础上，我解释了在印度这个世俗民族国家中，恐惧症如何不属于伊斯兰教；相反，它是宗教的。该宗教被确定为伊斯兰教。在这种认同中，民族认同和宗教认同是对立的，以至于介于两者之间的穆斯林是不可能的——他们不可能是印度人，只要他们是穆斯林，他们永远不可能不是穆斯林。在探讨私刑事件时，本文提出了对印度穆斯林及其不可能成为印度人的心理政治解读。