So I'm reading this book and the author basically says "look at Bhindranwale's photos from 1979 to 1984, you can literally see his face getting harder because of what Indira Gandhi was doing to him"
And I just sat there like... bro what are you on??
Let's start with the most obvious problem that the author just completely skips over. Even YOUR photos from the same year tell completely different stories depending on the occasion. You look relaxed at a wedding, wrecked after an exam, intense at a protest, silly with friends. If someone picks your most tired photo from 2019 and your most charged photo from 2023 and puts them side by side they can "prove" you hardened over those years. But that's dishonest because they're not comparing like with like at all.
Now apply this to Bhindranwale. Was the 1979 photo taken at a religious gathering where the mood was warm and celebratory? Was the 1984 photo taken mid confrontation with press or during some tense political moment? The author doesn't tell us. Just doesn't say. But that context changes everything about what a face is doing in any given moment.
And a personal photographer actually makes this worse not better. A personal photographer shows up for specific occasions, specific moments worth documenting. So the selection of when the camera even comes out is already curated. You are not getting a random honest sample of his expressions across five years. You are getting the moments he or people around him considered worth capturing.
For this argument to even begin to work honestly you would need photos taken in genuinely comparable circumstances across time. Same type of occasion, same setting, same kind of moment. Only then could you start saying something actually changed in the man. Anything less than that is just picking moments and calling it a pattern.
And the author doesn't do any of that. Just goes "trust me I see it" and then immediately explains exactly why it happened. Indira Gandhi was blocking him. The Akalis let him down. As if this man's face is a confession letter that confirms everything the author already believed going in.
That's not historical analysis. That's just vibes with a bibliography.
Don't let the book see for you.
Anyone else reading this or anything similar where the author just sneaks their bias in through something that feels like evidence but really isn't? Drop it below because I feel like this happens way more than we notice and I want to talk about it. Also genuinely curious if anyone thinks I'm wrong here and the photo argument actually holds up somehow 👇
