Prems text raised one question into my mind. Where
does hafeez fits? How does one equate him through
metaphor/ metonym?  I might be completely off track
    .just correct me.

Rather than looking at only the tropes of metaphor and metonymy, why don't
you also look at synecdoche.  I include below an excerpt from a paper of
mine which is still under development........

 

As I have stated earlier, theory does not gain legitimacy without
constructing frameworks.  And given that the sustaining energy of a
framework is its rationalising drive towards unification, theory has an
inherent tendency to veer towards homogeneity.  This is perfectly acceptable
when it stays rooted within the private realm.  But when it comes to
tackling the public realm, the concomitant demand to admit a mind-boggling
extent of heterogeneity comes into conflict with theory’s impulse towards
unity.  When rationality confronts an impasse, it is forced to resort to
other strategies.  But it is not easy to legitimise the abandonment of
reason for other methods, and an alternative strategy is usually hidden
under a disguising mask designed to impart an appearance of detached and
disinterested logic.   Typically one finds one of two strategies.

One strategy is to resort to abstraction, where the terrain of inquiry is
largely constituted by an overarching idea, as opposed to encounterable
complex situations embedded within ordinary daily life.  Architecture
therefore legitimises itself through defining the impulse of history, the
nature of the divine, the history of urbanism, or even theories of
communication and symbolism.  But for abstraction to hold sway, all
articulation has to come under the shadow of ‘The Idea’, and it therefore
becomes necessary to depend on an overall grand narrative that is guiding
us.  I have already touched upon how the homogeneity of an idea constitutes
an inherent problem with grand narratives, and do not need to speak of it
further given that there is already a considerable amount of literature that
deals with this issue.

The other strategy is to resort to rhetoric – and it is necessary to point
out that these two strategies do not need to be considered exclusive of each
other, and typically operate simultaneously.  In fact they are at their most
problematic (and dangerous) when they operate in tandem, for abstraction
serves as a mask for rhetoric.  The abstraction of ‘The Idea’ constitutes a
façade of rationality behind which hides a rhetorical strategy of
synecdoche.  Synecdoche is considered to be one of the tropes of classical
rhetoric, and is a figure of speech where a part is substituted for a whole
or a whole for a part as in ‘fifty sail’ for ‘fifty ships’ or ‘the law’ for
‘a policeman’.  The underlying idea is therefore synecdochally positioned as
capturing the essence of the whole of society, thereby claiming legitimacy
for itself as the sole concern of all discourse and judgement.  The stage is
now set for operational efficiency, not for the rational application of
theory, but for the exercise of political power.

I would like to illustrate this point by referring to Gustavo Esteva’s
analysis of the word “development”.    The word is normally associated with
a rational methodology by which socio-economic deprivation and its related
problems can be resolved.  Esteva however traces it to a specific moment in
history, just after the Second World War – a point at which the United
States was established as a “formidable and incessant productive machine,
unprecedented in history”.  Seeking to extend the momentum that it had
already established the United States sought to extend its hegemony over the
rest of the world.  To do so it launched a political campaign on a global
scale, designed an appropriate emblem to identify the campaign, and
carefully chose the moment to launch both – January 20, 1949, the date of
President Truman’s inauguration.  In his inaugural address Truman said:

“We must embark on a bold new program for making the benefits of our
scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement
and growth of underdeveloped areas.  The old imperialism – exploitation for
foreign profit – has no place in our plans.  What we envisage is a program
of development based on the concepts of democratic fair dealing”

By placing the word “development” in this new context, Truman changed its
meaning. The term originally had its most popular usage in the field of
biology, and described a process through which the potentialities of an
object or organism are released, until it reaches its final and complete
natural form.  The transfer of this term into the political arena masked its
semantic loading that envisions a process that is always aimed at a final
natural stage.   Thus the use of the term “underdeveloped” was applied to
countries by a “developed” country that claimed its own condition as the one
that should be desired as a final natural state by all other countries.
This deprived the so-called “underdeveloped” countries of space to
self-consciously come to terms with their own condition without being
subjected to teleological pressures.  By valorising the institutional forms
of western capitalism, the stage was set for America’s claim to superiority.
As Esteva puts it:

“Underdevelopment began, then, on January 20, 1949.  On that day, two
billion people became underdeveloped.  In a real sense, from that time on,
they ceased being what they were, in all their diversity, and were
transmogrified into an inverted mirror of others’ reality: a mirror that
belittles them and sends them off to the end of the queue, a mirror that
defines their identity, which is really that of a heterogeneous and diverse
majority, simply in the terms of a homogenizing and narrow minority.”

The striking aspect of this whole process is that the people who are victims
also endorse such valorisation of the institutional forms of western
capitalism as not only desirable but also inevitable.  A “rational”
knowledge system is now in place by which an overall institutional structure
is valued to the point that it largely pre-empts discussion on local
context-specific strategies for solving general issues such as poverty,
hunger, illiteracy and health.  Soon after Indian independence, Jawaharlal
Nehru set the stage for India’s concept of modernity, identifying factories,
dams and power plants as the new temples of modern India.  Now any discourse
on India’s development was recognised as valid only if it pursued the theme
of these new temples.  Naturally, there were only a few institutional
structures that held people who were capable of participating in such a
discourse.  The fact that these people were a small (but powerful) minority
has been overlooked because the covering mask of rational altruistic motive
is believed to apply to the population at large.  In fact, it is not
perceived as a mask, both by those wearing it and by those contemplating it,
for it has become so much a second nature that the mask has merged into the
skin of the wearer.  Fifty years later we still find a discussion on
development that cannot even recognise the voices of a significant
percentage of the rural population, the entire tribal population, and the
entire Northeastern portion of the country (to name a few major exclusions).

Within the field of architecture in India we find an alarming parallel to
this phenomenon.  Although, architecture has such a low percentage of
involvement with the overall volume of building, the profession always talks
about itself as a field of central importance in determining the quality of
the built environment.  It blinds itself to the continuous and widespread
historical evidence of its marginal relevance.  It rarely admits that the
causes of the problems may lie within other fields such as politics,
sociology and economics.  And it seeks to define within its disciplinary
capabilities a sweeping power to affect change.  One instance of this is the
attempt by the official bodies of the profession to seek protection of the
word “architect” under the Architects Act of 1972.  But there is also a
wider discussion among the members of the profession, many of them
intelligent thinking and discerning people, who firmly believe that
architecture is a profession that must matter to any society’s concerns of
ethics and development.