Editorial: Why rewrite a bygone era?

These examples may include everything from recounting the days of slavery to the conquests of polygamous emperors and the travails of bloodthirsty warlords. As far as creators are concerned, they were chronicling the way they saw their world at those specific points in time. Off late, several artistes and authors, deceased for decades together, have been called out for their biased portrayals of ethnicities and cultures that do not fit well in today’s milieu of political correctness. 

The latest is English writer Enid Blyton. She is the author of children’s book series such as The Famous Five, The Secret Seven and The Noddy Library. Blyton has recently been held responsible for depicting members of the African community in an unfavourable light in her books, which as per literary watchdogs have contributed to stereotypical portrayals of black people in literature. A British charity that manages historical places has updated its website entry about Blyton, acknowledging that her works have been criticised for racism and lack of literary merit, while citing a story titled The Little Black Doll. Blyton is not alone in this pantheon of deceased problematic authors. Rudyard Kipling, the author of The Jungle Book and controversially, The White Man’s Burden has fallen to the pitchforks of this movement as well. 

What has also transpired is that a few such works are being recalled from distribution points. For example, Theodor Seuss Geisel, better known by his pseudonym Dr Seuss, is the brain behind The Cat in the Hat. His books have helped youngsters learn the intricacies of rhyme and reason in English in a simple format. His usage of caricature to depict people of African and Asian descent had recently been called into question. Six of his titles are being pulled off shelves on account of the ‘hurtful, wrong portrayal’ of people. The decision was arrived at in consultation with academicians, who applauded the move. 

A similar treatment was meted out to the film Gone with the Wind, a timeless classic, whose racial undertones compelled a popular OTT service to withdraw the film from exhibition until its content had not been placed in the context of the social mores of that era. By that standard, if we were to apply these rules in the Indian landscape, a whole set of films, books and works of popular culture might have to face the axe. Take how South Indians were portrayed in Hindi films in the post-independence era. From Mehmood’s inspired performance as a Madrasi musician in Padosan that satisfies every cliché associated with Southerners to the SRK starrer Chennai Express that depicts Tamil Nadu as a hinterland run by hurly-burly goons. 

But for every such depiction that invokes exasperation, India also has artistes who subvert expectations to such an extent that even the State is compelled to step in. Arundhati Roy, the author of The God of Small Things, was questioned in Kerala during the regime of EK Nayanar, for the frank depiction of sexuality in her Booker Prize-winning novel. It is a miracle that her masterpiece saw the light of the day as it would be next to impossible for an author in today’s India to depict what she managed back then without invoking the ire of the cultural watchdogs. 

Works of literature or art must be viewed through a prism of nuance and empathy. This tendency to right historical wrongs by the outright invalidation of works or the artistes themselves who depict such phenomena is uncalled for. By all means, use such creations or creators as a launch-pad to contextualise the history of those times. But resorting to measures such as banning and recalling only highlights a society’s reliance on denial as a defence mechanism.