A nation can't tell a single narrative. India is a different story when narrated by its citizens versus its neighbours, an Indian textbook versus a British one, and so on. India as the exotic land of snake charmers was what I expected from my childhood in Indiana in the US. I didn't understand my parents' irritation when I told them my horse-riding teacher had asked, "So, do you ride elephants to school in India?"

COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

"I hope so," I had answered optimistically. At age six, elephants excited me more than buses (and still do, really).

When I moved back to India, I discovered (to my initial disappointment) metropolitan cities, movies and malls. I was able to laugh at the image Indians are often branded with, the story told abroad. In an age of globalisation when the borders of countries are so incredibly porous, who really expects people to remain strictly confined to their stereotypes?

Yet, for a country breaking out of these confines, we aren't free from our own pre-conceived notions. My mother, as a child, maintained as limited a vision of Pakistan as my horse-riding teacher did of India. In her head, it was a war-ravaged state where citizens all lived in cardboard boxes, encountering violence on a daily basis. The first obstruction to this image came when she fell in love with the Pakistani serial Dhoop Kinare. Zoya and Dr. Ahmer lived lives that were surprisingly relatable. She said it was oddly thrilling to find so many cultural similarities with nation not henot unexpected, considering our intertwined past. She developed an inordinate love for Urdu and a decade later was again excited by the first crop of Pakistani English writers.

Words and stories that tell tales of sadness, anger and love are universal, and the beauty of the arts lies in its ability to touch almost anyone in the world, if they allow it. I understand why in dictatorships censorship plays such a crucial role – to isolate people, it is essential to cut off media channels and stifle intellectualism. To prohibit them from telling their stories.

Stifling of stories is not a new phenomenon. The motive behind silencing a particular story is dictated by ideology. The banning of Satanic Verses in India perhaps illustrated the appeasement of the Muslim clerics; the banning of beef shows insensitivity towards the community at large. Dalits and Hindus in certain parts of India who consume beef were also deemed unimportant, their stories irrelevant, when imposing this ban.

Patriotism in India today allows only a single story. A few days back when Priyanka Chopra spoke against the banning of Pakistani artistes, she interspersed her words with the nervous repetition that she is, in fact, very patriotic. Karan Johar practically had "I < 3 India" branded on his forehead as he mournfully asserted that he adores his country, even throwing in a salute and fulsome praise for the army for good measure. The present story of India is that it is a pristine country beyond criticism; the story of Pakistan is that it is flawed beyond any praise –and anyone who wishes to tell it in any other manner must tread lightly.

My political science book says "India's general election of 1952 became a landmark in the history of democracy all over the world. It was no longer possible to argue that democratic elections could not be held in conditions of poverty or lack of education." However, it also mentions that democracy requires constant work. Similarly, secularism is not merely permitting different communities to live within the country. To love your country blindly and elevate it beyond reproach is to invite stagnation. Further, the demonization of the word 'intellect', which by very definition means a person who possesses the faculty of reasoning, suggests we are backpedalling.

Separating the stories of the Pakistani Army and its people is not only necessary; it goes in accordance with the spirit with which independent India was born. From the heartbreak of partition – from Gandhiji literally stepping into a Hindu-Muslim riot to end it, to a movie being banned for containing a ten minute scene with a Pakistani actor, is a step backwards sixty years. Or perhaps it is just the right wing's way of teaching a lesson or two to its two favourite punching bags--Pakistan, and thereby, Muslims, too.

In the end it is primarily through the arts that different stories are given a platform. If we claim to tell the story of a successful secular democracy and not merely a mirage of one, we need to tolerate different voices – to deliver justice to every story that clamours to be told.

Gayathri Sankar, Class XII, Mother’s International School, New Delhi

To submit your editorial to DNA GenNextEdit use the submission form or email: gennextedit@dnaindia.net