Recent edits to Roald Dahl novels don't undo his history of bigotry

Roald Dahl Story Company and Puffin Books partnered with Inclusive Minds to edit Dahl’s stories. Photo courtesy of solarisgirl via Flickr.

By Jahnavi Pradeep ’23

Opinion Editor 

Content warning: This article discusses antisemitism and racism and mentions fatphobia. 

Roald Dahl is a celebrated British storyteller best known for his works in children’s literature, adult fiction and screenwork. His forays into children’s literature include 16 stories, such as “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” “Matilda” and “The Witches.” These books gained popularity for their peculiar sense of humor that accompanied heroic stories of children who combat the adult world. They have been translated into 68 languages, adapted for the screen and the stage and remain as must-reads on the bookshelves of homes, libraries and schools worldwide. 

More recently, Dahl has become the center of a literary debate over the derogatory language coloring his books’ contents. The Telegraph reported on Feb. 17, 2023, that Dahl’s works were undergoing content revisions by Puffin Books and the Roald Dahl Story Company. Per the article, “the publishers have given themselves license to edit the writer as they see fit, chopping, altering and adding where necessary to bring his books in line with contemporary sensibilities.” Puffin Books and the Roald Dahl Story Company partnered with Inclusive Minds, an organization aimed at, according their website, “authentic representation” in children’s literature by supporting diversity, inclusion, and accessibility to tackle offensive vocabulary in Dahl’s literature and adhere to what the Telegraph terms as “contemporary sensibilities.” With over a hundred edits to his works, their joint efforts aim to undo Dahl’s insensitivity toward gender, race and physical appearances, among others. 

On the one hand, the revisions to Dahl’s texts are a welcome maneuver that works toward making children’s literature decreasingly stereotyped in its content and more sensitive to ideas of diversity and inclusion. However, while it can be lauded as a way to make a cherished anthology of books less offensive, simply modifying the text’s vocabulary does not undo the history of stereotypes, bigotry and hatred that Dahl’s texts have perpetrated. Rather than focusing on the prose of the past, our priorities in supporting inclusive children’s media should focus on contemporary work that better represents today’s goals for literature. 

According to The Telegraph, changes have been implemented in ten of Dahl’s books: “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” “Esio Trot,” “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” “George’s Marvellous Medicine,” “James and the Giant Peach,” “Matilda,” “The BFG,” “The Enormous Crocodile,” “The Twits” and “The Witches.” One of Dahl’s most notable works, “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” follows the story of Charlie and four other contestants, children meant to contrast our earnest protagonist, who win a golden ticket to tour Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory. Augustus Gloop is one of the contestants. In the original text, Dahl describes Gloop as “enormously fat.” After revisions, he is simply an “enormous” nine-year-old. 

Another Dahl story, “Matilda,” follows the story of child prodigy Matilda as she navigates home and school life. In her story, the constant mention of “mothers” and “fathers” in the text has been changed to “parents.” As an avid reader, Matilda now reads the books of Jane Austen instead of Rudyard Kipling. A third story, “The BFG,” follows young Sophie’s encounters with, as the title suggests, a big friendly giant whose characterizations have also been rewritten. In the text, the “tall black figure” is a “tall dark figure,” and the “long pale wrinkly face” is now a “long wrinkly face.” The Telegraph notes that tweaks to Dahl’s texts have been common in the past as well. For example, the Oompa Loompas in “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” were “extensively reimagined over the years.” Still, the current set of revisions is the first large-scale change to his works. 

These changes are imperative — they undo the harm of offensive language that has permeated widely read literature. These alterations become increasingly pertinent when noting that the primary audience of Dahl’s books is comprised of children. Children’s literature has the potential to educate and impact its young readers. Reading habits in children help them learn about themselves, the world and how to communicate with others. Here it becomes crucial to evaluate the types of books kids read, the content of these books and how they might influence children’s critical thinking processes. In my own childhood, I grew up reading several of his books, including all those that Puffins Books and the Roald Dahl Story Company are now revising. While I loved Dahl’s catchy stories and inspiring young protagonists, as a child I was not fully aware of the harm of the texts. Revisiting them as an adult, I immediately realized the blatant bigotry that underlined the stories. Offensive language, as seen in Dahl’s books, can be incredibly harmful in this process, further emphasizing the importance of edits. After all, Dahl is one of the most famous and beloved children’s authors, and it is only right to make his works more conscious in their portrayals. Aware of the popularity of Dahl’s books and the potential for their content to impact young readers, the Roald Dahl Story Company and Puffin Books’ endeavors align with making children’s literature more sensitive in content and are more conscious of its ability to influence readers. In an article for The Guardian, a Roald Dahl Story Company spokesperson discussed the revisions: “Our guiding principle throughout has been to maintain the storylines, characters and the irreverence and sharp-edged spirit of the original text. Any changes made have been small and carefully considered.” Herein, revising Dahl’s language helps future young readers engage with his widely popular stories without allowing implicit biases to form through their reading habits.

Nonetheless, censoring Dahl’s language does not do enough justice to the history of bigotry that both the author and his works carry. Dahl, while celebrated for his gift of writing, was guilty of racism, antisemitism and misogyny. A New York Times article from 2020 discusses how Dahl’s family had to publicly apologize for the author’s outspoken antisemitic comments in his career as a public figure and author. The Roald Dahl Story Company's website features the joint apology of the company and Dahl’s family for the “lasting and understandable hurt caused by Roald Dahl’s antisemitic statements.” The apology goes on to state that “those prejudiced remarks are incomprehensible to us and stand in marked contrast to the man we knew and to the values at the heart of Roald Dahl’s stories, which have positively impacted young people for generations.” 

However, Dahl’s family’s apology does not erase the harm of his hatred, and continuing to celebrate this author erases his problematic past without holding him or his works accountable. Dahl’s sentiments cannot be separated from his work, and this becomes increasingly evident in the manifestation of his bigoted ideas in his literature. In an article for CNN, David M. Perry discusses how Dahl’s antisemitism shows through in his books, such as “The Witches.” Perry discusses how “Dahl created a caste of hook-nosed women who can literally print money and who like to kidnap and murder innocent children. The characterization appears to draw directly from the blood libel slander, the medieval and modern conspiracy theory that Jews annually kidnap and murder Christian children.” Simply editing language that reflects bigotry does not undo the underlying sentiments of the stories and characters. If publishers are committed to inclusion and diversity, they must do better than continuing to champion Dahl’s work. The company spokesperson’s claim of revising texts to “maintain the storylines, characters, and the irreverence and sharp-edged spirit of the original text” is incongruent with their desire to do right by ideas of inclusion and sensitivity. 

A Time article similarly builds on the idea that Dahl’s works reflect his obvious racism. The article explores how the Oompa Loompas in “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” were meant to be members of an African Pygmy tribe and describes other instances of bigotry and stereotypes in Dahl’s work. For example, in “James and the Giant Peach,'” as per the Time article, “the Grasshopper declares at one point: ‘I’d rather be fried alive and eaten by a Mexican.’” Dahl’s misogyny, ableism and fatphobia are similarly ubiquitous in his books. Characters across books are ridiculed for being fat, Augustus Gloop being one of many. A 2016 article by The Irish Times discusses how Dahl wrote about women, specifically in “The Witches,” where “the witches themselves are terrifying and vile things, and always women.” Here, it is clear that mere revisions are not enough to tackle the hate that pervades Dahl’s literary canon. Simply editing the language used to describe the Oompa Loompas that makes their tribal roots obvious doesn’t erase the problematic root of these characters’ creation. The Telegraph notes that if the publishers had to carry out more than 100 edits, the rampant nature of offensive content in the books is already established in its framework, and simply removing the obvious bias does not undo its place in the work. 

The current drive toward revising Dahl’s work allows us to evaluate whether or not we want to continue heralding his works as essentials of children’s literature. While Dahl may be considered a classic for his excellent penmanship, we cannot easily pardon the bigotry and hatred packed within his novels. Removing Dahl from the literary canon is not easy, but we can treat him as a product of his time and move him to the back of the shelf instead of continuing to actively promote his work. With this, we have an opportunity to make space for new prose, instead of revised literature, that carries the potential to educate children on diversity and inclusion over bias and stereotypes. While revisions are a step toward addressing and changing the problematic past of the writer, publishing houses and agencies can do better by their promise of diversity and inclusion by focusing on the creation of new literature.

Selective provision of new menstrual products on campus reflect the College’s lack of understanding regarding gender

Graphic by Sunny Wei ‘23.

Hope Frances Simpson ’24

Staff Writer 

Content warning: This article discusses transphobia. 

Students on the Mount Holyoke College campus may have noticed something shiny and new in various bathrooms around campus: vending machines for menstrual products. Based on my observations, machines have appeared in buildings such as Auxiliary Services and the library. There is a problem with this initiative. Although the menstrual vending machines in these buildings have been installed in women’s and gender-neutral bathrooms, they haven’t been installed in men’s bathrooms. Upon discovering this, I also learned that there is no proper menstrual product disposal in the men’s bathrooms either. This absence of menstrual vending machines or disposals makes it seem as though Mount Holyoke does not harbor as much respect for non-cisgender students as it does for others. 

Menstruation has historically been associated with women, but in my time at Mount Holyoke, I have seen that this is not the case. I have acquaintances who menstruate and don’t identify as cisgender women. I myself use she/they pronouns, and I menstruate. Attending a gender-diverse women’s college has exposed me to all kinds of people who do not fit into the binary of male and female. Mount Holyoke is a gender-diverse historically women’s college, but it accepts a variety of students besides cisgender women, including transgender and nonbinary students. However, by not providing menstrual products and proper disposal for everyone, the school is reinforcing the idea that it is only cis women who menstruate. 

In speaking with the Mount Holyoke Planned Parenthood Generation Action Treasurer Ally Contrini ’25, I got a better picture of how the menstrual product vending machines came to be. The initiative was brought to fruition by the Student Government Association and PPGA E-Boards. “This has been put into action by the current SGA E-Board and our menstrual product outreach coordinators, Nina Brothers ’24 [in] fall 2022 and Nina Baran ’25 [in] spring 2023,” Contrini said. Although they supply free menstrual products to students, PPGA is not in charge of the menstrual product vending machines, which are provided and stocked by a company called Aunt Flow. 

On the matter of the machines only being present in women’s and gender-neutral restrooms, Contrini said, “This initiative is in its early stages, and at all stages of growth MHC PPGA will encourage the College to include access to people of all genders.” 

While Contrini’s explanation addresses the lack of machines in men’s rooms, it does not account for the lack of proper menstrual waste receptacles. This unavailability forces students using men’s restrooms to dispose of their menstrual products in normal trash bins, which is a biohazard or resort to flushing them down the toilet, which could result in major plumbing issues.

Contrini affirmed that “The MHC PPGA believes that proper disposal options for used menstrual products should be available in all bathrooms for students and the safety of college janitorial staff.” However, it is important to note that the PPGA has no control over this particular matter. 

Overall, this is an issue that could be easily resolved with time and effort. The school could show its respect for its non-cisgender students by installing the Aunt Flow vending machines in the men’s rooms around campus. More importantly, it should expediently install proper menstrual product receptacles in men’s rooms for the health and safety of janitorial staff and students.

The fight for trans rights and bodily autonomy cannot be decoupled

The recent surge of anti-trans legislation, championed especially by extremist right-wing politics, is a direct attack on reproductive and racial rights. Photo courtesy of Ted Eytan via Flickr.

By Silas Gemma ’26

Staff Writer 

Content warning: This article discusses transphobia.

There has been an unparalleled number of proposed anti-transgender legislation within the United States, particularly within state legislatures, over the past few years. As an NPR article states, in conservative states, hundreds of bills have been proposed on familiar premises: banning trans people from using the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity, prohibiting gender-affirming care for youth, restricting trans participation in school sports as well as making changes in school curricula to exclude discussions surrounding gender identity and sexuality. The propagation of anti-trans rhetoric and its translation into legislative actions represent not only the influence of extremist right-wing political thought on policymaking, but also the inextricable link between transgender rights and other social justice issues such as reproductive and racial justice. Ultimately, the fight for transgender rights is one of bodily autonomy, especially pertinent after the landmark overturning of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court last year. 

The sheer magnitude of proposed anti-trans legislation complicates successful cataloging and processing of it. A New York Times article lays out anti-trans ideas that come up repeatedly in rhetoric and legislation, such as the supposed connection of drag shows and trans-inclusive curricula with grooming.

 Legislation proposed in Oklahoma within the last few months highlights a particular anti-trans idea: bans on gender-affirming care as a form of saviorism. Jim Olsen, an Oklahoma state representative, sponsored a bill proposing a gender-affirming care ban for transgender individuals up to age 21. In another New York Times article, Olsen expressed his concern: “the desire [of the proposed bill] is simply to protect young people from choices that later on in their life … some of them will grow to regret.” This idea that young people should not be able to make gender-related healthcare decisions because they are still developing is unfounded. The same article states that principal medical associations, such as the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, reject these claims of protection in favor of empirically based evidence that gender-affirming care is beneficial. Arguments in opposition to trans or abortion care often shun science in favor of personal religion or ingrained views.

An Aug. 1, 2022, article by the American Prospect affirms the mental health benefits of gender-affirming care by tracing the connections between transgender rights, abortion rights and bodily autonomy. The authors confirm that anti-trans and anti-abortion movements often coincide geopolitically, as “twenty-five of the 26 states certain or likely to ban abortion have also introduced anti-transgender legislation in the past two years.” The article points out that far-right religious bodies of thought often buttress both anti-trans and anti-abortion discourse. Additionally, the article highlights the importance of reproductive clinics for transgender people, as they often do not have any other place to turn to for care. Thus, the attack on abortion is inherently an attack on trans bodily autonomy. 

Far-right religious ideologies have long been the scaffolding for conservative opposition to critical social justice issues. A PBS article by Kate Sosin outlines how garnering the support of far-right evangelicals has been essential for conservative politicians to boost their success rates at the polls. She states that figures such as Donald Trump, Ronald Reagan and conservative political thinker Paul Weyrich all found success in honing in on the concerns of extremist evangelicals to incite and propagate vitriol and promote voter turnout. Yet Sosin underscores a key consideration: far-right evangelicals are a significant minority in the electorate, including the conservative electorate. She cites author Chris Bull as she mentions that “Republican lawmakers have abandoned 80 percent of their voters to cater to a sliver of their voters.” Nonetheless, the disproportionately high turnout of evangelicals legitimizes their power as a voting bloc, despite their smaller size relative to the rest of the electorate. The litany of anti-trans and anti-abortion legislation exemplifies the tangible implications of such an influential voting group.

As the wave of anti-trans legislation continues to gain strength, new bills with more radical foundations have begun to emerge. A Vanity Fair article by Bess Levin points out that bills aiming to ban medical interventions, such as hormone replacement therapy or surgeries, have traditionally been targeted at youth. However, a proposed piece of legislation in Oklahoma has been gaining attention and stoking outrage among LGBTQ+, trans and social justice circles. Levin reports that within days of the start of 2023, Oklahoma state senator David Bullard proposed a bill that would unequivocally prohibit gender-affirming care for anyone under the age of 26. This additionally includes a medical license rescission for any healthcare professional who, as the bill quaintly puts it, engages in “unprofessional conduct.” An ABC article adds that this includes not only providing gender-affirming care but also recommending or referring patients to gender-affirming providers or resources. The article additionally mentions the coincidence of this legislation with the aforementioned Oklahoma bill sponsored by Jim Olsen, multiplying the backlash from trans rights advocates. 

Although the unceasing bills compound trauma for the trans community, it is important to remember the indefatigable resistance posed by trans leaders, advocates and allies. Although a state may be branded along political lines based on its governor or the majority party of its legislature, the recent protest in the Oklahoma State Capitol by trans rights activists poses a strong rebuke to this reductive thought. An LGBTQ Nation article reports that “around 150 protesters” gathered in the building on February 6 of this year in defense of trans rights and in fervent opposition to the two recent bills in the state aimed at restricting trans care. This strong front of resistance not only represents the power of collective action, but also the existence of trans communities within “red” states and their unfettered fight for their rights under a government that denies their humanity. 

The battery of anti-trans legislation brought forth every week in the U.S. is yet another manifestation of the imposing influence of extremist right-wing political figures, think tanks, organizations and theories. The proposal and enactment of anti-trans legislation exhibits a blatant attack on the human rights of trans people, including their ability to make their own choices about their bodies and the medical care they receive. In this manner, conservative political figures seek to codify their extremist religious thoughts in a nation founded on the premise of the division between Church and State. However, their attempts to deny trans existence will only be met with unceasing resistance and a commitment to trans liberation and joy.

AP African American history course’s revisions uncover the concerning patterns of secondary school curricular content

Graphic by Mari Al Tayb ‘26.

By Hailey Balinbin ’26

Staff Writer 

Content warning: this article discusses racism. 

In Jan. 2023, Governor Ron DeSantis announced that he would ban the newly proposed Advanced Placement African American Studies class from being taught in Florida’s public schools. According to The New York Times, the state’s Department of Education, following through on DeSantis’ announcement, rejected the course offering. Shortly after, the College Board released a reworked version of the first draft of the curriculum, which has made important topics such as critical race theory, Black feminist theory and Black queer history optional. 

The College Board denies that the changes made to the course were a direct response to Florida’s treatment and rejection of it. An article by The New York Times states that David Coleman, the head of the College Board, expressed how the changes were routine: “Mr. Coleman said that during the initial test of the course this school year, the board received feedback that the secondary, more theoretical sources were ‘quite dense’ and that students connected more with primary sources, which he said have always been the foundation of A.P. courses.” However, it is clear that the changes were made due to some influence from Florida because the revisions were announced after DeSantis’s statement. 

This maneuver reflects the Board's priorities in pleasing government officials instead of doing right by inclusive educational content that considers the place of people of color, particularly African American people, as long overdue and necessary topics in high school curricula. The ban on the AP African American Studies class in Florida and the College Board's subsequent reworking of the curriculum shows how white supremacy continues to infiltrate public schools around the country. American public schools are notorious for entirely skipping or skimming over important parts of Black history, whether it be glorifying colonists and erasing slavery in history classes or only reading books written by straight, white male authors. For example, the College Board offers AP history courses in three areas: European, United States, and modern world. Apart from Europe and the United States, if a student wants to learn about history from any other part of the world they would have to take AP World History or take an AP Language and Culture course. The inclusion of non-white content is clearly already limited. Further, while AP US History covers African American history as part of its curriculum, this is only a fraction of an otherwise predominantly white course. Only learning about American history through white historical figures and a white perspective erases the history of African American people and continues to do harm to marginalized groups.  

The pilot AP African American Studies courses began in Aug. 2022. The course would cover topics surrounding Black history and culture in the United States. As per a Vox article, the class would start with early African societies, the transatlantic slave trade, slavery, reconstruction, the Great Migration, and contemporary topics such as the Black Panther party, the Black Lives Matter movement, critical race theory, black feminist theory, cultural appropriation and more. All of these topics provide multiple lenses through which to study history. They educate students on African American history and its intersection with queer studies and feminism, amongst other topics, and help students critically understand and unlearn racism and unconscious biases to form empathy. Governor DeSantis and Florida state education officials were quick to dismiss this content. As per a New York Times article, they expressed it “was not historically accurate and violated a state law that regulates how race-related issues are taught in public schools.”  Disregarding any history that doesn't center around whiteness further pushes white-centric content as the only thing worth teaching students.

In the new draft of the course’s curriculum post revision, Vox chronicles how topics such as “enslavement in Africa,” and “African Americans and the U.S. occupation of Haiti” were removed in accordance with the Board’s claim of the materials being too dense. According to another New York Times article, “Black Lives Matter, incarceration, queer life and the debate over reparations — is downgraded. The subjects are no longer part of the exam, and are simply offered on a list of options for a required research project.” Additionally, according to Vox, “the organization also added “Black conservatism” as a new recommended topic for the capstone project” and removed “the Black feminist movement and womanism.” This halts classroom discussion and learning about intersectionality. Often, if feminist texts and feminist history are taught in school it only uplifts women who are white and excludes women of color, queer women or trans women. Discarding a curriculum that includes Black and queer people shows how little the American government values anyone who is not a cis, white person. It shows how the United States only allows white stories to be told. The choices to remove contemporary issues from the course are alarming. It is vital to have students read from queer and feminist Black writers, especially for students who identify as such. Furthermore, it is equally as important to teach these topics in classes for students who don’t identify with these groups so all students can learn about lives that differ from their own. 

High school students have lived through the Black Lives Matter protests and witnessed or experienced racism in their lives. This increases the importance of studying African American history and its continued relevance today. Students can be the harbingers of change, but an important step to doing so is understanding the history behind these current events. An article for NBC Philadelphia discusses how the “Humanity of Blackness” is often ignored in history classes: “Educators also say there’s more to Black history than just teaching about oppression and suffering, and that curriculums need to incorporate lessons on Black ‘agency, joy, love and global connection with Blackness around the world,’ … LaGarrett King, director of the Carter Center for K-12 Black History Education at the University of Missouri [said].” There is so much to Black history, and this AP class is a chance for students to learn about topics that are so often glossed over. 

The impact of this class cannot be ignored. In an article by NPR, they highlight students who are taking the pilot version of the class, which is offered in 60 public schools across the country: “For Malina Ouyang, 17, taking the class helped fill gaps in what she has been taught. ‘Taking this class,’ she said, ‘I realized how much is not said in other classes.’” The feedback from students has been positive overall, with students expressing how the course content is important to them, so it’s upsetting how Florida’s government chooses to ignore the actual impacts of the course and how the College Board decided to follow through on course revisions.

There is little point in teaching an AP African American Studies class if it doesn’t even cover important issues that occur today and doesn’t include Black queer and feminist voices. If schools do not teach the history of marginalized and oppressed groups, students will not be able to understand why certain social constructs exist. Black students should be able to learn about these topics to see themselves represented in this country. It allows students to learn about events, people, laws and more from different perspectives and better understand how racism is deeply rooted in America and still thrives today. Creating an AP course that dives deeply into African American history is a large and fundamental step in making sure students receive a well-rounded education, especially when it comes to this country’s history.

Indian government ban on 'India: The Modi Question' reflects the country's dangerous history of censorship

Graphic by Sunny Wei ‘23.

Jahnavi Pradeep ’23

Opinion Editor 

The BBC released a two-part documentary in January 2023 titled “India: The Modi Question”, investigating Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s lengthy reign of Islamophobia within the country. Researched and created by a team of filmmakers who are of Indian origin and live in the United Kingdom, the first part of the documentary traces back to Modi’s involvement in the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat, which occurred during his time as the state’s chief minister. The second part of the documentary, released a week later on Jan. 24, builds hereon to Modi’s prime ministership and continued communal politics in governing India. Packed in among horrifying footage of the riots alongside interviews, new and historical, both parts of “India: The Modi Question” probe into the hushed-up politics of the world’s largest democracy and expose the long-simmering anti-Muslim sentiments of its current leader. 

While the BBC documentary did not air in India, it was met with backlash from the Indian state for its content and was quickly dismissed as a mere propaganda scheme against the ruling leader and his party, the Bharatiya Janata Party. For instance, as per Naman Ramachandran for Variety, on Jan. 19, Indian foreign service officer and Spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs Arindam Bagchi blamed the United Kingdom for “[t]he bias, the lack of objectivity, and frankly a continuing colonial mindset” that permeates what he called a “propaganda piece.” 

What is concerning is that the Indian state has not responded with critique alone, but also censorship. Along with officials publicly condemning the documentary, the Indian government proceeded to employ state emergency powers to ban the circulation of the first part of the documentary on social media platforms. While the documentary was not officially banned within the country, the government used more surreptitious methods to make the piece inaccessible to those in India. Segments of the documentary were banned from YouTube by India’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in cooperation with YouTube’s parent company, Alphabet. In a New York Times article, Sameer Yasir discussed how the ministry employed the ban through “‘I.T. rules’ passed in 2021 that allow … [the ministry] to suppress virtually any information that appears online.” Twitter’s ban, while not as extensive as YouTube’s, has also restricted access to parts of the documentary within the country. 

The Indian state response to “India: The Modi Question” is harrowing. The BJP government used draconian laws to censor criticism of Modi and his political agendas, reinforcing the party’s already feared threat to Indian democracy since their ascent to power in 2014. The move to restrict the BBC documentary highlights the dangers of Indian digital surveillance in continuing to encroach on privacy of its people while limiting their access to information and their freedom of speech and press, rights enshrined in Article 19 of the Indian constitution. 

“The move to restrict the BBC documentary highlights the dangers of Indian digital surveillance in continuing to encroach on privacy of its people while limiting their access to information and their freedom of speech and press, rights enshrined in Article 19 of the Indian constitution.”

The restriction of media circulation within India is not a new development of 2023. The country, under the BJP rule, has a history of media monopolization and suppression of opposing intellect, to an extent that journalists, filmmakers and other creators’ lives are at risk. Additionally, the dangers of surveillance are evident in the BJP government’s alleged use of Pegasus software, an invasive high-level software used to tap into people’s personal devices. The software has the ability to turn on phone’s microphones and cameras to spy on their owners. A 2021 Wire article was able to identify 174 targets of the spyware’s clients, among whom were “politicians, journalists, activists, students and many more.” The Wire staff were further able to surmise that since the spyware was sold only to “vetted governments” it would then be “safe to assume that these individuals were targets or potential targets of government or military agencies.” The Indian government came under fire, especially by opposition party leaders, for potential use of the software. Whether or not they were using it themselves, a Hindustan Times article claims that experts probing the spyware’s usage within the country did not receive the cooperation of the BJP government. This position of usage or complacency toward invasive spyware, if holding any validity, is dangerous and encroaches on the privacy of citizens and residents to establish an atmosphere of state-sanctioned control over speech, information and dissent. 

Regardless of if these allegations are true, this atmosphere of media control very much exists in India. Journalists, filmmakers and other activists expressing diversity of thought outside the BJP’s are fired, arrested and even murdered. Gauri Lankesh, editor of the leftist weekly Bangalore-based paper Lankesh Patrike, is one such example. Lankesh was an avid activist for the rights of marginalized minorities of the country and an outspoken critique of right-wing politics and the ruling BJP and Modi. On Sept. 5, 2017, Lankesh was assassinated outside her house, allegedly by right-wing extremists. In 2022, her murder investigation put members of a right-wing group attacking “anti-Hindu” journalists on trial. Furthermore, during her time of death, while crowds rallied to honor her, Modi and the BJP offered no comment. Some BJP supporters even celebrated her assassination on social media platforms. 

Lankesh is not alone. In an article for the New York Times, Rollo Romig charts how the “Committee to Protect Journalists has been keeping track of 35 cases of Indian journalists murdered specifically for their work since 1992, and only two of these cases have resulted in a successful conviction” as of 2019. Reporters Without Borders notes 58 journalist deaths within India since 2003. Dissent outside traditional journalism is also under threat under Modi’s rule. Indian activist Teesta Setalvad was arrested in 2022 on the basis of trying to falsely smear Modi by investigating the same Gujarat riots covered by “India: The Modi Question.” Furthermore, an article for The Hindu chronicles how the Human Rights Watch Report of 2023 documented that “Indian authorities had ‘intensified and broadened’ their crackdown on activist groups and the media through 2022.” The threat to dissent has created an atmosphere wherein opposing intellect, if created, has no place. Documentary filmmaker Anand Patwardhan’s work covers the rise of Hindu nationalism in India, however, he fears officially screening his work in the country. In 2020, Patwardhan spoke to the New York Times about his film “Reason,” covering the death of Indian activists, and how the government banned its screening in Kerala. Students were also arrested for trying to screen another of Patwardhan’s movies, “In the Name of God,” and classrooms were stormed by men who, the article explains, “shouted slogans and kept saying that the film offended their Hindu sentiments.” 

It then becomes obvious that those within the country dissenting against the BJP and Narendra Modi live in a country that poses an immense threat to both their works and lives. This directly conflicts with freedom of speech as per article 19 of the Indian constitution, whose meaning has been manipulated by the current Indian government. The only place where diverse thoughts and opinions may find a platform to challenge the country is from outside it. Yet, the Indian state still finds ways to censor these works and dismiss them under different pretexts. For example, in 2016, the BBC aired a documentary titled India’s Daughter that chronicled the 2012 Nirbhaya gang-rape case that took place in New Delhi. As per the BBC, the film’s set screening on NDTV was “outlawed by the Indian authorities on the grounds of ‘objectionable content,’” and filmmaker Leslee Udwin was accused of disrespecting Indian women as well as breaking prison contracts to gain interviews with the guilty. 

There is no safe space for dissent against the Indian government or any of their politics. Those in India are left without access to anything but what the government wants them to engage with. The 2023 BBC documentary becomes yet another example, dismissed by the Indian government as the product of a colonial mindset. The dismissal removes the critical understanding of how Indians have no safety in creating media within the country, and must turn outward to find any place from where they can offer perspectives without fear of death. And yet, even from outside, their thoughts are successfully silenced by the Indian government. 

““India: The Modi Question” is a chance for audiences to hold the BJP government responsible for Hindu nationalism and violation of the secular vision of India through Modi’s direct involvement in communal riots targeting Muslims.”

“India: The Modi Question” was created by a production team of Indian filmmakers who conducted in-depth research on the topic before the BBC aired the docu-series on their channel. To recap, the documentary exposes that Modi was directly responsible for the anti-Muslim Gujarat riots of 2002, which took place against the backdrop of the Ayodhya Hindu-Muslim tension. The Sabarmati Express, filled with Hindus traveling from Ayodhya, was supposedly stopped in a Muslim-majority region and attacked and torched by Muslims, successfully killing 58 passengers. In retaliation, Hindus attacked different Muslim neighborhoods across the state, killing over 1000, demolishing religious sites and displacing families into refugee camps. The BBC documentary follows Modi’s involvement in the state-sanctioned retaliations against Muslims after the incident concerning the Sabarmati Express. Modi has long been faced with criticism for his complacency as chief minister during the riots, but the documentary sheds new light by holding him directly responsible for the event. It verbalizes a somewhat known Islamaphobic history for audiences across India and the globe, threatening Modi’s self-perceived reputation as the changemaker of India. 

Its contents cannot simply be discarded as propaganda for its audiences. The documentary follows in-depth interviews with party leaders, journalists, riot victims, activists and others with direct connections to the event, enabling honest storytelling. Banning it dismisses the positionality of its creators and their desire to share a story important to them with audiences who might find it equally important to themselves. It reflects the country’s long-standing intolerance toward critique and their abuse of power to do away with it. This then also does injustice to those within India who desire to engage with materials outside the BJP perspective. Indian citizens and residents must have the right to access information to help inform, educate and allow them to hold power systems in check. “India: The Modi Question” is a chance for audiences to hold the BJP government responsible for Hindu nationalism and  violation of the secular vision of India through Modi’s direct involvement in communal riots targeting Muslims. 

Along with the sly methods to ban the documentary on social media platforms and discredit the work, the state has also attacked individuals attempting to find ways around the ban to access and watch the film. Students across the country attempted to watch the documentary despite the ban, using a VPN on their phones and personal devices. They also attempted screenings on their college campuses. However, their attempts have been thwarted by government protest. For example, student activists at Jamia Millia Islamia in New Delhi were detained by the police and screenings were restricted by the university itself. The case has been similar at Jawaharlal Nehru University. In another Delhi university, the power supply was cut off before screening. In addition to being similar to the suppression of Patwardhan’s movies, this further alienates those within India from beginning to form any vision and educate themselves on any opinion that differs from the narrow nationalistic vision of the government.

The reception of “India: The Modi Question” reflects how journalism, filmmaking and other forms of media and activism continue to face challenges within the Indian state. While it is getting increasingly difficult for the government to manage ways to censor media within the country in our ever-growing digitally connected world, there is still a dangerous surveillance campaign prying into people’s lives. Modi’s censorship of the BBC documentary in India is an example of the state still attempting to control the media consumption of its people. It emphasizes the dangers of creating or engaging with opposing intellects in India by exposing the threat it poses to careers and lives of activists of different kinds. India is currently under a threat to its democracy, and we must continue to push and challenge the state in ways that we can, while finding the tricky balance of protecting the lives of those who are brave enough to speak up. The documentary is one step toward a continued effort to find ways to confront the government and champion the torchbearers of truth that have suffered at the hands of the state. 

Tollywood film RRR’s global recognition invites critique

Signage at the Golden Globe Awards. Image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons, Peter Dutton.

By Jahnavi Pradeep ’23 & Kaveri Pillai ’23 

Opinion Editors

In Tollywood’s fictionalized period film “RRR,” hero Alluri Sitarama Raju turns to a British colonizer during a party to ask, “Not salsa, not flamenco, my brother … do you know Naatu?” When the man bewilderedly fumbles, “What is Naatu?” Raju and fellow hero Komaran Bheem break into song and dance, educating their surrounding British crowd on Naatu, or Indian dance, through their coordinated grooves matched to the energetic beat of their Telugu lyrics. 

The dance number, aptly titled “Naatu Naatu,” has proceeded to garner global recognition, winning a 2023 Global Globe Award in the best original song category and beating the competing songs, Rihanna’s “Lift Me Up,” Lady Gaga and BloodPop’s “Hold My Hand,” Roeben Katz and Guillermo del Toro’s “Ciao Papa” and Taylor Swift’s “Carolina.”  

The Golden Globes were televised on Jan. 10, 2023, to audiences across the world to celebrate the excellence of television and films produced in 2022. After its problematic history of lacking diversity and inclusion, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association’s acknowledgment of the problem was evident at the ceremony. 

This year’s Golden Globes saw monumental wins for people of color, with movies like “Everything Everywhere All At Once” and television shows such as “Abbott Elementary” carving spaces for non-white-centric content and recognition in media. The HFPA also strived to go beyond the United States’ contribution to film and television with countries worldwide receiving a nod of approval from the academy. 

“Naatu Naatu” and its movie, “RRR,” have found a spot in this marketplace. The song’s Golden Globe Award is accompanied by a list of accompanying accolades for “RRR.” Among others, the film was also nominated in the Golden Globes’ best non-English language film category and for Critic’s Choice Awards in the categories of best picture, best director, best visual effects, best foreign language film and best song, winning in the last two of these categories. “Naatu Naatu” has also been nominated in the best achievement in music written for motion pictures (original song) category for the upcoming 2023 Academy Awards, making it the first Indian feature film to be nominated in a category other than best international film. Furthermore, “RRR” was touted by the Hollywood Reporter to be one of the highest-grossing Telugu-language films and one of the most streamed Indian films ever on Netflix.

At first glance, “Naatu Naatu” and “RRR’s” global recognition is a welcome celebration that acknowledges the scope of Indian cinema beyond the seemingly more familiar Bollywood industry. Having South Indian roots ourselves, we have noticed how South Indian culture is often perceived as embarrassing and uncivilized. South Indian films are similarly ridiculed for their cringe-worthy content, even within South Asia. Herein, the win for “Naatu Naatu” felt like a triumph for India’s diversity of language and culture. 

Yet, our joy over representation is accompanied by critique. “Naatu Naatu’s” win and “RRR’s” popularity on an international platform, while exciting on the surface, raises concern as to what qualifies an Indian film for global recognition. 

The song and film fault in prioritizing whiteness over creating a space for authentic Indian representation. Its reception then emboldens the obvious performative move by the West — here the HFPA — to represent for representation’s sake, a model that caters to the familiarities of Western audiences over choosing the best of Indian cinema and representation of its people. 

“RRR,” short for Rise, Roar, Revolt, is a 2022 Tollywood, or Telugu-language, film directed by S.S. Rajamouli set in 1920s colonial India. The action-packed epic follows a fictionalized account of two real freedom fighters, Alluri Sitarama Raju and Komaram Bheem, the dance experts from “Naatu Naatu,” as they join hands to revolt against the colonial British rule of the time. 

Riddled with Hindu nationalist and mythological themes, the film explores a narrative chronicling brotherhood and unity amongst Indians during colonial rule. “Naatu Naatu” echoes the crux of the film’s themes of standing up to colonial oppression. When Raju and Bheem attend a party primarily populated by the British, one of the men, motivated by jealousy over Bheem’s courtship of one of the white women, ridicules Bheem for his brownness. 

He mockingly asks his fellow colonizers, “What do [Indians] know about art? About finesse? About dance?” He then shows off his own moves in tango, swing, flamenco and salsa, pointing out the brown man’s lack of access to this culture. However, Raju and Bheem are undeterred and join forces to show how “naatu,” the Indian dance, is not inferior. The two men are able to stand up for their culture and push back against the colonizers’ mistreatment of Indian culture. Their dances soon infect the whole crowd of Britishers, who begin dancing along with them. Raju and Bheem are successful in correcting a bias in the colonizer on Indian “finesse” as well as culture, art and dance. 

The song seems to champion Indian culture and challenge its ridicule by the colonizer; there in itself is the problem. “Naatu Naatu” is still a song obsessed with the Western audience and fixing their misconceptions of what it means to be Indian. The British men are prevented by their female counterparts from stopping Raju and Bheem’s dance, and the enthusiastic women take part in the revelry. 

Herein, a power dynamic is immediately established, wherein white approval forms an integral part of the two men’s celebration of their culture. While chronicling the anguish of colonial India, the film’s ability to exist globally then also establishes how there needs to be white presence on screen for it to become globally relevant. However, it is not the duty of the Indian film to coddle Western audiences, especially their former colonizer, and spoon-feed them respect and decency toward their culture. 

In an article for Times of India, Bharti Dubey and Almas Mirza discuss “Naatu Naatu’s” global success, owing it to how the song was “specifically written to build the emotions and propel the story and the narrative of the film forward.” Contextualizing “Naatu Naatu” in the film strengthens how this internationally acclaimed piece of art merely scratches the surface of the topics it attempts to cover and really does forget about doing right by its characters. 

“RRR” is a film that showcases Indians in reductive portrayals to favor the cinematic experience. For example, Komaram Bheem, one of its two central characters, is a Gond Adivasi. He is first introduced in a jungle setting, pouring blood over himself and fighting a tiger somewhere in the Adilabad district of Hyderabad. The Gond tribals are immediately associated with animalistic tendencies, reinforcing long-standing stereotypes about tribal populations. 

What makes this even more harmful is that Bheem is a fictionalized version of an actual historical figure with living family. While the film does establish itself as a fictionalized account, Mohan Guruswamy aptly points out in an article for LiveWire how this is still dangerous: “When you appropriate the lives and personalities of two genuine heroes for a tawdry commercial excess, it doesn’t absolve the makers of distortion.” 

“RRR” succeeds in caricaturing the real-life accounts of its two revolutionaries and the communities to which they belong. What becomes a priority is using the heroism of the South Indian cinematic experience to simultaneously correct and placate the West. Any real simmering colonial discontent, as demonstrated in the song alone, is shoved under the carpet, as we see the two main characters surrounded by the English upper class as they entertain them with their skillful dance steps and catchy music. 

Award ceremonies must do better than capitalize on films like “RRR.” What makes “Naatu Naatu’s” Golden Globe win seem even more performative is the recent commercial success and market growth of the Tollywood industry. It then appears as if the song’s win is a dual attempt by the award ceremony to absolve their historic whiteness crisis as well as tap into a new profitable market. 

“RRR” and “Naatu Naatu” are not the best that India has to offer. Their nominations echo a superficial celebration of a film that reifies regressive tropes and calls for more critical choices on what films we choose to celebrate.

‘Indian Matchmaking’ perpetrates harmful gender stereotypes

Courtesy of Patina Photography.
The second season of “Indian Matchmaking” demonstrates that reality television often depicts situations and people in false, harmful ways that do not align with the experiences of people on the show.

By Jahnavi Pradeep ’23

Opinion Editor 

On August 10, 2022, Netflix reality show “Indian Matchmaking” returned for a second season, drawing audiences back into its trap of arranged marriage matchmaking fiascos. The first episode of the season — titled “I’ve Dated Lots of Chicks” — opens to host and professional matchmaker Sima Taparia happily attending the marriage of two of her clients. Against the backdrop of her successful project, Taparia expressed her joy in being a matchmaker, “First is marriage, then love. That is the beauty of these arranged marriages.” The season subsequently picks up for eight episodes of Taparia’s matchmaking trial and errors.

“Indian Matchmaking” brings a strong potential to the screen in explaining what Indian marriages look like. In an article for The Juggernaut, Ishani Nath explores how “Indian Matchmaking” is more than just a “dating show” as it is “introducing and shaping how a global audience understands the matchmaking industry.” In fashioning itself as a reality show intimately following the lives of an Indian host and her Indian clients, it offers what viewers may assume is an authentic representation of the Indian experience in the arranged marriage landscape. 

Unfortunately, both seasons disappoint. The second season shows no growth from the first and continues following the same apparently stubborn, upper middle-class clientele. Moreover, while carefully avoiding the controversial blunders of colorism from its first season, season two of “Indian Matchmaking” still resorts to dangerous stereotypes — one of the largest being sexism. As Nath aptly captures, the show begins to read as more of an “arranged marriage PR rather than a series based on reality.” The public relations scheme of the show bolsters single-sided narratives that subtly construct regressive ideas on arranged marriages wherein the Indian woman invariably gets left on the outside when not conforming to expected gender roles. 

The show’s double standard is apparent in the season’s differential treatment of returning female and male clients from season one — Aparna Shewakramani, Nadia Jagessar, Shekar Jayaraman and Pradhyuman Maloo. 

“The public relations scheme of the show bolsters single-sided narratives that subtly construct regressive ideas on arranged marriages wherein the Indian woman invariably gets left on the outside when not conforming to expected gender roles.”

Aparna Shewakramani, a Houston-based lawyer in her mid thirties and a client of Taparia’s, garnered significant negative attention in her first season. Taparia sets her up as a character with impossible dating criteria and an intolerable personality, resulting in failed talking stages that never move any further. 

After the first season, Shewakramani received immense online hate and death threats. As a response to her inaccurate portrayal on the series and its consequential cyberbullying, she wrote a book titled “She’s Unlikeable: And Other Lies that Bring Women Down.” Shewakramani discusses not just her challenging experience with Taparia but the role of “Indian Matchmaking” in presenting her in a one-dimensional light. In an interview with The Indian Express, she reminded audiences that reality shows are still fictionalized versions of reality: “It is my hope that people move forward in consuming media more responsibly. We should, of course, enjoy it for entertainment purposes but we should by no means take it as absolute truth.”

“Indian Matchmaking” negatively portrays confident, self-sufficient women as “unlikeable,” thereby concentrating only on these aspects of Shewakramani’s character. Season two shows how this problem is not only encouraged by Sima Taparia and her often outdated modes of thought, but also by the creators of the show. In season two, Shewakramani is no longer Taparia’s client but works as her own matchmaker. However, the construction of Shewakramani, while including more of her personal successes and journey as an individual, does not completely abandon its assertion of her unlikeability. Episode one of season two — “I’ve Dated Lots of Chicks” — opens to a changed Shewakramani. She reiterates the life formula she had created for herself, the essence of her season one quest — getting married, having children, maintaining her professional life and moving into a “McMansion.” She then asserts, “I’m done with the life I thought I wanted.” 

Situated in her New York City apartment, Shewakramani seems positioned for better things in her life and for the show. However, “Indian Matchmaking” does not follow through on portraying this stability. Instead, from this moment on, season two fails to sufficiently chart Shewakramani’s relationships, with similar unsuccessful dates to season one and a sudden disappearance midseason. As contributor Meha Razdan wrote for Buzzfeed News, “There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with Aparna’s storyline, per se, but without the tether of Sima, the viewer is left scratching their head wondering what this has to do with the matchmaking aspect.” 

“While sexism is a common reality in matchmaking, the show’s orientation does not tackle the dangers of this discrimination, but rather reinforces that any woman thinking outside of convention is set to lose when it comes to love, and is deserving of blame.”

It seems that Shewakramani is brought on the show merely to tap into the fame surrounding her book release. This becomes increasingly believable as none of Shewakramani’s fellow female stars on Indian Matchmaking are seen in a progressive light and are still portrayed as unlikeable when they break certain gender norms.

Nadia Jagessar is one such person. Throughout season two, Jagessar is made out to be unlikeable for supposedly breaking the heart of Shekar Jayaraman — another season one client — in pursuit of a younger man named Vishal Kalyanasundaram. 

At the end of season one, there seems to be a possibility, though not fully defined, of a romance between Jagesar and Jayaraman, one of Taparia’s other clients. When we return for season two, both Jagessar and Jayaraman are seemingly single and have the will-they or will-they-not date question lingering over their interactions. Jayaraman visitsJagessar’s house in episode one, cordially and warmly interacting with her whole family. He is immediately set up as a likable young suitor for Jagessar. However, the situation between the two is still in a gray area, with uncertainties looming from both sides. When Jagessar hosts a party for Taparia’s clients later in the same episode, she hits it off with the twenty-something Kalyanasundaram. Jagessar is immediately villainized for her behavior toward Jayaraman and belittled for her romance with a younger man. 

In an article for Indian Express, Nadia Jagessar explains how she never dated Jayaraman in the two and a half years she knew him and was hurt by how the show edited her story arc in the second season. The article discusses how Jagessar “noted that it is ‘unfortunate’ that the show edited it to look like she had broken Shekar's heart.” In looking for her own love interest and pursuing someone conventionally inappropriate, Jagessar is made unlikeable. She quickly disappears from the show after her fling with Kalyanasundaram comes to an end. The show erases Jagessar’s reality to replace it with a fictionalized account that reinforces the show’s idea that progressive women cannot function in the arranged marriage arena. Taparia’s failure as a matchmaker slowly nods in this direction as well, blaming women for the shortcomings of matchmaking in the modern age, rather than lauding them for breaking past convention, if anything. Jagessar and Shewakramani are molded into selfish creatures demanding the hate of audiences. 

The returning men of the show are inversely coddled. Jayaraman is depicted as the heartbroken man begging audiences for their sympathy. He still very much receives the show’s favor. Similarly, returning client Pradhyuman Maloo is glorified as a success story in the season. Like Shewakramani, he no longer is a client of Taparia’s and has found a wife on his own, at a party. Maloo was as stubborn — if not more — than his female counterparts during the first season. And yet, we are asked to forget all about it in the second season. He is instead given the Indian wedding everyone has been waiting for and does not disappear midseason without a grand send-off. He is even invited back to the show’s coveted married couple confessional couch with his wife for tips on his success story.

Reality shows, while based on the lives of real people, cannot be conflated with reality. The genre still alters and even fictionalizes narratives to suit the requirements of their shows. “Indian Matchmaking” is a clear example of this, altering the lives of its participants to suit certain narrative tropes that insist on an stereotypical arranged marriage system that cannot accept self-sufficient women. While sexism is a common reality in matchmaking, the show’s orientation does not tackle the dangers of this discrimination, but rather reinforces that any woman thinking outside of convention is set to lose when it comes to love, and is deserving of blame.