The Bhagawad Gita says a few things that some people find offensive today. 

On caste it says: ‘Of Brahmanas, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas, as also the Sudras, O Arjuna, their duties are distributed according to the qualities born of their own nature!” ( Verse 41, Chapter 18). 

In Verse 32, Chapter 9 the Gita says, “For, taking refuge in Me may be those of sinful birth—women, Vaisyas as well as Sudras.…!”

Such words are counter to what is acceptable today, and is also anti-constitutional. Does that mean we should edit the Bhagawad Gita and publish new, truncated versions to ensure it doesn’t offend anyone? 

The latest controversy along the same lines is Roald Dahl, and the use of words like “Fat” and “Ugly” in his books, as mentioned in this article in the Guardian. Arguments about what is offensive fly both ways.  The definition of appropriate Vs offensive is not the point here.

The point is that it is silly to judge the content of an old text by today’s standards. Take Tintin or Enid Blyton, both of which have been called Racist. When those books were written, American society was segregated by color and Apartheid was alive and well in South Africa. Racism was much worse than today’s definitions. These books were the outcome of those times. 

Do we agree with that world-view today? No, of course not. But can we start chopping up every single book written in that era to today’s standards? 

Even if the answer is yes, how often will we do it? Our definition of what is politically correct is not fixed. Ten years ago, nobody was asking you your adjectives. And the question remains – who decides what is okay? If we touch up the Mona Lisa, should she get a smartphone or a headscarf?

An author, when they set-out to write something, has a vision, an idea for what they are writing. Only the writer themselves has the right to edit or modify that original idea. Irrespective of the legal right (which may sit with a publisher, or may have come to the creative commons), I believe it is morally incorrect to change what was originally written by the author to fit today’s definition of what is okay. 

As a most fundamental principle, we cannot change what the writer wrote to suit us now. Today as readers we have the right to accept or reject a certain piece of writing. As customers, we can choose to spend money on it or not. But we cannot change a piece of work to suit contemporary definitions. 

And with today’s rapidly changing definitions of what is offensive, should the publishing industry keep sterilizing all old books every 5-10 years? That won’t just be tedious, it will also destroy much of those books.

A simpler solution could be to add a statement in the beginning of every old book still in print.  The statement can say something like:

“This book was published over 20 / 100 / 1000 years ago. The language and references in this story are an outcome of those times. You may find prejudices, biases and slurs which are today inappropriate or offensive. As you read this book, please appreciate how much better the world has becomes because it has lost so much negativity and bias.”

Judging todays work by today’s standards makes perfect sense. With an army of people waiting to be offended, that will happen anyway. But judging an old work by today’s standards is like denying that a different past existed. Denying history itself.

James Bond teaches us a lesson about this. He has gone from being a philandering, violent chauvinist to a woke Millenial spy who can get PTSD. This change is reflected in the Bond films in the last decade or so. But are we going back and hacking all the old James Bond Films to make them appropriate for today?

We’ll get Sean Connery in his Aston Martin listening to his sexy therapist instead of seducing her. And he’ll be weeping into a box of tissues. Ewwww. (Careful now. That may offend the EU). 

_____________

Chetan Mahajan is the co-founder of the Himalayan Writing Retreat, and a Penguin published author.