50 • “Wall of Force” Channels 2022 themselves up into great frenzies and sew their lips together with stout twine; so they die slowly of hunger and thirst, sacrificing themselves for the love of Bezaban” (101). In contrast, the Guppees do not follow a cult of muteness, as evidenced by the multitude of voices present as Rashid describes Chup (101105) and the cacophony of opinions from the Guppees as they travel to Chup (119). The religious differences between Gup and Chup could relate to the religious differences that drove the divide between India and Pakistan. Thus, through applying Rushdie’s historical context to the novel, the relationship between Gup and Chup compares to India and Pakistan after their partition. The Intersection of Postcolonial Theory and the Partition The demonic othering present in the book leads König to point to colonization; however, the othering also relates to the relationship between India and Pakistan and the hostility that developed over the years between the two countries. The Guppees rightly identify the evil motives of Khattam-Shud, but they infer his evil upon the entire population of Chup. Rashid explains to the Guppees that Khattam-Shud has silenced all speech in Chup, explaining how the country has become “a place of shadows, of books that wear padlocks and tongues torn out; of secret conspiracies and poison rings” (102). As Rashid describes Chup, he reminds the Guppees that they already know about this evil (102). Rushdie emphasizes that the Guppees have constructed a perception of the Chupwalas as an evil people, although the evil springs from KhattamShud and his followers. However, Iff the Water Genie explains that the Guppees “mostly” know about the Chupwalas from “gossip and flim-flam” because many years have passed since the Guppees traveled into Chup (79). The Guppees have created a stereotype of Chup based on unreliable information, and they believe stories of evil that necessitate a Wall of Force between the lands (103). This justification may symbolize the supporters of partition who believed the ensuing violence substantiated the separation. Although not all Indians or Pakistanis supported violence or partition, harmful rhetoric evolved that pitted the countries against one another—similar to the stories that depicted all Chupwalas as evil. These stories and twisted narratives served to create false stereotypes that perpetuated the hostile relationships between Gup and Chup as well as India and Pakistan. Through his analysis of Gup and Chup, Rushdie seems to criticize how India and Pakistan have negatively stereotyped one another and perpetuated violence rather than encouraging peace. Rushdie depicts interactions between the Guppees and the Chupwalas to demonstrate how social divides can lead to othering, arguing that the violent divide and subsequent perceptions following the partition can lead to dehumanizing actions. After the Guppees encounter Mudra in Chup, Prince Bolo embodies the Guppees’ views of the Chupwalas as the Other (König 59). When Mudra tries to speak, Bolo responds by criticizing him: “‘Eh? What’s that? What’s the fellow saying?...Can’t make out a single word’” (Rushdie 129).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=