Vol. 7 No. 1 Mowery • 51 Rashid tries to explain that Mudra is communicating through Abhinaya, a silent language of gestures, and Bolo replies, “‘Don’t be ridiculous…. You call those grunts fluency?’” (130). Later in the scene, Bolo assumes the worst of Mudra, believing Mudra says murder while trying to pronounce his name for the Guppees, and Bolo reaches for his weapon (130). Mudra does not attack the Guppees, yet Bolo believes in Mudra’s inherently evil nature. Instead of recognizing that the Chupwalas have established a different mode of communication, Bolo delegitimizes the Chupwala language and views the Chupwalas as hostile. Not all Guppees view Mudra in this way, but Bolo demonstrates how one country can stereotype their enemy in order to justify their actions. This interaction points to the possible relationship between Indians and Pakistanis. Although Rushdie shared strong familial relationships with individuals on either side of the divide, Indians and Pakistanis have still experienced enduring hostility. Since Mudra does not fulfill Guppee expectations, Rushdie demonstrates how stereotypes between two hostile countries cause misinformation and mistreatment. Rushdie’s Call for Reconciliation Through Haroun Rushdie’s emphasis on reconciliation between Gup and Chup suggests his desire for India and Pakistan’s future relationship. Haroun does not initially share the Guppees’ demeaning stereotypes, but his experiences with the Guppees and in Chup encourage him to embrace othering. He ponders the divide as he watches Mudra fight his shadow and thinks, “How many opposites are at war in this battle between Gup and Chup!...Gup is bright and Chup is dark…Gup is all chattering and noise, whereas Chup is silent as a shadow. Guppees love the Ocean, Chupwalas try to poison it” (125). However, Haroun stops himself: “‘It’s not as simple as that’…because the dance of the Shadow Warrior showed him that silence has its own grace and beauty” (125). After the Guppees defeat Khattam-Shud, the new peace eliminates the separation, and Mudra—a Chupwala—and Blabbermouth—a Guppee—work together to create a lasting connection between the countries (191). Although the Guppees believe the Chupwalas agree with the evil of Khattam-Shud, most of the Chupwalas willingly accept new leadership. As König has noted, the reconciliation at the end emphasizes that Rushdie does not support separation. Rushdie’s dislike for the partition and his wish that a separation had never occurred relates to the reconciliation at the end of Haroun. If Gup and Chup can overcome their religious differences and social stereotypes, then perhaps India and Pakistan can one day forge a similarly amiable relationship. The censorship, postcolonial, and partition lenses all present strong arguments for the text, but the partition lens better accounts for the historical and textual evidence. The biggest strength of the partition argument relies upon its ability to account for the postcolonial
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=