Pakistan and India used to be one country before the British split them with the idea one would be for Muslims and the other for Hindus because they couldn’t really get along. But was there ever a time they could? Yeah actually. When the British conquered India, their strategy was to divide and conquer. The colonial narrative split India into “a nation of communities, above all what were deemed the two great communities of Hindu and Muslim”. The British emphasized their differences and shaped the way history was told. The British went to the Hindus and fueled their nationalist ideas by saying they had a Golden era before the Muslims invaded and screwed things up, so “Many Indian nationalist leaders found it useful, specifically, to accept the notion of an Indian Golden Age that ended with the presumed oppression of Muslim rule.” The British also went to the Muslims though and told them the Golden era was during their rule. These ideologies stayed with the people and fuel conflict to this day. So, like the Ministry of Truth, the British changed the way history was told and they ended up fueling hate between the Muslims and the Hindus from which comes conflict.
(My sister was doing a research project for her history class and told me about this. The book is Islamic Contestations Essays on Muslims in India and Pakistan by Barbara D. Metcalf)
Another way I feel like we have a “Ministry of Truth” is not by literally recording history differently, but by framing events in a certain way that helps you make your point. I’m pretty sure we all have read I am Malala at one point. When you learn about her, lessons generally frame the conflict as if it can all be solved by education and that you should always stand up for what you believe in. But people living in northern Pakistan don’t necessarily agree with this. The issues they deal with are more complex and can’t all be solved by getting an education, so saying education can solve everything is an oversimplification. Generally, people there, including the girls (Malala focuses on girl’s education), want to be safe and stay alive more than they want to go to school. People also aren’t necessarily willing to stand up for themselves because Malala did get shot and she got lucky. So, as you can imagine, it’s not easy for them to be convinced to fight for girls’ education. I feel like this relates to the Ministry of Truth because how you learn about these issues changes your view, like how the Ministry changes their records so that Big Brother is always right, which makes the people more willing to love and trust Big Brother.
(Now I’m not saying that fighting for girl’s education is bad, it’s just that it’s not their only problem, their issues are a lot more complex than sending girls to school).
The last thing I want to address is how the media’s portrayal of other countries is similar to the Ministry of Truth. The Ministry of Truth changed its records to say that they have always been at war with Eastasia when they switched from being at war with Eurasia. It was important to them to make it seem like they never switched sides. The portrayal of the war helps them keep their people in check. The media’s portrayal of a country shapes how you view it and media tends to portray Pakistan as a backward, dangerous, poor country full of terrorists. But hopefully, you guys don’t believe that because it’s a terrible stereotype. Once someone was talking with my dad and my dad mentioned how my family often visits Pakistan. The other guy was kind of surprised because “isn’t it dangerous there” to which my dad replied, “it’s about as safe as schools in the U.S.”
There are a lot more examples of “real life Ministries of Truth” but here were a few. Can you guys think of any examples that aren’t well known?