Who said literature is boring?

Everyday I read comments about the book Interlok. I have not read it yet.

It is apparently a Form 5 literature text book. Literature implies fiction. If it is meant to be fictional, then there is no need to change anything in the book. One is supposed to read literature for the (fictional) story, the language, the prose, the grammar, the writing style etc. For example 'A Tale of Two Cities' by Charles Dickens. Nobody really thinks that there was a Sydney Carton who traded places with a Charles Darnay, to be willingly guillotined out of love for a woman whose name I forget.  

If it is meant to be factual, and if there are factual inaccuracies, then of course there is a need to rectify the offending parts so that it reflects the actual facts.

If it is meant to be factual and if there are no factual inaccuracies, then the book should remain as it is. It cannot be denied that there was a caste system in place in India for many years. By removing all reference to the caste system, or certain undesirable words attributed to the caste system, it does not mean that the caste system will be forever obliterated from memory or history. The caste system and everything undesirable associated with it is a fact, and it is the truth.

Rather than hide the truth, we should acknowledge the past as it is; the good, the bad and the ugly, and learn from it. Like the fact that Galileo was persecuted because he said the Earth went around the sun, or the fact that people suspected of witchcraft used to be burned at the stake, or the fact that Parameswara was a Hindu till the day he died.

The past can sometimes be discomforting, to say the least. But like all truths, it has the habit of revealing itself in good time, no matter how hard anyone tries to suppress it. And I, for one, prefer to face the truth than to explain a lie.

I can’t wait to read the book!