For decades, the beauty and fashion industry has had a colossal impact on women's lives. Going back, from the invention of corsets to the modern-day baggy jeans, the ever-evolving industry somehow manages to direct the way of our sails. However, beneath the charm, the dazzle, and the blaze surrounding fashion lurks a darker side—one glorified as fashion and beauty ‘standards’. What’s ironic is how fashion has been habitually synonymous with the statement of self-expression and liberation. Yet, the industry relentlessly engraves more and more standards into people's minds each day. This raises a crucial question: Is fashion truly liberating?

Whether donning a Dior gown or wearing a street style tee, when it comes to fashion, it never fails to make a statement. What you wear, who you wear, why you wear it, how you style it – the questions are endless. While your choices might be based upon basic practicality, the reins of fashion are so profound that they can mould symbolism out of your subconscious choices.

In ancient times, fashion was deeply intertwined with symbolism and functionality. Attire and jewels were made to serve practical purposes and commonly acted as a status symbol. Ancient Egypt and Greece are prime examples of this, famous for their soft and breathable linen clothes that were suitable for the climate, along with intricate gold jewels often worn by the upper class to symbolize wealth. Gradually, as time evolved, the Renaissance period brought a wave of change, fusing art and culture in the game of fashion. The aristocracy illustrated many fashion trends with their elaborate gowns, lavish embroidery, and customized statement pieces. By this time, fashion had made an uproar in society. It not only attested to your status in society but also came with an unspoken rule book of standards that were scrupulously followed in pursuit of being fashionably forward but also chipping away to those beauty standards.

, which reimagines the six wives of King Henry VIII, features a satirical song called Haus of Holbein. This song features a line that goes something like this: 

"You bring the corsets, we'll bring the cinches, no one wants a waist over nine inches."

 This sardonic song highlights the extreme and unrealistic beauty standards of the 1500s, when women had an unhealthy obsession with extremely tiny waists achieved by the use of corsets. The tight lacing restricted breathing, compressed internal organs, and even led to muscle atrophy, among other health issues.

After centuries of magnificent but not very comfortable clothing being flaunted, the early 20th century started with the wave of the Suffragette movement, where women used fashion as a way to further their cause. Suffragettes portrayed themselves as strong and independent women, abandoning figure-altering garments and opting for more comfortable and functional attire, some even ditching corsets altogether. The outbreak of World War I also pushed the need for practicality more than ever. Since women worked in munitions factories for the war effort, they began to wear utilitarian clothing.

After decades of experimentation and celebrating the end of World War II, the air carried a frenzy of fashion. With new designers emerging and Hollywood stars parading their glamour, the fashion and beauty industry meticulously placed its standards, making them as believable as your necessities. 

, the world’s most renowned fashion magazine, rose to prominence and found its way into every woman’s household by captivating its audience and giving elaborate fashion insights. Vogue’s edition of 1952 stated, “It begins at the waistline. The waist is what catches the eye right away.” It reflects the rise of unrealistic standards and an obsession with frantically perfecting women’s beauty. Dior, Balenciaga, Balmain, and more began churning out highly feminine looks that championed the ‘hourglass’ figure, with stars like Marilyn Monroe being idolised. This not only stereotypes what perfectionism means but also projects insecurities among many.

The 1990s endorsed the era of minimalism. Designers like Calvin Klein and Jill Sander embraced minimalist aesthetic and ushered in a shift to traditionalistic trends that redefined power dressing for women and offered a sophisticated and confident outlook, aligning with the image of modern day working-women. However, with the rise of supermodels like Cindy Crawford, Kate Moss, and Naomi Campbell in the fashion industry, the ‘heroin-chic’ look became a subject of high controversy because it promoted disordered eating among women. The fascination with a ‘sickly skinny look’ to fit in with the beauty standards led to an anorexia pandemic that left a lasting impact for ages. The fashion industry was openly romanticizing drug abuse and eating disorders, perpetuating fat phobia that not only distorted a healthy body image but triggered a strained relationship with self-acceptance.

The 21st century serves as a powerful reminder to espouse body positivity and use fashion as a way to express individuality. In recent times, we have witnessed how fashion seems to be a dynamic and proactive means in the pursuit of liberation. But we are still on a long road to attaining complete freedom from these standards, the standards that capitalize on our insecurities and profit by creating a frenzy. At present, influencers promote a new fashion trend every day, fueling the cycle of unattainable standards. Our stance on these standards won’t change unless we truly understand the essence of fashion and embrace the art within ourselves.

Don't be into trends. Don't make fashion own you, but you decide what you are, what you want to express by the way you dress and the way you live."

True beauty lies in reclaiming the power to define beauty on your terms, and that’s why fashion should be

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of The Jamia Review or its members.

Liberated by Fashion, Bounded by Standards

 A term that is unfortunately not foreign to us. A simple search will show you that, by definition, it means “a policy or system of 

 or discrimination on grounds of race.”

I was first introduced to this term back in school while learning about South Africa’s history. The inhumane racial segregation that existed in South Africa and West Africa for almost 46 years has left an incredibly egregious mark on the pages of history. Like many others, I am horrified by the extent of cruelty the oppressors inflicted on those innocent souls. It brings a certain relief to the heart that this system of atrocities and agonizing practices was officially abolished in the early 1990s. However, the growing unsettling events happening around the world stand as a testament that reveals how apartheid-like practices are still prevalent to obscure real issues.

Apartheid was a systematic tactic used to oppress and dehumanize the Black population in South Africa. Formally imposed in 1948 by the National Party of South Africa, its main objective was to institutionalise racial discrimination, which hedged the Black South Africans from exercising their basic rights and ultimately confined them within the chains of brutality and poverty. It’s diabolical how an administration was capable of

 racial segregation, disenfranchisement, and cold-blooded state violence.

Black South Africans were confined to poverty, their basic rights denied, and their dissent thwarted. Policies were cruelly obvious but served a purpose that ran far deeper: they divided the society, distracting a population from questioning the broader

Perhaps the vehemence of apartheid is more than just dividing the population. Its strategic claws are targeted to break people from within– crumbling their morals and shattering their hope until their existence mortifies them. The system succeeded on the principle of 

Governments, corporations, and political leaders of the present age rely on similar playbooks, usually masquerading as 

Dawning the superhero cloak and projecting powers of polarization while masking accountability seems to be the growing trend in democratic societies. Politicians and media organisations often highlight the issue of cultural or identity-based conflict to deflect attention from mismanagement of the economy, corruption, or social injustice. When leaders portray a certain group as a threat, be it immigrants, minorities, or political opponents, public sentiment can be rallied while culpability for systemic problems is shunned.

When we draw parallels between the Apartheid Era in South Africa and the modern age state of affairs, the similarities are appalling. Though today's tactics are less explicit when it comes to racial laws, they rely on the same old core principle: 

best describes the caste of Dalits, a discriminated group subjected to social ostracism, segregated living arrangements, and scarcity of access to basic services, despite constitutional provisions.

Although it is protected legally from racial discrimination, systemic racism remains prevalent for Black, Native, and Hispanic Americans. Disparities continue to appear in the forms of wealth, education, and criminal justice. The history of redlining and segregation in housing has created many of the continuing economic and social imbalances.

Many have criticised the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip for establishing a system of apartheid in which the unequal share of land resources and freedom to move around is determined by ethnicity. Palestinian people are restricted from moving around freely and face unequal access to essential facilities.

Even after apartheid has been legally abolished, significant racial inequality in South Africa still lingers. Such issues persist even today through high concentrations of poverty in historic townships; access to good-quality education, and healthcare services remains unequal, while wealth disparities prevail.

In some nations, divisive practices identify themselves through ideological control with exaggerated nationalism or religious purity roles being played by the media and propaganda. Policies targeting certain ethnic or religious groups with security disguises inflame public emotions but hardly address real issues such as poverty or education disparities. In any case, such policies just set up the cycle of discrimination and exacerbate societal divisions while prolonging the agony of the oppressed.

This also happens in what appear to be the more progressive democracies. When economic times worsen, politicians may resort to polarising rhetoric to build a base of support and focus public ire on immigrants or other minority groups rather than on inflation, wage stagnation, or housing shortages. This is a way not just to maintain power but to bar the creation of any unity needed to solve systemic problems.

What is the real cost of these apartheid-like practices?

They first create societal mistrust, set communities against each other, and propagate cycles of resentment. Furthermore, the entire concept of 

 starts to distort from its true meaning and values. When leaders define dissent as treason and instill a sense of suspicion among people, they create atmospheres where accountability is nearly impossible. In those scenarios, public energy is wasted on arguing about divisive issues when corruption, inequality, and systemic failures worsen unchecked.

For a government focused on controlling the narrative and not on solving problems, essential issues such as healthcare, infrastructure, or education are neglected. This leads to stagnation and suffering in the long run.

The best way to dodge the bullet of these nasty tactics is to be conspicuous with reality and see it for what it is- 

 The power play of division and dismantling of society is odious to progress and development. As citizens, we must recognise these abhorrent strategies and raise awareness to overcome this system. For example, when public discourse is consumed by arguments over identity, it becomes pertinent to question what other broader issues are being put 

Are unemployment rates rising? Is public infrastructure in disrepair? Is wealth inequality widening? These are the questions that cry out for attention but are frequently buried under layers of orchestrated outrage.

History always unwraps its lessons. While the horrifying wickedness of apartheid is forever inked in the past, it surely taught us the significance of unity, which was crucial to fighting against this oppression. A system based on division and segregation ultimately succumbs to the unity of people.

Times might have changed, and the game plans have evolved. Nonetheless, we mustn’t fall prey to the devils in disguise and resist their vices before we end up in immutable crises.

What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what differences we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead.”

Apartheid: On the Pages of History or Hidden in Plain Sight?

I was scrolling through my Instagram feed the other day. Like always, I came across several excerpts of articles and reels about celebrities. Though the lives of celebrities usually linger on the fringes of my inquisitiveness, I cannot deny the fact that the constant publicization and the blazoned names are engrossing to some extent. Let’s be honest: we have all fallen prey to the latest hot gossip about celeb-town. But things get even more riveting when the typical idol-worshipping of these celebs turns sour, and the facade of their glamourized lives is disclosed. The internet has played a crucial factor in bringing up this new era where celebrities are humanized, scrutinized, and often ‘de-idolized’. This unprecedented access has brought a dynamic shift in reshaping the celeb culture and how our society has started perceiving fame, influence, and power.

When once glamorous, if unattainable, celebrities like 

 are laid bare before public criticism for one misstep after another on social media, here's an example of the internet changing our way of seeing celebrities and how they define themselves. From careless words to shady business ventures, the internet reports every step wrongly taken, subjecting her to real-time public lambasting. Idolization has taken a new form: whereas we so easily fell in love with our beloved stars, now we're equally as quick to tear them down.

The internet has afforded not just access to celebrities but has also transferred the power to hold their feet to fire for their improprieties. Increased accountability has been a giant stride towards de-idolization, especially through phenomena like "Cancel Culture." Pre-internet celebrities, by and large, escaped substantial controversies without major fallouts. Now their past behaviour and ethical practice would be monitored instantaneously with social media accountability and mistakes counted on them to own up.

 Combs is an example. Once fawned over as a hip-hop icon and much more, Diddy has weathered the days and nights of withering social media backlash from the world's celebrities, especially Twitter, where fans and foes alike demanded that the mogul answer for his practices both in business and in how he treated his former collaborators. The ease of recording such a detail as well as the permanence of the internet has made it easier for individuals to go back and reassess those problematic moments in the celebrity's past with layers of accountability, which were absent beforehand.

Today, every celebrity dreads that his or her past and present actions may be dissected, debated, and, consequently, fan loyalty lost. The constant attention makes stars captious people who have no choice but to evolve or suffer the wrath of public opinion, thereby stripping them of the status of being untouchable.

De-idolization of stars has another angle: the rise of influencers and micro-celebrities. Granting ordinary people the fame-filled platforms of YouTube, TikTok, or Instagram has led to authenticity and relatability instead of heroism because the global focus falls on traditionally charismatic celebrities.

These influencers often attract their fans because they share similar experiences and can build that much-needed personal connection with their audience. They're easier to reach than the Hollywood star. A good example is 

, who has gained millions of followers because of her candid, less polished content. Fans see her more like a peer rather than that far-off celebrity worship, which dilutes the worship of traditional stars like the 

. The rise in popularity of influencers is a harbinger of a cultural shift toward more humanized figures, and the result is a collective rethink of what it means to be famous.

In my opinion, the magic of influencers now seems to grasp the audience in a manner more effective than conventional movie stars, perhaps even epitomizing that the old days of idolizing the unreachable stars are finally coming to an end. Instead, authenticity and vulnerability have become the hallmarks audiences crave, which comes down to the negation of the perfect celebrity.

One of the most subtle ways through which the internet has contributed to de-idolizing celebrities is through democratizing criticism. It has popularized platforms that can make any citizen speak their minds about celebrity culture. For example, 

 have become hotspots where people discuss celebrity culture. The end result is the creation of small communities where individuals flout the idea of idolizing celebrities.

It has empowered the marginalized voices to question celebrities with performative activism or possible malicious behavior that perhaps would have remained unexposed. Digital discourse has helped in the deconstruction of thought and practice constructs that ascribe infallibility. Instead, with increasing recognition, they are increasingly looked at as humans who can make errors like anyone else.

With the internet now reigning supreme, celebrities are not nearly as untouchable as they once were. Social media allowed for greater access, and the reign of celebrity influencer culture helped to belie the very notion that fame was something out of reach. The democratization of criticism, of course, has come with cancel culture, further eroding the pedestal on which once-selected public figures rested. Though the celeb appeal will never fade, the internet certainly portends a much more discerning, sophisticated, and realistic appreciation of them.

Internet and the De-Idolization of Celebrities

“We shall board our imagined ship and wildly sail among sacred islands of the mad till death shatters the fabulous stars and makes us real” – Sylvia Plath

James C. Kaufman, who is an American psychologist came up with the term ‘The Sylvia Plath Effect’ in 2001 based upon the observation of how poets are more prone to mental illnesses than any other creative writers. The phenomenon is named after Sylvia Plath who was suffering from clinical depression and eventually committed suicide. She became symbolic as the ‘tortured poet’ whose genius was intertwined with a tragic demise.

Some might argue that generalizing all poets in this way is a biased approach. However, when we remove the rose-coloured glasses, a poet often explores the deepest and the darkest corners of their mind, spends hours articulating their inner turmoil, and exposes raw emotions by scavenging the indispensable vulnerability.

Now, a look at history would prove that Sylvia isn’t the lone victim. Famous literary figures like Virginia Wolf, Anne Sexton, Hart Crane, etc., have all battled mental illnesses. Writing, which was their initial means of contemplation evolved in the extensive hours of isolation and extreme focus on oneself which resulted in amplifying the feelings of depression and anxiety.

However, poets aren’t isolated cases, let’s be honest mental illnesses aren’t exclusive to them, and to some extent, musicians, artists, actors, and other creative artists have been caressed by this phenomenon. Yet when you observe the degree to which a poet delves into his or her mind, navigating the perils of complex emotions that sometimes become a challenge to express- the brevity certainly proves to be more propitious as to why they are in close vicinities to this phenomenon.

Kaufman’s research was supported by his analysis of 1,629 writers. The conclusion of the study showed that female poets were found more likely to experience mental illnesses than their counterparts in other writing realms. Research also discovered that highly creative individuals are more exposed to encounter mood disorders as a consequence of a constant oscillation between the state of hyper focus and relaxation which is a conspicuous part of the creative process.

Furthermore, the procedure of creative thinking relies on the cognitive vision that involves delving into a multifaceted approach i.e., generating multiple ideas and viewpoints. And if we probe into this, one would encounter a crucial aspect- rumination. The act of ruminating is a key feature that is linked with depression. Therefore, coming back to the point, poets in particular are prone to drifting away in the state of rumination due to their nature of work, which involves revisiting and scrutinizing their emotions and memories.

The mounting pressure that poets put on themselves to live up to the ideal standards further accelerates the constant despair and turmoil because they tend to tie their self-worth to the degree of achieving greatness. Another factor is falling prey to romanticizing ‘the tortured poet’ archetype, which instigates the idea that great art requires great suffering. This idea is both alluring and baleful as poets necessitate that struggle is a key factor for their art, leading them to spiral down and neglect their mental health.

Moving forward, the Sylvia Plath effect provides us with a lens to understand the plight of poets- underscoring their struggles for the sake of creativity. The precarious balance between artistry and mental disorders raises a dire need for a healthy support system in order to focus on the well-being of their mental health.

It is crucial to approach this topic with sensitivity and nuance, to fully understand how a poet, navigates through the tumultuous waters of imagination and reality, in search of brilliance and finds themselves blurring the lines of a cathartic experience and psychosis.

Ultimately, Plath’s legacy reminds us of the importance of validating a poet’s suffering and creating a support system that addresses the fact that one can flourish in their art and have tremendous breakthroughs without compromising their mental health. The Sylvia Plath effect certainly proves to be quite a testimonial discovery for creative minds to analyze these patterns and seek necessary help.

Khadija Khan is a student pursuing B. Com (Hons.) from Jamia Millia Islamia.

GLIMPSES OF A TORTURED POET: EXPLORING THE SYLVIA PLATH EFFECT

With the increase in pace and competition, shopping has turned from a way of obtaining products to a trend, which helps people to escape reality. The increased availability and accessibility of retail outlets, enabled by e-commerce has also made shopping a recreational activity commonplace, frequently referred to as ‘

.’ However, while the process of seeking that initial thrill may only be occasional at first, the cycle can turn into addiction more often than not due to an underlying emotional trigger of loneliness in people.

Shopping addiction which is better termed 

 is an increasing concern in India. According to a survey done by 

 in 2021, around 6% of adults in India exhibit signs of CBD. Furthermore, there is a study conducted in the 

 stating that about 5-8 % of people in Urban India exhibit the features of shopping compulsion. These figures indicate that the problem is on the rise, which is especially disheartening given the current culture of consumerism.

This is mainly due to the feeling of loneliness experienced by most people in this society today. Because of an increase in the number of people using phones to communicate rather than face-to-face interaction, loneliness is now part of life. Even for people who claim they are lonely, left out or isolated, shopping allows them to run away from these feelings. The joy of buying a new thing, waiting for its delivery and a short period of satisfaction after receiving a parcel can help to distract from loneliness.

However, this comfort is as treacherous as perilous seawater: It is icy on the surface but burning underneath. This practice is for leisure but soon the feeling of elation evaporates leaving people emptier than before. This may create a vicious cycle, where shopping for temporary solutions for loneliness hence fueling the addiction to shopping.

Justifying the Behaviour- Retail Therapy as a Rationalization

Some individuals who are addicted to shopping can justify their actions as ‘retail therapy.’ Such justification enables them not to realize the underlying causes of their shopping problems appropriately. As is evidenced from 

, 54% of shoppers shop to improve their mood, while 24% shop to cope with boredom or loneliness. Another aspect is social networks, which the youth also actively use, dedicating 145 minutes to social networks that only generate the simulated desire to buy.

What is wrong about this justification is the fact that such behaviour may eliminate any need for a person to look for healthier means of addressing their feelings. Often, it is used as a coping mechanism that allows them to distract themselves from the underlying feelings of loneliness or anxiety. Eventually, it results in a kind of addiction to the mere act of buying making it progressively hard to extricate the dependency.

Shopping addiction’s long-term consequences may be severe, impacting the well-being of an individual as well as their financial status. Financially, this can have disastrous effects. According to the 

 (RBI), the average Indian carries about ₹1.5 lakh in personal debt while compulsive shoppers account for a sizable proportion of this. This kind of strain on finances caused by shopping addiction can cause considerable stress and strain on relationships leading to a poor quality of life.

At a personal level, people grappling with shopping addiction feel guilty, ashamed, and regretful after buying things they don’t need. These melancholic feelings can make existing mental health problems, like depression or anxiety even worse leading to a downward spiral. A study in the 

 shows that compulsive buying behaviour has an impact on depression, anxiety, and social isolation causing them to increase. What’s more, research from 

 points out that people with shopping addiction often experience guilt and shame. This can put a strain on their relationships and lead to more isolation.

People who battle compulsive buying need a comprehensive strategy to overcome it. Spotting the issue marks the beginning. Those who shop to fight loneliness must find other ways to cope. They can reach out to friends, dive into hobbies, or learn to be mindful and introspective. They can also seek out therapy, particularly cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT). This approach aids individuals in spotting and altering thought patterns that fuel their compulsive actions. In more extreme situations, joining support groups or seeing an addiction specialist might be crucial.

These options offer the direction and responsibility needed to break free from the addiction cycle. We also need to talk about the money side of shopping addiction. Making a budget cutting back on credit card use, and setting clear money goals can help people get their spending under control. Some folks might need to bring in a money expert to handle debt and come up with a long-term plan that works.

Excessive shopping is becoming an issue in our society that emphasizes consumerism. Although indulging in “retail therapy” might provide relief from feelings of isolation it is not a lasting fix. The lasting effects of purchasing can harm one’s wellness and financial stability. By acknowledging the root causes behind behaviour and exploring ways to cope, individuals can liberate themselves from the grip of addiction and strive for a more satisfying and harmonious life.

Khadija Khan is a student pursuing B.Com Honours at Jamia Millia Islamia.

The Dark Side of Consumerism: How Shopping Addiction Masks Deeper Issues

Like many others, I have been following the Israel-Palestine conflict since October 7, 2023. Every news piece, interview, and statistical report kept me on edge. But one day, while browsing through many recordings of the Gaza catastrophe, I had an inkling that left me stunned. I realised I was watching the actual Hunger Games. The similarities are uncanny.

To give you a quick synopsis of the novel, the Hunger Games take place in a fictitious nation called Panem, where 12 districts specialising in various occupations such as fishing, mining, textiles, and so on are forced to compete in the annual Hunger Games. Furthermore, with poverty and inequality as backdrops, 75 years before the last Hunger Games, poorer districts revolted against the Capitol in a failed revolution. To maintain national domination, the Capitol established a form of collective punishment in which two youngsters from each district were chosen to battle to the death.

Now, the Israeli occupation in Palestine has been going on for more than 75 years, drawing a stark parallel to the duration of the Hunger Games. The war crimes committed by Israel following the October 7 attack by Hamas, are recognised as one of the worst blood-letting in the 75 years of conflict. Over 37,000 Palestinians have been killed including 15,000 children, with at least 86,000 people and more than 10,000 missing. These war crimes are being labelled as the “collective punishment” by Israel in response to the Hamas attack. Similarly, in the Hunger Games, the Capitol perpetuated the games for 75 years as a means to re-establish narratives utilising power disparities to control civilian activity. It was created as a form of collective punishment to serve as a reminder and threat that the Capitol has power and controls all activity in the districts. The failed revolution of those 75 years ago would continue to haunt new generations with each Hunger Games.

The Israeli authority and limits on Gaza are akin to the Capitol’s influence over its many districts. Israel has imposed a strict blockade on Gaza that includes controlling borders, airspace, maritime access, and flow of humanitarian aid entering the territory, as well as severely restricting movement of people and goods. It has complete control of Gaza’s resources, including water, electricity, and fuel, causing considerable anguish among the inhabitants and jeopardising their lifestyle and economic operations. Furthermore, the continual presence of military checkpoints and periodic operations as a means of demonstrating authority leads to civilian maltreatment and several unrecorded casualties. Likewise, The Capitol maintains its authority through a combination of military supremacy, propaganda, and psychological manipulation. They have a sizable military force called Peacekeepers that enforces laws and police the districts. These coercive tactics highlight the profound impact of power disparities and the enduring struggle for autonomy, justice, and human rights in both fictional narratives and real-world conflict.

Following the recent escalations in Gaza, we have witnessed intensified acts of defiance and rebellion, including protests, rallies and civil disobedience, analogous to the resistance and revolt against the Capitol’s harsh authority that served as the key motif for The Hunger Games. The Palestinian people, long subjugated to Israeli occupation and embargo, continue to assert their rights despite deteriorating humanitarian conditions. Furthermore, Civil society organisations, activists, and individuals worldwide have expressed solidarity for Palestine through public demonstrations, supplying humanitarian aid and condemning the Israeli Government for committing barbaric violence against the innocents.

The media plays an important role in both domains, spreading propaganda and raising awareness. During the early phases of the conflict, Israeli and Western media attempted to downplay Palestine’s calamities and created false narratives to defend Zionist propaganda. Nevertheless, the truth eventually arose, and with the help of social media, the Israeli government was exposed for their anguish and mistreatment of Palestinians in their own homeland. Journalists such as Motaz Azaiza, Bisan Owda, Plestia Alaqad, and others are hailed for their valiant actions, which resulted in raising awareness and kindling a flame to resist the Israeli government’s injustices. Similarly, in The Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen rose to prominence as the face of the Capitol uprising. Neither these heroic journalists nor Katniss chose to see these everyday tragedies, but the intense urge to resist persecution forced them to become intifada emblems.

To summarise, we can all agree that there are worrisome parallels between the awful state of Gaza and the Hunger Games stories. Both stories demonstrate the struggle to restore freedom and autonomy in the face of withering oppression by the tyrants of the dominant authority. The most alarming aspect of these unsettling linkages is that our civilization is on the verge of becoming the dystopian societies described in our books and films. What’s really perplexing is that while many people support the resistance in fictional works, comprehending and tackling the similar predicament of innocent Palestinians remains a complex and pressing task.

Finally, I would like to conclude this article by quoting an incredibly memorable dialogue by Katniss: “

I am right here in District Eight, where the Capitol has just bombed a hospital full of unarmed men, women, and children. There will be no survivors. I want to tell people that if you think for one second the Capitol will treat us fairly if there’s a cease-fire, you’re deluding yourself. Because you know who they are and what they do. This is what they do! And we must fight back! President Snow says he’s sending us a message. Well, I have one for him. You can torture us and bomb us and burn our districts to the ground, but do you see that? Fire is catching! And if we burn, you burn with us!

Articles by Khadija Khan

Liberated by Fashion, Bounded by Standards

Apartheid: On the Pages of History or Hidden in Plain Sight?

Internet and the De-Idolization of Celebrities

GLIMPSES OF A TORTURED POET: EXPLORING THE SYLVIA PLATH EFFECT

The Dark Side of Consumerism: How Shopping Addiction Masks Deeper Issues

WHEN WILL THE ODDS BE IN THEIR FAVOUR?

Liberated by Fashion, Bounded by Standards

Apartheid: On the Pages of History or Hidden in Plain Sight?

Internet and the De-Idolization of Celebrities

GLIMPSES OF A TORTURED POET: EXPLORING THE SYLVIA PLATH EFFECT

The Dark Side of Consumerism: How Shopping Addiction Masks Deeper Issues

WHEN WILL THE ODDS BE IN THEIR FAVOUR?