Two young girls. Two books. Two very different histories. And yet, in Anand Niketan, Gujarat, both became targets. Malala Yousafzai probably never imagined that a book carrying her name, in a school in India that calls itself the world’s largest democracy, would become the centre of such controversy. Least of all because she is a Muslim woman from Pakistan. Malala is not merely a name. She is a young woman who, at a young age, spoke out against religious fundamentalism and stood up for girls’ right to education. For doing so, she was nearly killed. She survived and went on to become one of the world’s most recognised voices for girls’ education. Pakistan, Afghanistan and several other countries continue to witness restrictions on girls’ education and freedom. But the question we must ask is: what happens when a country like India, which prides itself on being democratic, progressive and developed, begins to treat the story of a girl who fought for education as a threat? So, what really happened at Anand Niketan?The controversy at Anand Niketan School in Shilaj, Ahmedabad did not begin with Malala or Anne Frank. It began on August 10, when a student reportedly found a piece of glass-like material in food served at the school canteen. Parents protested the following day, demanding answers from the management. What began as a legitimate concern over food safety soon took a different turn. The protests were joined by members of the Hindu right wing and the focus shifted from the canteen to two books available through the school’s Book Club: I Am Malala by Malala Yousafzai and The Diary of a Young Girl by Anne Frank. Protesters questioned why books by a Pakistani Muslim woman and a Jewish girl who documented her experience during the Holocaust were being made available to students. Some alleged that the school was promoting them as part of compulsory education and objected to children being exposed to material associated with another religion. The school maintained that the books were not part of the formal academic curriculum but were included in its Book Club reading list, alongside books on figures such as Swami Vivekananda, Dr S. Radhakrishnan, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam and Rani Lakshmibai. The school said the purpose was to encourage reading and critical thinking.Also read: ‘Beaten for Reading Malala’: In Ahmedabad, Gujarat, Group Reading Books Alleges VHP, Bajrang Dal AssaultYet following notices from district education authorities, the school removed I Am Malala and The Diary of a Young Girl from the mandatory reading list and made them optional. This is where the incident becomes larger than a dispute over two books. A school that had placed stories of Malala and Anne Frank alongside other historical and literary figures was suddenly being asked to justify not only what students were reading, but whose stories they were allowed to encounter. The irony is difficult to miss. Malala’s story is about a girl fighting for her right to education. Anne Frank’s diary is the testimony of a young girl living under persecution and genocide. Neither book asks a child to adopt a religion. Both ask a child to listen to another person’s experience. But there is another Gujarat. Another Ahmedabad.While right-wing groups were demanding that books by Malala and Anne Frank be removed, a group of students, young people, lawyers and academics chose to respond differently. They chose to read. They gathered at AUDA Garden in Vastrapur, Ahmedabad, for a silent reading session, not to make provocative speeches or raise slogans, but simply to sit together and read the very books that had been pushed out of Anand Niketan’s reading list. They also brought books by Bhagat Singh, Che Guevara, George Orwell and others. The message was simple: reading cannot be selective and curiosity cannot be policed. Education is not about deciding which ideas young people are allowed to encounter. It is about giving them the ability to encounter different ideas and think critically about them. But even this act of reading became a target. The peaceful gathering was allegedly disrupted by members of the Hindu right wing, with participants reporting threats and physical attacks. Several people were injured and police subsequently detained/arrested people associated with the right-wing groups. This is where the story takes another turn. There are, in fact, two Gujarats visible in this episode. One is the Gujarat of those who believe that certain books, writers and histories should be kept away from young people. The other is a Gujarat that believes that reading is a right, that knowledge cannot be controlled by political ideology and that young people deserve the freedom to encounter ideas, even ideas that make us uncomfortable.The second Gujarat does not have to agree with everything Malala says. It does not have to agree with everything Anne Frank represents. It only has to defend something more fundamental: the right to read, to question and to think for oneself. When people have to gather in a public garden simply to read a book, the question is no longer about Malala or Anne Frank. The question is: who gets to decide what we are allowed to read? Why does fundamentalism fear progressive thinking?At the heart of this episode lies a larger question: Can any state call itself developed if its educational institutions are afraid of new ideas? Development is not merely infrastructure, technology or economic growth. A truly developed society is one where schools and universities allow young people to encounter new ideas, ask difficult questions, disagree and develop the ability to think critically. The moment educational institutions begin restricting books, ideas and histories because they make someone uncomfortable, education itself begins to shrink. There is another uncomfortable parallel this incident forces us to confront. The religious fundamentalists in Pakistan who once targeted Malala for standing up for girls’ education and the right-wing groups in Gujarat who objected to her story may appear to occupy completely different political worlds. But when it comes to policing thought, they begin to resemble one another. Both invoke identity to determine what is acceptable. Both attempt to decide what young people should read and think. Both turn religion and identity into instruments of control. If a book can become a threat, if reading can be treated as an act of provocation and if young people must defend their right to encounter ideas, then the danger lies not in Malala, Anne Frank or any book on a shelf. The real danger lies in a society that fears questions, distrusts curiosity and seeks to narrow the horizons of its children. A democracy cannot survive on obedience alone. It survives when young people are free to read, think, disagree and imagine a world beyond the boundaries imposed upon them. The question before us, then, is not whether children should read Malala or Anne Frank. It is whether we are willing to defend their freedom. As Rabindranath Tagore imagined, we must strive for a country “where the mind is without fear and the head is held high.” Hasina Khan is a feminist activist and founder of Bebaak Collective.