By Shivani Goyal
Another book banned, another voice stifled. The recent decision of Penguin India to pulp the remaining copies of Wendy Doniger’s book The Hindus: An Alternative History has drawn a lot of attention. It is quite disappointing to see the supposed vanguards and protectors of ‘freedom of expression’ yield to pressure of a right wing Hindu outfit. According to the publishing company, “Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code makes it increasingly difficult for any Indian publisher to uphold international standards of free expression without deliberately placing itself outside the law”. This out-of-court settlement, along with number of incidents of injunction and banning of books in the past few years have put a big question mark on the jurisprudence on this issue and more importantly, the levels of tolerance in our proudly proclaimed ‘diverse Indian society’.
Through article 19(1), the Indian Constitution memorialises our fundamental right of freedom of expression, subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order, morality, unity and integrity brought in by article 19(2). Article 19(2) is invoked only when compelling reason is presented. However the answer to the question of what constitutes ‘compelling reason’ is itself ambiguous. Considering incidents such as Salman Rushdie’s ‘The Satanic Verses’ ban and the whole controversy around M.F. Hussain, it seems that the courts lack the philosophical bent of mind to uphold the right of expression and frequently bash it according to the will of few conservative groups. Now first we need to know the meaning of democracy. Is democracy, a form of majoritarianism where what is right or wrong is decided according to the interests of the majority? Is a book considered to be against the interests of public order, morality, unity and integrity on utilitarian basis or on scrupulous moral standards? The cornerstone of democracy is a participatory environment, and in India, where we are proudly declare that we house innumerable diversities within our territories, democracy means respecting each and every voice and not let it suffocate because of a majority group’s caprice.
Conservative groups like ‘Shiksha Bachao Andolan’ have tasted blood because of this incident which gives them more space to display intolerance and attack diversity. The controversy surrounding the book ‘Descent of Air India’ in January or the recent demand of pulping the copies of Wendy Doniger’s previous book- On Hinduism is just the beginning where hostile groups have started attacking their arch-enemy ‘freedom of expression’. This attitude of cultural bullying and censorship needs to be stopped right away because it is completely undemocratic, anti-indian and anti-intellectual. If judiciary or the publication couldn’t protect the right of freedom to expression, then who should? It is us. Displaying laxity in this matter means depriving ourselves of our fundamental right. Does an Indian reader lack capacity to tolerate diverse views or is Hinduism (which is oceanic in terms of its deities, philosophies and history) too narrow that it cannot accommodate another philosophy. If we cannot exist with tolerance and diversity, then what else defines being Indian?
Currently pursuing B.com (hons) from Shri Ram College of Commerce, she has worked with Ernst and Young and Teach for India in the past. She is a Bharatnatyam dancer and a hard core Potterhead. Keen interest in public policy, politics, economics and social issues, she can be reached atshivani.1194@gmail.com
Stay updated with all the insights.
Navigate news, 1 email day.
Subscribe to Qrius
