A pulverising surrender

BY saurav| IN Media Freedom | 12/02/2014

‘With force I have subdued the brains of the proud’ — 

Epigraph on the grave of Cardinal Inquisitor Roberto Bellarmino (1542-1621), who presided over the condemnation of Giordano Bruno, burnt at the stake for heresy in 1600.

Wendy Doniger’s “The Hindus- an alternative history” tells “a story that incorporates the narratives of and about alternative people — people who, from the standpoint of most high-caste Hindu males, are alternative in the sense of otherness”. The prodigious scholar and Indologist, indeed regarded as one of the more authoritative sources on Hinduism, uses Freudian psychoanalytical tools to analyse and debunk ancient myths, focuses on “the other”- marginalised and subaltern voices. She exposes how mythology and a dominant, insular narrative of Hinduism is often used as a tool of majoritarian politics. 

Therefore, it comes as no surprise that this scholarly tome would act as catnip for the Hindu Right. With a maniacal predilection for their definition of “Indianness”, these self-appointed custodians of the faith would undoubtedly be infuriated when an American scholar, a non- Hindu “Westerner” would make an assertive departure from what they perforce want to be believed and revered.

So  Dina Nath Batra, with his undying penchant  for revisionist history, slaps Doniger and her publisher, Penguin, with a legal notice , which essentially accuses her of mounting a pornographic affront to Hinduism and its culture, thereby hurting the sentiments of Hindus. Simultaneously, a Lok Sabha MP calls for a ban, and civil and criminal cases are filed in a Delhi Court. Sections 295A and 153A of the Indian Penal Code, which create “legal” categories for hurt feelings, become the truncheon for browbeating an author and her publisher. Unlike the Rushdie or Tasleema Nasreen episodes characterised by book burnings and murderous demands for proscription, this was carried out in quite a surreptitious manner.  It must have been a strategic ploy- the cloak-and-dagger approach left no scope of even galvanising public opinion against the bludgeoning of free speech. A fait accompli was thrust upon us. Only yesterday, when Doniger-baiters Rajeev Malhotra and Subramanyam Swamy gloated on Twitter did we get to know that Penguin India has thrown in the towel and submitted to withdraw and destroy all copies of the book. Clause 5 of this “settlement” according to which, the publisher “submits” to respect all religions worldwide proves how pulverising a surrender it was.

So much for freedom of expression. So much for a publisher’s irrevocable duty to stand by the author even in the face of daunting adversity.  Penguin India has maintained a steadfast silencewhich is is quite deafening. Especially if one reminisces about how, twenty five years ago, Penguin had stood as a bulwark for Salman Rushdie’s right to free speech, and let it be said, right to offend.  Doniger has spoken, and while exonerating her publisher, has placed all blame squarely at the door of the law which allows free expression to be bullied into silence by gratuitously permitting anybody with hurt sentiments to seek penal action.  She has also wondered if the unlimited possibilities of dissemination over cyberspace did not render such “censorship” futile. 

What could be the reason(s) for such browbeating of free speech in the present political climate fraught with sectarian and communal tension? History bears witness to the bountiful political harvest which can be reaped from the fertile soil of the ‘law of hurt sentiments’. Asad Ahmed, writing on the blasphemy laws in colonial India, shows how criminal cases of hurt religious feelings became a tool for political mobilisation by the lumpen Right. If one goes back to 5 January 2004 and what ensued thereafter, a familiar pattern seems to emerge. It was the run up to the General Elections and James W. Laine’s book on Shivaji (in which he had, on the basis of historical evidence, critiqued the dominant deifying narrative) incurred the wrath of the right wing Hindu fanatics. Prime Minister Vajpayee had issued a dire warning to “foreign authors” not to offend the Indian’s nationalist and religious sentiments. The Maharashtra government lost no time in banning it, and even though the Supreme Court quashed the ban in 2007, the publisher, Oxford University Press has not made it available again in India. One can only despair at the ruling Government’s eerie silence on the Doniger issue and be visited by a chilling realisation- the State shall not protect free speech unless it has a vested interest in doing so.

Again, looking at history, one is compelled to wonder, what could be done in the face of such thuggery by offended fanatics? For all the hosannas we sing about a publisher’s moral duty towards freedom of expression, it is a fact that Penguin India, at the end of the day, is a private, corporate entity and no right to protect free speech can be enforced against it. Should one fall back on the State, for it has a constitutional mandate under Article 19 (1) (a)? The events of 1987 do not hold out much hope. The Maharashtra government had undertaken to publish Ambedkar’s “Riddles in Hinduism”, which was a trenchant critique of the Brahminical version of the religion. The belligerent Shiv Sena was livid and demanded a complete ban, claiming the book was an insult to Hinduism and Hindus. The Government gave in without a murmur, and it took a massive uprising by the Dalit population of Maharashtra to finally get the Government to fulfil its promise.

If this is the scenario, a creeping fear envelopes us. What happens to the fate of publishing, the inalienable rights of authors, and freedom of expression as a whole?

In an interview over Email, Nilanjana Roy, author and tireless advocate of freedom of expression shared her thoughts, as well as apprehensions. She said that the libel chill, facilitated by a manifestly flawed law and a steadily burgeoning group of intolerant offence-takers exerts immense pressure on publishers. Many, even big, global publishing houses are brought to their knees. Although the “costs” of protracted litigation, threats and attacks by vandals do make submission a pragmatist choice, in the long run it only makes one forever susceptible to bowdlerisation, if not a total caving in. Effectively, vigilantes of all hues and colours curate the publishing list. The smaller publishing houses, which do not have the financial or legal wherewithal to withstand such attacks, but are determined to provide a platform to the “small voices”, which want the spirit of critique and enquiry to flourish, are the most vulnerable. Their space is constantly shrinking.  "Instead of the kind of reading of history and faith that a scholar like Reza Aslan can provide, this forces a narrow marketplace where only the safest and least challenging versions of mythology are found acceptable.

On the subject of the 25th anniversary of the Rushdie fatwa, Ms Roy points out that the Indian government's failure to defend free speech principles set a dangerous precedent. Vigilantes and pressure groups were not held responsible for their threats of violence against the creative community; instead, artists, writers and film-makers were told to censor or even silence themselves.

The present perilous state of freedom of expression holds up a mirror to not only the institutions of the law or the State, but also to the body polity. Especially, how inclusive (or otherwise) society is. For, as Ms. Roy states, “free expression is the canary in the coalmine; if you want to see how well or poorly any society treats its minorities for instance, check on the state of free speech.”

Such articles are only possible because of your support. Help the Hoot. The Hoot is an independent initiative of the Media Foundation and requires funds for independent media monitoring. Please support us. Every rupee helps.