Bloomsbury’s decision erodes freedom of speech

What makes Bloomsbury’s decision inexcusably egregious is the fact that it had vetted the manuscript.

The cringe worthy U-turn by Bloomsbury India with regard to the publication of the book Delhi Riots 2020: The Untold Story by Monica Arora, Sonali Chitalkar and Prerna Malhotra is tantamount to outright censorship, violates the basic tenet of free speech and crushes the ethos of a democracy. Moreover, the pusillanimous and facile capitulation of Bloomsbury to the dark and evil forces of intimidation underscores the arbitrary nature and fragility of free speech in India: it is held hostage by a well-entrenched cabal which hamhandedly dictates what the norms of free speech should be, which in most cases is its own nose in the air opinion; any alternate view point is deemed as heresy.

Freedom of speech is the sine que non of democracy. Take away freedom of speech and democracy becomes a hollow shell. Everyone regardless of his/ her ideological persuasion must have the right and be given a platform to express one’s opinion as long as it fulfills two preconditions: it must not advocate hate or violence.

What makes Bloomsbury’s decision inexcusably egregious is the fact that it had vetted the manuscript. The contents had been reviewed for authenticity, the pros and cons discussed and found worthy of publication. The book was scheduled for release in September.

Justifying its reversal Bloomsbury argued: “In view of very recent events including a virtual pre-publication launch organized without our knowledge by the authors, with participation by parties of whom the publishers would not have approved, we have decided to withdraw publication of the book. Bloomsbury India strongly supports freedom of speech but also has a deep sense of responsibility towards society.”

Can any subsequent interaction of the authors with a person or persons deemed less than honourable alter the original contents of the book or dissipate its merit? The answer has to be in the negative. Bloomsbury’s lame excuse cannot pass muster. That this decision was taken under pressure makes it all the more deplorable. Additionally, Bloomsbury’s flip flop calls into question its own credibility and integrity.

Bloomsbury’s statement is a confused morass of conflicting sentiments. To stem a voice and then claim that it “strongly supports freedom of speech” is a tad facetious. The “deep sense of responsibility towards society” that Bloomsbury invokes to justify its action is in reality a dereliction of its duty. As a responsible publishing firm, Bloomsbury is duty bound to present to the public all sides of a story as long as it falls within the framework of civilized debate. To do otherwise is too mislead the public by a skewed representation., which Bloomsbury is guilty of in this case.

Raising their voice against the publication of this book were a host of eminent personalities—all of whom fail to make a plausible argument. Read below some of their comments:

Jayati Ghosh, chairperson of the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, tweeted: “I’m now ashamed at having contributed to a chapter in a @ Bloomsbury India book. When the history of our times is written, the role of publishers who colluded and published falsehoods to serve current powers will also be noted. Shame on you. You’re no longer a credible publisher.”

Nandini Sundar, an Indian professor of sociology at the Delhi School of Economics chimed in: “Just refused to review a book for Bloomsbury

Academic. If Bloomsbury publishes a book that is full of lies about Delhi’s academics, in full collusion with the Delhi RSS Police’s attempt to arrest and interrogate academics, they shouldn’t expect any academic co-operation.”

Meena Kandasamy, a poet and fiction writer averred: “Vivek Agnihotri who is the idiot who started the term URBAN NAXAL……THIS is about defending literature from fascism. This is about standing up against religious divide, hate speech, islamophobia and false history.”

So, what we have here is a compendium of name calling, baseless accusations and outright threats. Expectedly, one fails to find an iota of evidence or a single cogent argument in these rants because none of these worthies have read the book-this is by far the most glaring shortcoming of this negativist campaign. Shorn of the titles that these personalities carry and their erudite expressions, these individuals come across as trolls not serious conversationalists.

When one passes judgement on a piece of work targeting the author’s identity or ideological inclination bypassing the content -it is called bigotry or prejudice. The fake moral outrage being drummed up today visà-vis the book, Delhi Riots 2020: The Untold Story is ideological demagoguery at its worst; not an altruistic attempt to set right a wrong.

In a democracy, disagreements need to be resolved by engaging in debate either written or verbal. Presumably, lacking the clinical acumen, moral authority or substantiation to counter the contents of the book, Delhi Riots 2020, its detractors have chosen an easy way out: ensure that it does not get published- an indirect way of suppression of free speech.

An article in the New

York Times a few weeks ago, “Do Progressives Have a Free Speech Problem?” By Michelle Goldberg (July 19) spoke of how the left is eroding the concept of free speech by its overreach. This current controversy is a classic example of illiberal left overreach in India and its deleterious effect on freedom of speech.

The author concluded: “Even sympathetic people will come to resent a left that refuses to make a distinction between deliberate slurs, awkward mistakes and legitimate disagreement. Cowing people is not the same as converting them.”

Although the author was referring to the left, this message must be heeded by one and all if we wish to safeguard the most important trait of our democracy— freedom of speech.

Bloomsbury on its part must go ahead and publish the book if it really wishes to be seen as a champion of free speech.