What's new

Freedom of speech shrinks in India, the world’s largest democracy

Factual inaccuracies when dealing with the subject matter of analyzing a religion? We are not dealing with immutable laws of physics. Stating that a religion is not divinely ordained but man-made and doing a Freudian analysis of said religion has no connection to factual accuracy or otherwise, it is an analysis and an interpretation and therefore by its very nature subjective thus embellished by the author's own perception. Disagree with the aptness of said perception but don't ban it, that is the point. Let discourse be free no matter how offensive, as long as said discourse does not conclude with a call for violence or genocide.

@Ravi Nair Let me clarify. You should completely disassociate the notion of a person or group getting their feelings hurt or not hurt from the purview of rights and laws, it is a subjective matter. Instead rephrase what you expressed, no person has the right to retaliate with violence and criminal coercion/intimidation when said person's sentiments get hurt (as they inevitably will at one time or another).

Yes it will matter when somebody will write a history of one's family and show ones' grand-parents and parents as sexually perverted without proof. So yes, factual inaccuracy does matter particularly when the stuff is going into Publication, and people are going to read it thinking it to be well-researched junk.

I asked this question to a Libtard on twitter, he/she has refused to defend my Freedom of Speech so far on this issue. He/She has even called me names.

I don't think the counter-view or disagreement gets the same kind of press like the views presented by a white skinned English writer. We need to be wary of the propaganda.

Most Freedom of Expression lovers have short fuse they do not like when somebody else uses the same Freedom of Expression like they do.
 
Let's not be hypocrites Hindu are one of the most sensitive religious group. Can't ignore like Buddhist or Christian .
Oh yeh but only .00000009% sensitive than Muslim. Let's burn a book and see them react.
 
Let's not be hypocrites Hindu are one of the most sensitive religious group. Can't ignore like Buddhist or Christian .
Oh yeh but only .00000009% sensitive than Muslim. Let's burn a book and see them react.

There is a good reason. For hundreds of years we were the target of Western propaganda which instilled a belief that we are culturally inferior to the Europeans. And this propaganda is continuing.

This is not at all about the freedom this is about the intentions. It was proven beyond doubt that the book was written with malice and junk was being sold as a well researched piece of literature. This is another form of intolerance we must be wary of.

I was going through Taslima Nasrin's TL, one comment I noticed when she questioned the silence of the Libtards when her books got banned. The comment invited counter-comments from a number of Libtards, one comment came into my notice where it said that "Taslima's low-quality non-English literature was not worth defending" :o:. It clearly shows a bias towards the "English literature".

In this case there was no threat, legal process was followed and the Publisher decided to pulp the book, because the defense was not legally tenable.
 
f1b2725a-e213-4b48-90b0-800a0a86a43f.img
©AFP
India often boasts of the robust health of its electoral democracy. But at least one crucial pillar of its democratic edifice – the right to free expression – is being rapidly eroded, with ominous implications.

The latest symptom of this fragility was the recent decision of Penguin India, an arm of US-based Penguin Random House, to destroy all unsold copies in India of The Hindus: An Alternative History, by Sanskrit scholar Wendy Doniger, a University of Chicago professor.

The destruction of the books is part of a court-supervised settlement of criminal and civil cases filed against Penguin by Shiksha Andolan Bachao, or the Save Education Movement, a Hindu fundamentalist group seeking to purge India’s educational curriculum and bookstores of works it deems insulting or threatening to Hindu culture.


Ms Doniger’s treatment of ancient Hindu myths as human creations rather than divine truth – and her Freudian analysis of the tales – outraged the self-appointed guardians of Hindu orthodoxy. Penguin, which is 47 per cent owned by Pearson – the Financial Times’ parent company – battled for four years to defend the book before settling.

After the settlement, Penguin warned of the increasing difficulties all publishers will face “to uphold international standards of free expression” in India – citing highly elastic legal limits on free speech, which academics say encourage radical groups to mobilise for the suppression of works not to their personal taste.

Indeed, Ms Doniger’s book is just the latest of many works to be hounded out of India – or underground – by affronted religious conservatives emboldened by British colonial-era laws that make it a crime to “insult” a religion, or “promote disharmony” between groups.

Although India’s constitution guarantees free expression, liberal academics and writers say Indian authorities typically respond to attacks on creative works by pandering to the ranks of the offended rather than by vigorously defending the principle of free speech.

Meanwhile, Indian courts’ convoluted rulings in free speech cases have also eroded the confidence of writers and publishers of legal protection – or even of protection of their physical security – when confronted with individuals or groups upset with their work.

Until now, the primary targets in India’s intensifying culture wars have mostly been interpretations of religion and distant history.

In October 1988, then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi’s administration prohibited the import of Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses”, fearing the novel would inflame its Muslim minority. India has subsequently banned several other books – two by rightwing Hindus – considered highly inflammatory because of their critique of Islam.

India’s lack of commitment to free speech does not only constrain depictions of faith and distant history. It also poses a growing threat to Indians’ ability to vigorously debate the present
More recently, Hindu fundamentalists have aggressively mobilised against works they deem disrespectful to their pantheon of deities. In 2004, authorities banned a history of a venerated 17th century king, Shivaji, after an irate mob ransacked a manuscript library where the author, an American professor, had researched the book.

The late Maqbool Fida Husain, India’s most celebrated modern painter, was driven into self-imposed exile in 2006, after his canvasses – some of which depicted Hindu deities naked – were repeatedly vandalised by rightwing Hindus, who also filed multiple criminal complaints against him.

But India’s lack of commitment to free speech does not only constrain depictions of faith and distant history. It also poses a growing threat to Indians’ ability to vigorously debate the present – including the nexus between politicians and large Indian companies, the performance of key institutions, and the track records of political parties, or powerful individuals.

In January, Bloomsbury India withdrew The Descent of Air India, by a former executive director of the money-losing state carrier, after the former civil aviation minister, Praful Patel, filed a lawsuit against it. Bloomsbury publicly apologised to Mr Patel for any embarrassment it might have caused.


August 2013: As newspaper circulations decline globally, threatening the future of printed news, India continues to defy the trend, where despite an economic slowdown the industry grew more than 7% in 2012.

The Kolkata High Court also in January suppressed publication and distribution of Sahara: The Untold Story, about one of India’s most mysterious business groups, which is currently locked in a bitter stand-off with the Securities and Exchange Board.

Three years ago, an award-winning 1991 novel was removed from the University of Mumbai’s curriculum, after the late Bal Thackeray, leader of the rightwing Shiv Sena, objected to how he and his party were depicted in the fictionalised account.

Ten years ago, courts also suppressed a sociological monograph, Taking the State to Court – Public Interest Litigation and the Public Sphere in Metropolitan India, by issuing a contempt notice to the author, Hans Dembowski, and publisher, Oxford University Press.

The case was never heard, but the book remains out of circulation, a case of what Mr Dembowski has called “stealth censorship.”
As India gears up for parliamentary elections that the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party is widely expected to win, liberal Indians are increasingly anxious about further restrictions on the space for public discourse, and dissent. Certainly under the past 10 years of Congress rule, dangerous precedents have been set

Freedom of speech shrinks in India, the world’s largest democracy - FT.com

First Of All THE BOOK was never banned either by govt or court. It was the sole decision of publisher. You can buy/sell/download/print/distribute as many copies of The Hindu as u like.
 
Quoted for posterity .. What happened to spread of Islam thru sufism.. Was all that fake ?
Sufism is different its a set of rituals performed to attract people not the one we see today which is designated as music.

Even a kid with little brain and simple know how abt sufism can tell that.
 
While I do believe that there should be freedom of speech, press and expression is necessary. I also believe that it is necessary we use those freedom in proper manner and not try to hurt other people's views and sentiments. It is better to ban a book than to have people lose lives over some stupid things, religion is a very touchy subject especially in a country like India. Where we are very prone to religious violence. Yes things have improved drastically and people are more open minded, but it is not a guarantee that everyone will just ignore mudslinging and false reporting against their religion.
 
Quoted for posterity .. What happened to spread of Islam thru sufism.. Was all that fake ?
This is the issue with Muslims today. While the attitude of initial Muslims was Innocent(Halal) until proven Guilty(Haram).. not it its guilty until proven innocent. throughout Islam.. you would have had to PROVE "Hurmat( forbidden/haram viable) before declaring it so. Now its the opposite.
 
you have to remember that a lot of people throw around the word troll for frivolous reason. Unless you go out of your way to offend people, or you breach forum rules, just be yourself is my advice.

Mister if you are in the habit of insinuating at people without mentioning them then i suggest you better behave and don't interfere in the business of those "people" because I won't be tolerating your nonsense behind my back anymore.
 
Last edited:
This is the issue with Muslims today. While the attitude of initial Muslims was Innocent(Halal) until proven Guilty(Haram).. not it its guilty until proven innocent. throughout Islam.. you would have had to PROVE "Hurmat( forbidden/haram viable) before declaring it so. Now its the opposite.

Now its opposite, not throughout Islam, but throughout the fcuked up interpretation of bigots claiming to be Muslims..

Sufism is different its a set of rituals performed to attract people not the one we see today which is designated as music.

Even a kid with little brain and simple know how abt sufism can tell that.

Well, you are right about the last line in your post.. Unfortunately, you are only right about that.. Rest of your post is cr@p..
 
Obviously. Did you not read my post clearly, the action of banning academic discourse no matter how "offensive" or seemingly unfit is wrong, this applies in the case of all books which have been banned due to reasons related to "religious sentiments getting hurt". So yes I stand by what I said, it is a shame that Satanic verses cannot be printed here, those who have an issue with it may see it to be cheap fiction or poorly written etc., but it should not have been banned.

It is the hallmark of an immature society to react with violence in retaliation to every offence towards their sentiment, flailing and faffing about like some petulant toddler, and that goes irrespective of whichever religion or faith might be involved in the middle.

It is the hallmark of a dead society which is indifferent to anything and everything. There is no absolute free speech just like there is no society without rules.
 
Back
Top Bottom