Difficult debate

In 2015, the 70-year copyright on Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf expires in Germany. The rights are held by the Bavarian government and the publication of Hitler’s outline of Nazi ideology is banned in Germany. As indeed is all Nazi material, ever since the end of the Second World War and the horrors of the Holocaust were known. But this change in legal status has given rise to a strange and interesting argument. Mein Kampf, which Hitler, perhaps the most hated man in history, wrote in a Bavarian prison in 1923, is available in many countries across the world. It is also quite popular, even in India.

For scholars of history it is an invaluable way to study how “national socialism” — as Nazi stands for — and by extension, fascism, develops. German historians would like a chance to study Hitler’s diatribe, which is targeted largely at Jews, and release an annotated version before neo-Nazis and other assorted fringe elements come out with their own edition.

The Central Council for Jews in Germany argues that since Mein Kampf is already available on the Internet and in other countries and is therefore available to hate-mongers, why not allow for an official version with commentary so that Hitler’s words and ideas can not only be placed in perspective but their terrible results also exposed?

This debate opens up the most basic of questions about freedom of speech and expression and of liberty to pursue all lines of thought. But banning the book is in this case seen as an act of sensitivity. Over 600,000 Jews were massacred in concentration camps by Nazis. Germany has apologised and paid the price ever since — and one of those acts of contrition has been the banning of all things Nazi. If they are now to go easy on their Nazi history, the thought must be that will this now somehow justify or legitimise the ghastly events of the mid-20th century?

Repression of thought in some sense is a form of fascism itself, however noble the intention. The fact that people will think and act in reprehensible ways is not likely to change. However, as a society and a species we have to come up with safeguards and practices to deal with the purveyors of hate. Banning, sadly, encourages underground growth and many neo-Nazi groups thrive on secrecy so that they can furtively promote their ideology of hatred and exclusion.

As German society battles with this question, it is an idea for the rest of world — which also has its own hateful secrets of the past and present to deal with — to follow closely.