Burning books: What gives us the right to be offended?

Amidst all the ongoing drama surrounding former Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalalithaa’s bail petition, a remark made by Subramanian Swamy a few days ago sparked off massive public comment.

To first report what happened without any colour, Swamy, during an emotionally charged speech extolling Hindu rulers in general, and Vikramaditya in particular, commented that the books of Nehruvian historians should be set on fire. He of course, clarified later that in view of the fact that science today is demolishing views expressed by Nehruvian historians, the books were worthless and might as well be burnt. But considering that he has, in the past, insisted that modern science had proved that the Ram Sethu was actually built by Rama while Nehruvian historians declared it mythical — when science has actually disproved both parties impartially saying that the bridge does exist and is a natural formation—I feel loathe to agree with even this revised and decidedly less radical view.

Of course, the Left was quick to brand him (as they seem to love to do every other day) as a fascist, and CPI leader D. Raja for once made a statement I could wholeheartedly endorse. He said, "It is an outrageous, atrocious statement. People who believe in democratic principles must stand up against this kind of attack on academic freedom." He also said that the statement "reflects the mindset of the fascist right."

And it does, but also of every other Indian. While the substance of what Swamy said, vis-a-vis the disconnect between most Nehruvian historians and the truth, is completely true, I do believe he could have couched it much better. Whether such a statement reflects only a fascist ideology or whether Raja is conveniently forgetting that every communist state that has ever existed has done the exact same thing under another label is irrelevant, because Raja's opinion has been used as just a starting point in this piece.

The fact is that many among the saffron lobby have displayed a tendency for moral policing that is downright intolerable and intolerant. Very simply, the elimination of contrary points of view is an extension of the same mindset that also deems girls who date before marriage or even wear jeans as “immoral” or, to get even more serious, the same mindset that would commit rape because they felt the girl was “asking for it.”

It is intolerant, prejudiced, bigoted, and a part of almost every Indian, dinned into us by society and our school system. It is the product of repression to the point where exposure to something that would otherwise be considered normal, is termed as something dangerous.

However, what this repression also seems to do is cause people to wish that contrary points of view are destroyed. Adi Shankara would hang his head in shame upon beholding Swamy’s statement about the burning of books. Shankara was a man who traversed the length and breadth of India spreading his message and getting people to see his point of view with the most respectful and honourable method of knowledge exchange -- dialogue.

The names of Pol Pot and Hitler spring to mind as soon as one talks about burning books. They too had similar agendas and the horrors that came about from their simple act of burning books are remembered by the whole world. Libricide, as it is known, has for long been the way those with intolerances and prejudices deal with the objects of their ire: those carriers of knowledge contrary to their own views.

But then, it is also government policy to ban books; something which is equally ridiculous. Satanic Verses, however mediocre a book it might be, is still not available in India as it is still banned, as was the Da Vinci Code (movies and books) for a little while, and plenty of others. The episode with Penguin and Wendy Doniger’s The Hindus is also still fresh in our minds, with the book being recalled this year. Even if the book was an example of questionable research and inaccurate and ludicrous conclusions, it wouldn’t count as a valid reason to recall and destroy a book.

We seem to believe that a contrary view is automatically an offensive one, and so we pander to the lowest of the low: the easily offended. While Subramanian Swamy’s statement about book burning is contrary to decency, so is censorship. Evelyn Beatrice Hall, to expound on Voltaire’s beliefs, coined the famous statement, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

That is the essence of free speech as promised under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. Of course, this is immediately followed by the rider(s) in Article 19(2), which enables the legislature to impose “certain” restrictions under the headings of security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency and morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offence, and sovereignty and integrity of India. This leaves what? The freedom to write puff pieces and the inability to write the unfettered truth!

Let’s now talk about the elephant in the room. Us - the easily offended. It is because of us that censorship exists. We allow it, and we allow those who misuse it to get away with it with impunity. Under the guise of not offending sensibilities, we suppress facts and spread untruths; we even allow the law to be broken so as not to offend any particular community or religious group!

My question is fundamental: What gives us the right to be offended? It is not a logical extension of any of the individual rights, and yet it is treated as such. Is it not more logical to ask those who find something offensive to ignore the offending item rather than ban it? How is one person’s truth to be evaluated and passed judgement upon by a set of objective criteria that bear no connection to the actual truth? Even if a person’s truth is untrue, it is still his truth and our only right can be to not like it, not believe it, and most importantly, disprove it. However, we have also assumed upon ourselves, as a nation, the right to ban it.

Put in perspective, Subramanian Swamy’s desire to burn certain books makes about as much sense — or is as illogical — as censoring a movie so that certain portions aren’t seen by the public. If we can live with one, we can live with the other — but we ought to tolerate neither!