Banned Books Week began in the United States in the early 1980s. The United States, then, had just elected Ronald Reagan, and it looked like the forces of social progressivism were on the run. I don't know whether they had started talking of the "culture wars" yet, but hostilities had definitely begun. The driving force behind Banned Books Week was a bunch of disgruntled librarians (I urge you to pause for a moment to picture a bunch of disgruntled librarians in your mind, you won't regret it). They were tired of having to deal with demands to remove various books from library shelves because they offended local community sentiments, or were deemed insufficiently "family-friendly".
It is important to note that the "banning" here was not, thus, a consequence of the use of arbitrary state power. It was because of other forms of power over local libraries - forms of suasion that were usable even in a country as resolutely committed legally to free speech as the United States.
More From This Section
This should cause us to think about exactly how it is that speech is controlled in India, and how books can be banned, without being officially banned. There are shades of grey to this: even The Satanic Verses is not banned; its import is controlled, that is all. Nor are Wendy Doniger's books banned; the author and the publisher merely declined to enter into a lengthy court battle, with possible criminal penalties, against a fanatic with strong political backing and nothing to lose. Especially since the law is on the fanatic's side.
The law that protects fanatics is, of course, the element of Macaulay's penal code that allows the imperial government to control its subjects' access to information to ensure that the little beasts don't riot and interrupt the District Magistrate's siesta. You will notice I speak about the Raj in the present tense; this is because, as far as freedom of speech is concerned, we still live in the Raj. In fact, in terms of speaking frankly about social ills, the Raj offered freedom to writers and leaders unheard of today. Just read Ambedkar on Hinduism - or on Islam, for that matter - to understand that.
The other laws that restrict speech are criminal defamation laws. These hit everyone pretty hard, and the public interest most of all. It is difficult to talk about certain companies without getting an automatic notice in the mail; and some politicians, particularly in the United Progressive Alliance, were known to threaten journalists with criminal defamation at the drop of a hat. Books have been withdrawn by publishers, thanks to these laws, too.
There are several ways to look at this. One is to complain that authors and publishers should fight the good fight, and stand up for our right to access information. Unfortunately, for some reason many authors are not willing to risk jail for our rights. Nor are publishing companies willing to spend all their profits on legal fees in battles to protect their right to publish books that don't make a lot of money. This no doubt offends us. But unless we wish to legislate altrusim - which is a bad idea, I hasten to add - we need to take the responsibility to defend our access to information ourselves.
One possible front for this battle might be to try and ensure that those people who feel threatened by such laws have some kind of recourse: a network that will explain the legal consequences, and maybe funnel a bit of legal expertise their way. At the very least, an author or a publisher who wishes to fight should be given a bit of backing, no? This is my preferred response, as it is for several other people who are trying to instutionalise it - if you also agree, do write in to freedomtrustindia@gmail.com with ideas as to how to make it happen.
India is not an autocracy. It cannot adopt the methods of free-speech activism that were developed for authoritarian states. It is a country with a particular combination of problems: a set of powerful, regressive social norms and leaders; and colonial laws that empower them. But it also has a broadly liberal Constitution. Those who want to make sure that all books written stay on the shelves, and that all books that can be written are written, should use that tension to their advantage.