Censorship in Contemporary India

Books won't stay banned. They won't burn. Ideas won't go to jail. In the long run of
history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only weapon against bad ideas is
better ideas.Alfred Whitney Griswold

The issue of censorship rests on a number of interrelated concepts, foremost of which

is free speech, a term that is used interchangeably with free expression. Central to the concept
of free speech is that people have a legitimate expectation to articulate their ideas freely,
without limitation or interference. While the form of expression can be verbally speaking
what is on ones mind, the terms speech and expression apply broadly to most any form of
communication, including writing, artistic creations like films, paintings, and photographs,
and also bodily gestures. This free speech or expression is a value that is universally held
throughout the developed world today, and democratic societies see it as the hallmark of an
open and free political system. One of the great defenders of free speech, Ronald Dworkin,
has stated that there are three main reasons why free expression matters. First, we cannot
accept collective control of the culture, i.e. we must have the right to tell people what they do
not want to hear. Second, there is an issue of democratic transparency; where a free press has
a duty and responsibility to hold government and other powerful groups accountable. And
last, there is democratic fairness; if we want people to accept democratic procedures and laws

that express the will of the majority, then everyone must have not just a vote but a voice, even
if their opinions are not in tune with the governments stance on the issue.
Censorship is the suppression of free speech, often on the grounds that an act of
expression harms or offends the public. Expressions are sometimes restricted because they
are judged to be obscene, seditious, blasphemous, unpatriotic or immoral. Generally,
censorship is imposed by a governing body. This body may be in most cases an official body,
vested with the interests of the nation-state. But then, is this body, albeit official, guaranteed
to be free of political and sectional interests? In other words, does censorship carry with it a
dominant aspect of the political interests of the ruling party and can it also be engendered by
the interests of various groups, sections, and parties? The second section of junto, in this case,
is particularly important as factors that give rise to censorship, such as obscenity or security,
are not absolute but relative in their importance for different sections of society. What is
censored is usually determined by who wants it and for what purpose. Thus, a discussion of
censorship must necessarily encompass questions of caste, class, race and the dominant
political interests of a nation. It must also take into account the aspect of societal group
pressure or what is commonly known as the unofficial ban.
Clause (1) of Article 19 of the Indian constitution which pertains to the protection of
certain rights regarding freedom of speech is founded on the basic tenets of Article 19 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The heart of the Article 19 (UDHR) says
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, this right includes freedom to
hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers. However, under Indian law, the freedom of
speech does not confer an absolute right to express one's thoughts freely. Clause (2) of
Article 19 of the Indian constitution enables the legislature to impose certain restrictions on
free speech Nothing in sub-clause (a) (freedom of speech and expression) of clause (1)

shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law in so
far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the
said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the
State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to
contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

It can be asserted that the issues that are mentioned here, the sovereignty and integrity
of India or aspects of decency, morality, defamation, etc., as important factors for the
restriction of free speech can be implemented on any act or speech-act. In that sense, freedom
of speech appears to have a contingent status, as it can be suspended in the interests of the
nation at any time. It is further interesting to note that the state plays an important role in
curbing free speech as it may take recourse to its political, economic, and cultural interests
for a justification. The state in this case often appears through the diktats of the ruling
government. These often manifest through restrictions on the practice of certain caste-based
or religion-based habits and rituals or threats towards people and groups for intellectual or
cultural productionboth literary and visualthat may jeopardize these groups political
interests. These practices are understood as an unofficial ban, which specifically engages
with the recent cases of censorship and intolerance in India and raises questions on what it
means for the practices of democracy and tolerance.

In the contemporary social and political landscape, specially in the literary-social

field, the phenomenon of unofficial ban has made its presence felt rather strongly in our
country. On 20th August 20, 2013, Narendra Dabholkar, a long-time activist and founder of
the Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti (MANS, Committee for Eradication of
Superstition in Maharashtra), was murdered. It was followed by the murder of Govind

Pansare On 16th February 2015, Pansare, a Marathi activist against caste hierarchy and
superstition, was shot by two gunmen. A few months later, on 30th August 2015, MM
Kalburgi, the widely acclaimed Kannada scholar of Vachana philosophy, who was also a
Sahitya Akademi Award winner for his literary, philosophical and sociological work, was
shot dead at his residence by two gunmen. One can also relate this with the killing of secular
bloggers in Bangladesh in the last couple of years.
The similarities in these incidents are unmissablethe victims were all people who
have long campaigned for social justice and rationality. It was their work on caste and
community, ritual practices and enlightenment values that drew the ire of a certain extremist
section of society. This series of incidents necessitates the question, does any critical inquiry
into the normative reception of Hindu scriptural laws and values runs the risk of death? The
caste-hierarchy, and customs and rituals that are so prominent in Hindu social life and
determines the political-electoral implications and consequences, has widely gone through
these interest-based modifications of the ruling government and policymakers. However, it is
crucial to note that, despite several legal and policy-oriented measures over the course of the
past few decades, the social and economic conditions of the most oppressed class of people,
the Dalits, have hardly had a significant change. Thus, we see that the social seems to stand
strong and take power over the legal. Caste-hierarchy remains a reality even in todays
society and any resistance to or criticism of it invites flak, which can range from burning of
effigies, books, etc., to even death threats and lynching. All of these the purview of unofficial
banning and has been a long practised custom in India, but what strikes us about the recent
cases is the extremist step of assassinating the person raising questions on caste and social
customs. This compels a rethinking of the concept and practice of democracy itself and what
constitutes the public sphere in India, especially in relation to censorship, intolerance, and
murder. Is this a strategy of choking all voices of dissent against a dominant praxis through a

spectacle of violence and fear-mongering in public? What specific implication does it hold
for the constitutional right to practising secularism and tolerance, while promoting diversity?

It should be mentioned here that this kind of extreme censorship is not particular to a
single political party but have had shown its ugly face during different political regimes.
Though most of the cases mentioned here have taken place during the regime of BJP, with its
cultural ally, the RSS, at the helm giving diktats on custom, culture, Hinduism and Hindu
laws, it should also be noted that censorship took an ominous form during the Congress
regime under the leadership of Indira Gandhi when State of Emergency was declared
between 1975 and 1977. But what is worrying in the current scenario is the popular rise and
widespread social sanction of the domain of unofficial banning, with the social taking over
the legal through extra-legal measures, such as the assassination of authors in broad daylight.

This stranglehold of the social and religious on free expression present a bleak
prospect for inquisitive and critical studies on caste and religion. In 1988, India became the
first country to ban the novel, The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie, following pressure
from the leaders of the Muslim community. Today, India continues its banning spree,
reflecting the deep and growing unease with the freedom to express. In a more recent case,
Dinanath Batra, the man behind the Shiksha Bachao Andolan Samiti, the group that
advocated for Penguin destroying all copies of Wendy Donigers book, says an incorrect,
offensive interpretation of Hinduism had injured his religious feelings, which is an offense
under Indian law but only after a mala fide intention is established by the courts. In the case
of Donigers book, Penguin did not even contest Batras claim and caved in for fear of
agitation and assault from communal and religious groups and parties.

In the context of censorship of personal expression, the two landmark decisions by the
Supreme Courtsingle unwed mothers can obtain legal guardianship of their children (6th of
July 2015 ) and that homosexuality is a criminal act (12th December 2013)need to be
scrutinized. The heteronormative and class-oriented censored aspects embedded within the
paradox of these decisions are but too evident. Celia Kitzinger in this instance describes
heteronormativity as the myriad ways in which heterosexuality is produced as a natural,
unproblematic, taken-for-granted phenomenon. Hence to place Kitzingers interpretation in
the context of the Supreme Courts verdict, it needs to be clarified that heteronormative ideas
are not only being imposed by the legislation through verdicts but is also considered
commonplace to a significant section of the Indian population, who socially sanction these
legislations. The censorship of homosexuality is therefore not only a legal manifestation but
also a larger social manifestation. The censorship of homosexuality in India along with being
contingent on the parameters of heteronormativity is also an offspring of normalized
homophobia. Sustenance of homophobia is a major way of restoring the heteromasculinity in
society. Using homophobic slurs to boys in high school is a common practice. It is interesting
to note that the usage of these slurs is not limited to addressing people who are actually queer.
Rather, terms like sissy and homo are used to put a check on any behaviour that do not
conform to heterosexual parameters and thus are operated as a tool to reinforce
heteronormativity, specifically heterosexuality and heteromasculinity. In this backdrop, the
Indian Supreme Courts verdict on Section 377 can be interpreted as an act of
institutionalized homophobia. This verdict criminalized homosexuality and reinforced the
heteronormative paradigm, disregarding the presence and legitimacy of any other form of
sexuality.

A recently emerging area of censorship concerns the Internet. Interest in internet

censorship derives from the unique nature of the internet itselfsince its inception; it has
allowed equal access and participation, without a regulatory body restricting its content.
Traditional media outletsnewspapers, book publishers and television stationsall have
stringent editorial policies that restrict their content based on ideology, controversy, space
limitations, potential interest, and countless other factors. The internet is virtually the only
major media outlet that does not require going through such editorial scrutiny. Unfortunately,
divergent opinions born in the security of the virtual space of internet is no more immune to
the governments incisive invasions on personal freedoms. Currently, the government can
either block content by using section 69A of the Information Technology Act, or it has to
send requests to the Internet companies to get content removed. Google has released
statistics of government request for content removal as part of its Transparency Report.
While Mr. Sibal uses the examples of communally sensitive material as a reason to force
censorship of the Internet, out of the 358 items requested to be removed from January 2011 to
June 2011 from Google service by the Indian government (including state governments), only
8 were for hate speech and only 1 was for national security. Instead, 255 items, i.e., a
whopping 71 per cent of all requests, were asked to be removed for government criticism. ,
Despite the government in India not having Constitutional powers to ban government
criticism, Google complied in 51 per cent of all requests, which necessarily means that many
instances of government criticism were removed as well.

Privately produced news continues to remain banned on radio in India, and attempts
to include news content by private providers have been thwarted by both the Congress and
the BJP governments in the name of maintaining law and order. Radio is a cheaper medium
compared to television, and unlike newspapers, can be heard by both literate and illiterate

alike. Censorship on radio content thus effectively keeps the hoi polloi from engaging in
pressing socio-political issues racking the society at large.

In closing, we can make the rather lamentable assertion that censorship in India now
appears to have taken the form of delivering justice socially through the metanarrative of
caste supremacy and violence, which is as old as human life in the country. This happens in
coordination with the ruling powers cultural and political interests, making the nations
identity as the worlds largest democracy a farce. Free debate and open discussion have
always been considered to be an integral part of a democracy. If democracy has to evolve, the
rampant official and unofficial ban on expressions of dissent in the country, resulting from
the blurring away of personal, social, and political boundaries, needs to stopthe legal needs
to re-evaluate some of its egregious stance on matters concerning personal and individual
freedom and the social urgently needs to refrain from the unwarranted socialization of the
personal. Otherwise, democracy has no value and it is equivalent to a totalitarian regime,
which, unfortunately, is the frightening future we seem to be heading toward.

REFERENCES

Article 19 in The Constitution Of India 1949. Indiankanoon.org. Web.

India asks Google to remove 2 items every 3 days. Kafila.org. 27 May, 2012. Web.

Kitzinger, Celia. "Heteronormativity in Action: Reproducing the Heterosexual Nuclear

Family in After-hours Medical Calls." Social Problems 52.4 (2005): 477-98. Web. 20
Aug. 2015.

Pascoe, C. J. Dude, You're a Fag: Masculinity and Sexuality in High School. Berkeley,
CA: U of California, 2012. Print.

"Section 377: The Way Forward." The Hindu. 01 Mar. 2014. Web.

Sorabjee, Soli. The Emergency, Censorship, and the Press in India, 1975-1977. Delhi:
Writers and Scholars Educational Trust, 1977. Print.

"Supreme Court Makes Homosexuality a Crime Again." The Times of India. 12 Dec.
2013. Web.

Unpacking Indias Internet Censorship Debate. Kafila.org. 1 May, 2012. Web.