The debate on the concept and extent of freedom of speech has been raging since its earliest practice in Vedic Bharat and ancient Greece to the modern-day model democracies like the USA and India. The Athenian philosopher Demosthenes was one of the earliest known proponents of “parrhesia” (uninhibited speech) or freedom of speech. He famously said, “It is necessary to speak with parrhesia, without holding anything back, without concealing anything”. Despite “parrhesia” being a fundamental aspect of Athenian society, Socrates, another Athenian philosopher, was prosecuted for his ideas, exhibiting the longstanding contention over full freedom of speech and its restriction.
Ancient India was one of the first practitioners of the concept of freedom of speech. Despite the Vedas being so revered, people, such as Buddha and Mahavira, were not only allowed to question them, but they were also able to spread their ideas and garner support. Shrastrartha and public debates were very common, especially in the universities of Nalanda and Vikramshila.
Even today, modern democracies like India ensure freedom of speech and expression as a fundamental right. The article 19(1)A of the Indian Constitution empowers every Indian with the right to free speech and expression of his/her views without fear. But this freedom is not complete and comes with reasonable restrictions as specified in Article 19(2) to prevent fanning of communal bigotry, preventing hate crimes, and preservation of societal harmony. Unfortunately, these restrictions have been misused indiscriminately to silence dissent and to ensure the throttling of criticism of the government.
Censorship, which has been defined as the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security, has been used since time immemorial by various authorities to consolidate their hold over their people. History gives us ample examples of the destruction of precious knowledge and its keepers- the burning of the Library of Alexandria, the burning of the works of The Talmud by the Catholic Church, the burning of more than 9 million books in Nalanda University, and the indiscriminate execution of scholars throughout time. Who gets to decide what is obscene, what is unacceptable and what is a threat? Why is the censorship of knowledge and books relevant to us?
Oscar Wilde once said, “The books that the world calls immoral are the books that show the world its own shame.” If you look closely at the history of book burnings, you will find that the information within them contained ideas and questions. They challenged current conceptions and existing institutions, they coveted progress. Perhaps the biggest enemy of tyrants or any individual who directly profits from an oppressive system is ideas. Ideas lead us to the inevitable path of challenging the system and restructuring it. Indeed, the books we condemn are the ones that have the most to offer us, often in contradiction to our own immorality.
Why did Martin Luther suffer through immense pains to be able to communicate his thoughts to the masses? It is because his thoughts had a rationale that couldn’t be buried by any number of god-fearing clergymen. When Caliph Umar dealt the final blow to the Library of Alexandria, he said that the works “either contradict the Qur’an, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous.” The first emperor of China, Qin Shi Huang wished for history to begin with him, and so he ordered the burning of all books that mention time before him, and to ensure that the history is erased for good, he ordered that the scholars be buried alive. Emperor Augustus of the Roman Empire, held books of prophecies and destinies in low regard and thus, had about 2,000 of them burned.
Now, one may consider such blatantly barbaric acts as a thing of the ancient past, but the reality is that censorship today isn’t simply restricted to banning culturally and morally questionable material such as the kind that promotes hate or bigotry. It still is about control. About controlling the narrative to suit the interest of the few over the many. 91 years ago, Nazi Germany faced a literary purge with the burning of more than 25,000 “un-German” books. Why? Because the existence of alternatives to a xenophobic society built on hatred and fear, facilitated by indoctrination and an autocratic authority, would derail the Nazi progression towards absolute control.
58 years ago, Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution amped up the censorship game. To think that this campaign has not yet met its end.
53 years ago, thousands of books were burned in South Africa during the apartheid.
32 years ago, 2 million books were burned by Serbian nationalists in Bosnia.
11 years ago, Islamist fighters burnt ancient writings in Timbuktu.
6 years ago, Iraq and Syria burnt down the Mosul University Library. In recent times, the US has seen the banning of various books, such as the Life of Rosa Parks by Kathleen Connors, under the guise of stopping woke behavior. The Individual Freedom Act (2022) in the state of Florida prohibits schools and businesses from teaching concepts related to race, racism and privilege.
If we were to discuss censorship specifically in the Indian context, one can find many examples of books and media being banned to satisfy political pressure groups. The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie, The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy, and Such a Long Journey by Rohinton Mistry, were some of the victims of these groups. Even Pandit Nehru, the titan of Indian politics and the biggest supporter of constitutional rights, had resorted to amending the constitution in 1951 to suppress the barrage of dissent by Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee and the Jana Sangh. One cannot speak of censorship and not mention the 1975 emergency in India, the darkest period of Independent India which saw the suspension of constitutional rights, including freedom of speech with a draconic crackdown on free press.
It is painfully obvious how very little has changed in our society compared to society back in 213 BCE, in regards to book burnings and controlling media. That answers the question of the relevance of censorship even today. But what about defining the wrong vs right type of content? How to ensure that a few years from now there won’t be yet another example to add to the already long list of unjust censorships?
While we may not be all engaging in book burnings, we are certainly living in the age of book banning. It is abundantly clear that what is objectionable is defined by the one who holds the reins of power. It is always defined by their objectives, beliefs and agendas. The wide-ranging powers given to the regulatory bodies, runs the risk of discretionary political control. Censorship is an important aspect of present society. Naturally, it has evolved to include modern forms of media, and so have our concerns. In addition to books and print media; movies, social media platforms, interactive games and websites have also faced censorship for both good and bad reasons.
Movies like Parzania, Black Friday, Kissa Kursi Ka are a few examples of governmental clampdown on artistic freedom due to their anti-government themes. Similarly, banning social media accounts for tweets, Facebook posts, YouTube videos critical of government policies is a routine in our country in the name of preservation of social harmony, law and order, and even national security. As far as press freedom is concerned, India ranks 159 out of the 180 nations in the 2024 edition of the press freedom index, published by Reporters Without Borders.
Books, movies and other forms of media have been banned for criticizing historical leaders, politicians and businessmen. They have been banned for criticizing society, for creating a negative picture of our communities– Oscar Wilde certainly hit where it hurts with his quote.
But we need to draw the line somewhere. Our right to freedom of expression cannot be curtailed because it hurts the sensibilities of others. It’s one thing to spread misinformation and deliberately attempt to incite disharmony, and it’s another to simply state an opinion or a fact that may be unsavory to read.
Everyone has different core beliefs and values and if something goes against it, we are well within our rights to cease to interact with such material, but we do not get to decide for others. Democracy ensures the free flow of ideas and the very concept of censorship defies it. When we censure ideas, we are essentially impeding the growth of our society, we are aiding its stagnation.
John Stuart Mill offers four reasons why freedom of expression is essential even if certain ideas may appear false or wrong.
In his book, On Liberty, he states that no idea is completely false, it has elements of truth to it. He goes on to add that truth emerges from the clash of opposing views. Moreover, he believes that conflict of ideas ensures that our ‘truth’ stands the test of time. It means that accepted ideas should be exposed to new ones to see if they still apply to new contexts. In the end, he says that we cannot be sure if what we consider true is actually true. Throughout history, we have seen people challenge norms and establish ideas such as racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, etc. Every corner of the world has revised its ideas from the French in 1789 to the South Africans in 1994. Even today, we constantly see the changing ideas and we know that it is driven by education and books. The idea of democracy itself emerged in a world dominated by authoritarian rule- certainly a blasphemous concept then is considered the ideal type of government now.
When states in the USA refuse to allow critical race theory to be taught, or they refuse to acknowledge Indigenous peoples’ history, or they ban accounts of LGBTQ authors, they isolate marginalized communities. They curb their representation, they muffle their voice, and allow the blissful ignorance of the privileged. This is not just an issue in the USA. For the most part of its independent history, India saw the whitewashing of the loot and pillage of Muslim rulers by the leftist historians. Most countries with similar cultural or ethnic historical backgrounds also attempt to erase the objectionable parts of it. Out of sight, out of mind, as they say.
Another essential concept to understand with regard to freedom is the Harm Principle, put forth by John Stuart Mill. The Harm Principle holds that one’s actions should only be limited to prevent harm to others. He talks of ‘self-regarding’ actions, where our actions affect only us, and ‘other regarding’ actions, where our actions affect others. He argues that any external authority can only interfere in the latter. He says that ‘serious harm’ warrants lawful action and ‘minor harm’ warrants only social disapproval. To put it simply, if I do or write something that is disagreeable to some, they are well within their rights to criticize me for it, but they cannot force me to stop doing it. On the other hand, if I do or write something that creates intense turmoil and creates divisions or spreads hurtful and hateful sentiments, I can and should be prohibited from continuing such behavior. As Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. said, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.”
The concept of Positive and Negative Liberty represents both sides of the coin, as far as freedom is concerned. We all have the right to express ourselves and to have a metaphorical bubble which is inviolable by anyone, so that we can maintain our human dignity and retain our right as free beings. We also have the right to grow in a healthy environment that caters to our needs of a suitable social, physical and political landscape. The former concept is termed Negative Liberty and the latter is termed Positive liberty. To put it in context to the media, Negative Liberty ensures that we have the right to put forth ideas and opinions that may or may not challenge or disparage that of others. Whereas, Positive Liberty ensures that our ideas and opinions don’t sow the seeds of discord and do not harm the needs of society.
After considering all these concepts, one can safely assume that censorship is a double edged sword. We may need it at times to protect the social order especially when platforms like Tik Tok, PUBG, and pornographic websites, as well as disturbing and perverted movies such as Human Centipede with their reprehensible content and anti-India sentiments are likely to adversely impact our youth and national security, but we must keep in mind that it is a deep, dark hole that threatens our hard fought freedom and is something that warrants our constant vigil.
The ills of censorship cannot be understated, not when we are actively watching books being banned (and in some cases, still being burned), voices of dissent being silenced, and contrarian views punished with laws of sedition. Censorship is a whip to tame the masses and suppress the flourishing of ideas and independent thinking. Yet censorship is a necessary evil since absolute freedom of expression is fraught with dangers akin to an uncontrolled fire. Impressionable minds need to be protected and shielded from rumours, hate-mongering and age-inappropriate content, especially in today’s media-driven world where fake news travels much faster than its clarification.
The government, being the custodian of information flow, has an onerous responsibility to use censorship in a fair and responsible manner without impinging on the individual liberty of expression as well as criticism. The balance that needs to be struck often feels inexplicably delicate, but nevertheless our vigilance and constant search for knowledge, as well as openness to new ideas and commitment to peaceful and rational behavior can be the answer to this conundrum.
We must not forget that democracy is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. It means that it is also our duty to wisely interact with any content and to remain attentive to ensure that the censorship is just and and at the same time to be the fiercest protectors of knowledge and freedom of expression.
(Tanishqa Punia)
XII- A
The Air Force School
New Delhi-110010
