Fine Line - The Economic Transcript

Scrolling back the timeline to understand the hue and cry surrounding the Bloomsbury Publishing House would lead us back to the Citizenship Amendment Act passed by the Modi Government in 2019. The CAA has been accused of funneling out Muslims from the country by strategically stripping off their citizenship.

After preying upon protesting students at Jamia University and the sit-in demonstration by Muslim women at Shaheen Bagh, violence engulfed South Delhi sparking off at Jaffarbad Road which snowballed into an unequivocal communal riot in February of 2020.

https://s01.sgp1.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/inline/vhjgnnjkvg-1583421004.png

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/q4-ml44jcUV5jCt_7He8mLt62CkcrBcCu_DCV-TBhViwUkbL4icNnm0VkBZ1W36JU-wVfQp2lDYPSjoAZjcNFkvI7DXt6ujoO1w4gNoFvqxekpSQKtxgVkp04uBPatpC5CTvRQmN

The Bloomsbury India publication initially claimed it had planned to release the book, Delhi Riots 2020: The Untold Story authored by RSS-sympathetic lawyers Monika Arora, Sonali Chitalkar, and Prerna Malhotra since it was “purportedly giving a factual report on the riots in Delhi in February 2020, based on investigations and interviews” conducted by the authors. However, the book was de-platformed after several activists, academicians and writers heavily criticized the excerpts containing unsubstantiated claims including wild allegations against ‘Urban Naxals and Islamists’ and conspiracy theorists’ for perpetuating the riots.

Moreover, Bloomsburg was further scrutinised for the participation of the BJP politician Kapil Mishra in the virtual launch of the book held by senior BJP leader Bhupendra Yadav and attended by film director Vivek Agnihotri, and OpIndia’s Nupur Sharma. Since he was earlier banned from campaigning for elections due to his religiously divisive language, and his incendiary speeches on 23^rd February 2020 believed to have sparked the very riots the book talks about.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/nhtsOsoqugLF_y2SF2beIni_w1VJMW3XUt08QwIY0lv1l4Zj_BcGdnkn8kiwc1H3qZIKXg8ojsF9dGf0hFczSu9cZCzOyKWlTQBAVUPo0aN_g3KjUIzuPEeyJCGAZ8m9GjKdRSOK

The publication eventually washed hands off the book and the event stating, “However, given recent events including a virtual pre-publication launch organised without our knowledge by the authors, with participation by parties of whom the Publishers would not have approved, we have decided to withdraw publication of the book. Bloomsbury India strongly supports freedom of speech but also has a deep sense of responsibility towards society.” Naturally, a debate ensued, testing the values and principles both the wings hold close.

Some might consider a ban on books as an inherently fascist act. But is it the same when we de-platform one? Are the progressive liberals who advocate free speech hypocritically acting intolerant to ideologies that don’t fit their bill? Furthermore, is Freedom of speech truly being suppressed in the process as claimed by authors like Sanjeev Sanyal, Sandeep Deo, Sanjay Dixit, and Anand Ranganathan who in protest have vowed to never publish their books with Bloomsbury India? Many others lambasting the company wrote that its withdrawal just before the book’s release exposed the dirty nexus between these publishing houses and the Left-Pseudo Liberals in this country.

The liberal perspective, on the contrary, has gone onto paint the picture that all big players of the English-language publishing in India including Bloomsbury have a record of publishing and being biased in favour of Hindutva propaganda. Both HarperCollins India and Penguin Random House India respectively have been profiting for years by publishing Rajiv Malhotra, the infamous US-based Hindutva ideologue, and Rajat Sethi and Shubhrastha, who were electoral advisors for the BJP in Assam conflating Bangladeshi Muslims and Bengali-speaking Muslim people. The liberals, therefore, defend that Freedom of speech does not include propaganda-driven hate speech and circulating misinformation.

They cite that Alt News and various other independent media organisations found numerous accounts of misinformation in the alleged sequence of the events mentioned by the fact-checking committee in the report which is the foundation stone the book Delhi Riots 2020 drives its authenticity from. The committee was also accused of one-sided fact-finding, particularly the witness testimonies, to build a narrative squarely targeting the Muslim Community. Further, based on the sources cited in the report the fact-finding committee members had drawn heavily from dubious websites like OpIndia to back their claims. The bone of contention, therefore, is with Bloomsbury’s editorial judgement and their comatose approach in editing the claims made by the book, as they otherwise wouldn’t have passed muster with any fact-checking desk, especially given the publisher’s international reputation.

The right-wing authors could hence also be trying to compensate the book’s lack of credibility by getting into the contract with Bloomsbury, since Garuda Prakashan publishing – who has a history of publishing Islamophobic texts– which is where the book has found shelter now, would’ve always been the better-suited choice given their compatible ideologies.

In conclusion, one might be in a fix as to whether celebrate the withdrawal by Bloomsbury or criticize it because such instances of de-platforming if not directly banning books will only serve to embolden those who might get offended by the contents of the book as it portrays someone or something in an unfavourable light instead of letting the facts speak.

By Krishnaa Thakkar

Reference