Censorship debates in India are not new, and both the Indian state and its citizens have played roles as both perpetrators and victims in these discussions. The recent controversy surrounding Wendy Doniger’s book, The Hindus: An Alternative History, once again highlighted the reluctance of certain sections of Indian society to accept criticism or alternative perspectives on religion and culture. Despite the constitutional guarantee of free expression as a fundamental right, Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) grants the state the power to penalize speech that maliciously insults or attempts to insult any religious belief. In this sense, Section 295A operates in a secular manner, as it applies to all religious communities.
This provision was not part of the original IPC of 1860 but was introduced in 1927 through an amendment following the Lahore Court’s decision in Rajpal vs. King Emperor (1927). At that time, legal experts, politicians, and scholars debated the amendment extensively, as it was seen as a potential obstruction to historical and anthropological research on religions and a threat to academic freedom.
The concept of ‘free expression’ has its origins in the rise of liberalism in 17th-century Europe, particularly following religious wars that saw secularism positioned in opposition to theological obscurantism. Faisal Devji, in his essay Changing Contours of Censorship (published in The Hindu on February 24, 2014), sought to provide a balanced perspective on the issue. However, framing every opposition to liberal views as merely religious resistance can be an oversimplification. The intellectual complexities surrounding free expression often obscure its original meaning for the common person. While individuals have the right to express opinions without obstruction from the state or other groups, the same principle allows others to challenge such expressions through legal recourse if they feel offended. It is misleading to reject these rights simply as colonial legacies or as inherently draconian. Laws like Section 295A play a role in curbing religious extremism, as evident in cases like the Muzaffarnagar riots.
Free expression encompasses a broad spectrum, from freedom of speech to the right to information. Ideally, it ensures exposure to diverse viewpoints, fostering an intellectual environment where literature begets counter-literature. However, in practice, access to platforms for expression is uneven. For instance, N. Ram can publish his views in his newspaper daily, whereas another individual’s perspective may be dismissed as archaic, uninformed, or lacking merit. This disparity reveals the limitations of free expression in its practical application. Many supporters of Doniger’s book, for example, may not have studied Hindu scriptures, yet they argue for unrestricted publication based on abstract principles of free speech. This raises concerns about the merging of public and private opinions, as well as the credibility of scholarly work on sensitive cultural topics. That said, the controversy surrounding Doniger’s book has, at the very least, ignited a broader debate on the ‘true’ narrative of Hinduism as it is mainly based on one's opposition or support to certain specific mythological viewpoints.
Some self-proclaimed liberals reacted to the controversy with alarm, interpreting it as evidence of rising fundamentalism and the resurgence of fascist groups in Indian politics. However, this reaction itself reflects a problematic form of hermeneutics—one that misreads the situation by framing it exclusively within a religious lens. Indian historiography has often been shaped by such interpretative biases, where any issue involving religion is hastily classified as a religious conflict rather than as a broader debate on secularization. Liberal commentators frequently rely on Freudian techniques to analyze these issues, but such methods may not be appropriate in this context. It is also misleading to equate opposition to Westernization with religious fundamentalism. Instead of resorting to ideological binaries, different viewpoints should be examined in their own right to establish fair and meaningful discourse.
India’s pluralistic society can sustain itself only through the robust exercise of free expression—provided that such expression is well-informed and articulate. Intellectual analysis should be encouraged, but random abstraction should be avoided. Debates should clearly delineate the positions of those ‘for’ and ‘against’ a given issue, ensuring that these categories are properly defined. Otherwise, the discourse surrounding free expression risks reinforcing social fragmentation rather than bridging divides. Out-of-court settlements in cases of book bans should not be equated with figures like Arundhati Roy, who often perceives every action of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Hindu organizations as fascist. Such sweeping generalizations do little to advance meaningful discussion. Left-liberal intellectuals must first clarify the meanings of key terms and avoid excessive reliance on jargon if they hope to engage in more constructive debates. Ultimately, these discussions should serve to educate the masses and expand their understanding of free expression, rather than allowing dominant narratives to dictate public consciousness.
Additionally, the tendency of publishers to withdraw books preemptively, fearing violence, raises serious concerns about the state of constitutionalism in India. The government must ensure the safety of writers and publishers so that critical perspectives can flourish in public discourse. Any civilization that aspires to be truly civil must welcome such debates, rather than suppress them. Democracy, as a system, can become a burden on its citizens if democratic values are absent from its implementation. Protecting the spirit of democracy requires fostering an environment where ideas can be freely exchanged, debated, and critiqued without fear of censorship or persecution.
Comments