These are strange days when those who are usually asking for the boycott of something or the other on Twitter – and this can range from detergent brands to web series – are speaking about freedom of expression and chest-beating about how only ‘one kind of narrative’ is allowed to thrive. Days after publishing house Bloomsbury withdrew the book Delhi Riots 2020: The Untold Truth, the right wing has been up in arms. Written by Monika Arora and Delhi University professors Sonali Chitalkar and Prerna Malhotra, the book supposedly 'reveals' how Hindus were the actual victims of the Delhi riots that took place in February this year in the backdrop of the anti-CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act) protests.
Not having read the book, it's difficult to comment on the contents. However, it was when BJP MLA Kapil Mishra was invited for the book launch, along with director Vivek Agnihotri and Nupur Sharma, editor of OpIndia, that objections were raised. Considering it was Kapil Mishra's hate speech video which allegedly triggered the violence in Delhi (three complaints were filed against him but no action has been taken), it's not unreasonable that things came to such a pass. In fact, Kapil Mishra's own party colleague, Delhi MLA Gautam Gambhir, had condemned the speech.
Meanwhile, Vivek Agnihotri's claim to fame is the coinage of the phrase 'urban naxal', which has been used to harass anyone who disagrees with the BJP. And OpIndia is a right wing website which has been called out several times for biased narratives, especially against Muslims. In fact, its application to the IFCN (International Fact Checking Network) was rejected because of the obvious political bias in its coverage.
While many have commended Bloomsbury for withdrawing the book and authors like William Darlymple and Aatish Taseer for making their displeasure known to the publisher and pushing them to make the call, a section of the liberal crowd is also upset with what has happened along with the right wing groups. We must fight ideas with ideas, they say. How can we be any different from the right wing, which calls for Bollywood actors to be beheaded and threatens employees of publishing houses, if we also muffle voices? Some have gone to the extent of calling the move fascism.
For the sake of argument, let us assume that despite the choice of guests for the launch, the book itself is an astonishing piece of honest reportage that would have opened our eyes to the 'untold truth'. Let us assume that the Bloomsbury editorial had done its due diligence and the revelations made in the book would have pierced our dull ignorance like gamma rays. Let us assume that the book wasn't hate filled propaganda targeting a minority community that a publishing house accepted due to political pressure, or because it made business sense.
Even if that may be the case, what exactly has happened for all this hand wringing? Has anyone called for a ban on the book (despite what Anurag Kashyap tweeted, there is no ban on the book, no)? Has anyone been threatened with violence? Has anyone gone on national television, demanding the body parts of the authors? Has anyone burnt copies of the book?
If all of this or any of this had happened, the 'freedom of expression' argument would hold more water, even if we're talking about a supposedly biased nonfiction book.
On the other hand, the book has already found a publisher in Garuda Prakashan, a Gurugram based publishing house which also published Vivek Agnihotri's masterpiece Urban Naxals. The book has apparently sold 15,000 copies in pre-orders already.
Compare this with Wendy Doniger's book The Hindus: An Alternative History. Two years after it was published and became a bestselling nonfiction book, the publisher Penguin was slapped with a lawsuit by Dinanath Batra, an RSS man. Interestingly, his lawyer was Monika Arora, one of the writers of Delhi Riots who is currently upset about the loss of freedom of speech.
At the time, in defence of its widely criticised decision to pulp the book, Penguin had said: "A publishing company has the same obligation as any other organisation to respect the laws of the land in which it operates, however intolerant and restrictive those laws may be. We also have a moral responsibility to protect our employees against threats and harassment where we can. The settlement reached this week brings to a close a four year legal process in which Penguin has defended the publication of the Indian edition of The Hindus by Wendy Doniger."
Penguin, however, chose to stick by its decision because it could no longer put up with the threats and lawsuit.
As far as we know, William Darlymple and other Bloomsbury writers have not issued any threats to Bloomsbury employees. No lawsuits have been filed either. They made their displeasure known and perhaps said they wouldn't publish with them again. And they are well within their rights to do so. Writers may choose not to associate with a publisher with whom they don't agree with ideologically. For instance, writers like Sanjeev Sanyal and Anand Ranganathan, have now said that they won't work with Bloomsbury in future because they withdrew the book.
If Dalrymple and others don't wish to work with a publisher that's bringing out a supposedly politically biased and communal book, about a violent episode in the country's recent history where the state and the police are said to have colluded to target a minority community, it is their prerogative. After all, from police inaction against mobs, to the government even banning media channels for their coverage of the riots, there are many stories about the Delhi riots that have been told and told repeatedly to no avail.
We must fight ideas with ideas, the liberals objecting to Bloomsbury's decision to withdraw, say. But authors certainly have the right to decide on whose side they wish to be when they fight that battle. Why should a writer be represented by a publishing house with which they are deeply disillusioned? Why should they not move away and fight their ideological battle with another publishing house on their side?
In its statement, Bloomsbury said, “Bloomsbury India had planned to release Delhi Riots 2020: The Untold Story in September, a book purportedly giving a factual report on the riots in Delhi in February 2020, based on investigations and interviews conducted by the authors. However, in view of very 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.”
One is not sure why Bloomsbury used 'purportedly' in its statement while describing the 'factual report', but we will let that pass. The point is, Bloomsbury withdrew the book either because they actually were horrified about Kapil Mishra and others presiding over this event, or they saw that they were going to lose out heavily with acclaimed authors leaving their list. Like Penguin, they made a decision and issued a statement – though there's no hint that they capitulated to violent threats in their statement, unlike Penguin's.
The claim that those supporting Bloomsbury's decision have only fuelled the sales of the book is rather laughable. As if the readership waiting for this 'untold truth' doesn't already lean towards a political ideology and it is only the dissent expressed by others which is driving the sales.
At the end of this hullabaloo, one can perhaps hope that the right wing has improved its understanding of freedom of expression since they have spent so much energy defending it. We will know the next time there's an ad with a 'sickular' theme or a web series with a Hindutva character.
Views expressed are author's own.