Banning of books and writers

In the recent past the country has witnessed various incidences of banning of books, cancellation of film screening and proscribing of other forms of art. All these incidences are the examples of curtailment of the freedom of expression which is a fundamental right as enshrined by the constitution of India.

The irony in all such incidences is the fact that the fundamental right of freedom of expression is curtailed in an institutionalized manner with state machinery explicitly, implicitly or tacitly involved in curtailment. The following are some of the examples:

Salman Rushdies absence in the Jaipur Literature Festival (Jan, 2012)

Cancellation of a seminar on Salman Rushdie in Hyderabad (Jan,2012)

Cancellation of a film screening in Pune based on Kashmir Cancellation of book release (Nirbasan) by Taslima Nasreen in Kolkata International Book Fair (Feb, 2012) Three Hundred Ramayanas, A.K. Ramanujan's essay was removed from the curriculum of Delhi University (2011) Mumbai University withdrew Rohinton Mistry's novel Such a Long Journey (shortlisted for the Booker Prize in 1991) from its curriculum after the Shiv Sena objected to derogatory references in it to its party members Author James Laines Shivaji-Hindu king in Islamic India was banned in Maharashtra The Gujarat government banned Pulitzer Prize-winning author Joseph Lelyveld's Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and his Struggle with India after objections were raised against its contents which speak about Gandhi's friendship with a German man who may have been homosexual.
There are two major logics given by the state and the protagonists who championed the ban, these are as: 1.In order to maintain Law and order situation 2.On the pretext that right to freedom of expression is not an absolute right and has reasonable restriction attached to it. In order to prevent threat to law and order, the state should not suppress fundamental rights which it is the duty of every democratic state to uphold. Instead the state should take action against those who indulge in intimidation and provide security to person who wishes to exercise their basic human rights viz. freedom of expression and free movement. The Supreme Court in context of Tamil movie, Ore Oru Gramathile held that freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on the account of threats of violence. That would tantamount to negation of the rule of law and surrender to blackmail and intimidation. Freedom cannot be held ransom by an intolerant group of people. The Court also held that freedom of expression protects not merely ideas that are accepted but those that offend shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population.

At times the bans of such kinds have profound political reasons for their acceptance rather than the threat to law and order situation. Many a times the bans are imposed to pacify a particular caste, group or community which is seen as a vote bank. The absence of Rushdie from the Jaipur Literature Festival can thus be correlated to the nearby elections in the five states. However, this approach is parochial and weakens the essence of democracy. Can just offending a group or community be the sole criterion to curtail the right to freedom of expression of an individual? Somebody getting offended by something or some action is a highly subjective matter. For instance a person lets say Mr. X, who doesnt like black color, might feel offended just because Mr. Y wears a black shirt on a particular day. In such case should Mr. Y be forced not to wear the black color? This question can be answered on the basis of harm principle coined by J.S. Mill in his classic work Liberty. The harm principle is the idea that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. According to Mills, a person can do anything he wishes, as long as his actions do not harm others. This logic can be extended in the case of the books and the other forms of art which allegedly offend the sentiments of a particular group or communities. Since the writers or the artists are not causing harm to anybody, the State should not exercise its authority to forcefully ban them against the choice of the authors or artists.

Conclusion
The right to freedom of expression is a hard earned right after the long struggle from the colonial rule. There are countries in the world where the censorship exists to a great extent and the citizen groups are in a stage of constant struggle to earn this right. Thus to promote the tendencies which curb freedom of expression in one form or the other is analogues to moving in the reverse direction. India is a highly diverse country. The language, culture, customs and mores in one part of the country are entirely different from the other. Apart from the high diversity this era of globalization has led to creation of multiple identities and has given the choices and medium for the expression. In such milieu it has become vital not only to respect the individuals right of freedom of expression but also to enhance the democratic tolerance.