Freedom of expression (henceforth, FoE in this blog post) is our favorite shrine to pay the lip service. This time, it is the incidence of Bloomsbury publication withdrawing a book on Delhi riots. It is book written by Hindutva activists, to put forward their explanation of riots that took place in Delhi in February 2020. Publication company has decided to withdraw or 'pulp' the book after an event prior to official launch of book attracted criticism from anti-right camp. Pulping of the book has been met with accusation of selective application of FoE from dry and sundry of the Hindutva camp.
As much I understand, lamenting of the Hindutva camp over selecting application of FoE is completely misplaced. Private agents can act which involves curtailing the expression of other agents. It is part of the freedom guaranteed to them as long as it falls under legal framework guarding two parties. For example, employers have right to fire their employees as per their discretion and some time they can use this discretion as a reaction to expression or action of the employee. (Well, in India, many firms lack this basic economic freedom, of firing the individuals they hire, and no one laments it even when its consequences are more harmful than consequences of pulping academic expressions.) So as long as Bloomsbury is not violating their contracts with authors by withdrawing the book, they have every right to do so. On more general note, terrorising agents to change their action is a strategy Hindutva camp has practiced and perfected. So from ethical point of view, they should not be calling foul if someone plays by their playbook. So it is pure political act of Hindutva camp to cry hoarse over pulping of book. It involves no ethical correctness.
And it is a fine politics, like all their other political maneuvering. They have succeeded in proving a well-reputed serious publication to be of bogus ethical code, have latched on to some acclaimed names in anti-right camp as villains who schemed to deny Hindutva proponents their expressions and have made the book considerably more famous than what it would have been with smooth ride. That pre-publication program was cleverly placed political bait.
And fluid ethics of anti-right camp have been exposed, again! Killing the critics by not giving them mention has been the strategy applied by anti-right in India since independence. If there would not have been social media, Indian academic and their popular writing penumbra would have been left-liberal echo chamber, of lopsided ethics hidden in fine english. Be that as it may. Hindutva Juggernaut is giving them hard time they deserve.
But for all this light from this saga, the heat about FoE is entirely misplaced. There is no suppression of FoE in this case. Authors can very well take their book to other publication with correct contract and have their expression expressed. Single denial of expression is not suppression, it is denial and often it is political. One will argue that suppression is nothing but chain of individual denials, and it is right. But only when one will see the chain, one can conclude suppression. Yes, expressing certain expressions is difficult because most of the avenues will deny you the space and one has to fight a lot to express these expressions. That is systematic property, and it is part of cost of expression. Freedom of expression is not about guaranteed publicity for all sorts of expression or duty of avenues to award their their space to all sort of expressions. Choosing to say NO is a valid free expression and other party can exercise it against your freedom.
Coming back to issue at hand, Hindutva proponent is last group in today's India whose freedom can be curtailed. It is the simply the statement of their political power. And suppression of freedom of expression requires state or constitutional institutions denying, erasing or penalizing agents over their expression. No such incidence was involved in this incidence.
I understand that defining suppression of FoE only through state or constitutional channel leads to type-I error, where many incidences where private agents have chosen to sanction particular expression will not be treated as cases of suppression of FoE. My point is freedom is all about doing such rogue things as long as they are within the limits of causing reasonably explicit material harm to others. It is plain stupid to wish or to assume that individuals will exert ethically higher order choices when they can make lower ones. Such world would not be our world. To be free is to hurt sentiments of others without causing them reasonably explicit material harms through my freedom. A son will rebel against father's wishes, causing father a great grief. If father ends up having heart attack, son is not to be blamed. The death is cost of freedom. Sacrificing one's pleasure for others' pleasure is higher order ethic, but we cannot burden son with that. Same applies to this pulping saga.
FoE was well celebrated when book contract was signed in this case. Before 2014, the Indian intellectual echo chamber have made sure to omit the saffron, which was the true abuse of FoE. Hindutva was made untouchable subject for serious academic scrutiny and was analyzed by superficial frameworks. A simple example of this 'kill them by neglect' was often heard wrong statement - 'RSS wants to make India a Hindu Rashtra' when first principle of RSS is 'India is a Hindu Rashtra'. Post-2014, incentives changed. Ram Madhav writes in Indian Express, Shekhar Gupta turns nationalistic apologetic whenever required and Savarkar's defining biography is published. In the same vain, book arguing Delhi riots in February 2020 was plan against Hindutva was considered for publication. So it is nothing but correction in sad course of FoE. The pulping is minor setback, if not planned rebound. It is politics and there is no harm of FoE. Let's not shade crocodile tears over it.