Why Free Speech Loses in India(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
Why Free Speech Loses in India
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/02/wendy-doniger-free-speech-india.html
8 comments
Irony abounds. An article that downplays the status of free speech rights in India and mocks Dr. Subramanian Swamy to make its point conveniently sidesteps the double standards of US institutions (for e.g., the same Dr. Swamy was sacked from Harvard because of his free speech rights). Better explained in a comment by Pradip4.
No, irony does not abound.
No court or executive or politician or big business intervened to stop Swamy from teaching at Harvard. Instead, its faculty voted [0] to remove his course after he wrote this hateful diatribe [1].
[0] http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/12/12/swamy-racism-di...
[1] https://janamejayan.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/how-to-wipe-out...
Edit: corrected minor typo
No court or executive or politician or big business intervened to stop Swamy from teaching at Harvard. Instead, its faculty voted [0] to remove his course after he wrote this hateful diatribe [1].
[0] http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/12/12/swamy-racism-di...
[1] https://janamejayan.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/how-to-wipe-out...
Edit: corrected minor typo
Harvard is a private institution. The US government does not (and cannot) control the actions of Harvard. The first amendment protects our rights to say what we like but that guarantee does not extend to your place of employment. There is no irony or double standard in that.
Penguin India is also a private institution. The book isn't banned, simply withdrawn by Penguin for what are likely commercial reasons.
"what are likely commercial reasons"
Well, yes, the probability that you will get sued into oblivion because the system of laws doesn't offer free speech protections could be seen as "commercial reasons". The article states as much.
A private institution censoring its own is very different than an outside entity forcing censorship via threats of lawsuits.
Well, yes, the probability that you will get sued into oblivion because the system of laws doesn't offer free speech protections could be seen as "commercial reasons". The article states as much.
A private institution censoring its own is very different than an outside entity forcing censorship via threats of lawsuits.
> A private institution censoring its own is very different than an outside entity forcing censorship via threats of lawsuits.
But the lawsuit here is private also though right? How do you separate an incorporated entity from a community? I don't know that this can be reasonably done.
But the lawsuit here is private also though right? How do you separate an incorporated entity from a community? I don't know that this can be reasonably done.
There is a big difference between what standards you hold yourself to and being imposed upon by an outside entity. Its one thing to realize your wrong and correct, that happens all the time with outside critics. Its another thing to have the outside critics use a broken law system to force you to change against your will.
"How do you separate an incorporated entity from a community?"
An incorporated entity is still a group of people and you shouldn't have to give up your speech rights to get liability protection. So, my answer is the same for a blog as a publisher. You either believe you were right or come to see you might have been wrong. If you believe you are right, but the lack of protection under the law allows others to crush you, then something is seriously wrong.
I think you're mixing the meaning of "private". A lawsuit is a part of the public law system.
"How do you separate an incorporated entity from a community?"
An incorporated entity is still a group of people and you shouldn't have to give up your speech rights to get liability protection. So, my answer is the same for a blog as a publisher. You either believe you were right or come to see you might have been wrong. If you believe you are right, but the lack of protection under the law allows others to crush you, then something is seriously wrong.
I think you're mixing the meaning of "private". A lawsuit is a part of the public law system.
> There is a big difference between what standards you hold yourself to and being imposed upon by an outside entity.
And which of these is a local community? I would argue that the local community, generally has far less power over individuals than their employers and therefore such restrictions are likely to be far less intrusive.
For example, if you are a salaried employee and your employer fires you for speech you make on, say, a political cause that goes against your employer's interests, that's quite possible and if that's ok, that is far more threatening IMO to free speech generally than allowing lawsuits in court over defamation. If it is solely an employer's prerogative, then this means it is something that the wealthy upper classes can hold unilaterally over everyone else, without any political constraints.
And which of these is a local community? I would argue that the local community, generally has far less power over individuals than their employers and therefore such restrictions are likely to be far less intrusive.
For example, if you are a salaried employee and your employer fires you for speech you make on, say, a political cause that goes against your employer's interests, that's quite possible and if that's ok, that is far more threatening IMO to free speech generally than allowing lawsuits in court over defamation. If it is solely an employer's prerogative, then this means it is something that the wealthy upper classes can hold unilaterally over everyone else, without any political constraints.
> And which of these is a local community?
You lost me. I have no idea what you're trying to get at or maybe I have no idea what you mean by "local community"?
The article says a book was published then a group of people used threats made possible by a broken law system to get the book censored.
You lost me. I have no idea what you're trying to get at or maybe I have no idea what you mean by "local community"?
The article says a book was published then a group of people used threats made possible by a broken law system to get the book censored.
> You lost me. I have no idea what you're trying to get at or maybe I have no idea what you mean by "local community"?
Are we members of communities? Are states "outside entities" any more than employers are? Why or why not? Does it matter if there is a general sense of ownership over the state?
Let's put it another way: Suppose the State of Ohio issues a charter to the New Saigon Initiaitve (name pulled out of thin air) to set up an incorporated, not for profit municipality with full self-governance with all the powers the state can lawfully delegate. Let's say that the charter specifies that all residents shall have an equal share of ownership and an equal say in the running of New Saigon. Suppose New Saigon starts banning books. Suppose the penalty for possessing a banned book is $500 and abatement by destroying or sending the book away, or being exiled from the town (but given an opportunity to sell your residence at market prices).
1. How is this different from a city doing it?
2. How is this different from an employer doing it?
Are we members of communities? Are states "outside entities" any more than employers are? Why or why not? Does it matter if there is a general sense of ownership over the state?
Let's put it another way: Suppose the State of Ohio issues a charter to the New Saigon Initiaitve (name pulled out of thin air) to set up an incorporated, not for profit municipality with full self-governance with all the powers the state can lawfully delegate. Let's say that the charter specifies that all residents shall have an equal share of ownership and an equal say in the running of New Saigon. Suppose New Saigon starts banning books. Suppose the penalty for possessing a banned book is $500 and abatement by destroying or sending the book away, or being exiled from the town (but given an opportunity to sell your residence at market prices).
1. How is this different from a city doing it?
2. How is this different from an employer doing it?
(Just a clarification on your example, I have no argument to make whether private entities should have restrictions placed on them.)
The New Saigon initiative would be deemed by courts to have sufficient nexus with State power such that they act as an extension of state themselves. Such institutions and charter aren't uncommon in US. Most school districts are governed usually by kind of law you outlined. Under settled law, public schools act as arm of government, thus have same restriction on them as any other governmental entity has.
And before you come up with more contrived example, one has to keep in mind that laws are enforced by judges, who can usually see past complicated structure to determine what would be extension of government and what would not be.
The New Saigon initiative would be deemed by courts to have sufficient nexus with State power such that they act as an extension of state themselves. Such institutions and charter aren't uncommon in US. Most school districts are governed usually by kind of law you outlined. Under settled law, public schools act as arm of government, thus have same restriction on them as any other governmental entity has.
And before you come up with more contrived example, one has to keep in mind that laws are enforced by judges, who can usually see past complicated structure to determine what would be extension of government and what would not be.
Right, but "by courts" means "by our courts." It doesn't suppose that a different system might have different boundaries, right?
Here in Indonesia, for example, there's no civil marriage. A marriage is not legally valid unless it is also a religious marriage. Obviously that wouldn't be appropriate in the States, but I would be annoyed if Americans were to say that had to be changed.
This all matters a great deal because we are talking about cross-cultural critiques here and the argument over whether it is a problem that India doesn't draw the same lines as the US.
Here in Indonesia, for example, there's no civil marriage. A marriage is not legally valid unless it is also a religious marriage. Obviously that wouldn't be appropriate in the States, but I would be annoyed if Americans were to say that had to be changed.
This all matters a great deal because we are talking about cross-cultural critiques here and the argument over whether it is a problem that India doesn't draw the same lines as the US.
We I say outside entities, I mean anyone outside the yourself or the organization affected. Anyone using lawsuits which have the court and backed by power of force of arms in a way to force the death of free speech is wrong and separate from the rest of us. Its more Animal Farm then community.
some_guy_there broke down your example better than I can.
some_guy_there broke down your example better than I can.
Self censorship is much worse than state imposed one IMO. The later can be formed, the former creates meek and obedient societies.
"formed" did you mean reformed?
Almost everyone self censors or society would be quite different. In fact, inability to self censor tends to get people in trouble or is seen as a sign of mental problems[1].
However, I cannot really say your wrong. I'm not sure about the meek or obedient, but I would go with stilted or excessively formal. Societies with massive self censorship are very scary.
I have noticed that societies with massive self censorship often have governments that enforce it with an iron fist. I'm not sure if there is a laid back government with a society into self censorship.
(sorry for the late response - driving 7 hours and I missed your post the first time)
1) played for effect in "Silver Lining Playbook"
Almost everyone self censors or society would be quite different. In fact, inability to self censor tends to get people in trouble or is seen as a sign of mental problems[1].
However, I cannot really say your wrong. I'm not sure about the meek or obedient, but I would go with stilted or excessively formal. Societies with massive self censorship are very scary.
I have noticed that societies with massive self censorship often have governments that enforce it with an iron fist. I'm not sure if there is a laid back government with a society into self censorship.
(sorry for the late response - driving 7 hours and I missed your post the first time)
1) played for effect in "Silver Lining Playbook"
So I take it that you also opposed Reddit's decision to ban clothed pictures of teenage girls, as well as teenage hentai, which was due to the threat of a slanderous smear campaign from Something Awful users[0]?
(Remember that, despite what SA falsely claimed when making these threats, nothing posted on /r/jailbait and the like was actually illegal under US law, and that most of the pictures were in fact reposted from sites like Facebook where they were originally posted by the owner of the photo).
[0] http://www.policespecials.com/forum/index.php/topic/126893-s...
(Remember that, despite what SA falsely claimed when making these threats, nothing posted on /r/jailbait and the like was actually illegal under US law, and that most of the pictures were in fact reposted from sites like Facebook where they were originally posted by the owner of the photo).
[0] http://www.policespecials.com/forum/index.php/topic/126893-s...
There is. I, as a free speech supporter in India, think that it is ridiculous that you are not allowed free speech in a place where you spend majority of your waking hours.
Violations of free speech by private institutions should be a crime, just like labour violations are. It should only take an amendment, there is no fundamental irony.
Notice that the state infringes on private parties anyway - the most obvious example is when the state decides to take away children from families if there's harassment of the child at home. I am not debating whether this is right or wrong, but I am just pointing out that the state is not so hands-off as it is generally made out to be.
Violations of free speech by private institutions should be a crime, just like labour violations are. It should only take an amendment, there is no fundamental irony.
Notice that the state infringes on private parties anyway - the most obvious example is when the state decides to take away children from families if there's harassment of the child at home. I am not debating whether this is right or wrong, but I am just pointing out that the state is not so hands-off as it is generally made out to be.
Question as an outsider: How does this interact with your right not to be discriminated against in the workplace based on religion or political views?
Pointing at America doesn't lessen the issues in India though. It's like me saying that homelessness in my country isn't a problem because there's way more homeless people in the US of A.
You might be right about US double standards, but that does not mean India can be allowed to trounce free speech.
I agree with you on the hypocrisy of US media on this one. But I still don't understand what Dr swamy finds so objectionable in the book. I've started reading it, and it seems like a very scholarly treatment of the ignored sections in the history of hinduism. Surely Dr swamy understands the importance of protecting controversial academic works?
What seems scholarly to you looks extremely offensive to most Hindus. And ultimately it should be Hindus who get to decide the meaning of Hinduism. The over-the-top reaction to what is effectively a caricature in the likes of 'Innocence of Muslims' is enabled because such treatment of Hinduism by Christians has a history, a history that still plays its part in everyday life of Indians (not just Hindus). Point in case, the article talks about the 'criminalization of homosexuality', but fails to mention that it was criminalized by British-raj. Indian judiciary just rejected to get involved into executive branch, a very sensible approach IMHO.
The article itself refers to such treatment by naming Edward Said, for example. But then swoops in with personal judgements, calling Rajiv Malhotra's essay as a right-wingist parody and trying to link everything with rise of business-friendly nationalist Modi.
This is to be expected. Economical rise of any non-western country has historically correlated with doom-and-gloom about it in articles in western media, whether it is liberal or conservative. Even now it is hard for me to read an article about China in The Economist. Just today I saw an article about Chinese government cracking down on sex-racket, and how it is fomenting unrest and civil disobedience among Chinese.
The article itself refers to such treatment by naming Edward Said, for example. But then swoops in with personal judgements, calling Rajiv Malhotra's essay as a right-wingist parody and trying to link everything with rise of business-friendly nationalist Modi.
This is to be expected. Economical rise of any non-western country has historically correlated with doom-and-gloom about it in articles in western media, whether it is liberal or conservative. Even now it is hard for me to read an article about China in The Economist. Just today I saw an article about Chinese government cracking down on sex-racket, and how it is fomenting unrest and civil disobedience among Chinese.
>What seems scholarly to you looks extremely offensive to most Hindus
Um... I am Hindu. I don't practice folk Hinduism too much but Hinduism and it's history are one of my areas of interest. I really want to discuss with some others who have read this book and find out what exactly put them off. Have you?
Um... I am Hindu. I don't practice folk Hinduism too much but Hinduism and it's history are one of my areas of interest. I really want to discuss with some others who have read this book and find out what exactly put them off. Have you?
I have read the book and its criticism. TL;DR: The book suffers from cherry-picking for telling a story. It ought not to be taken seriously as an endeavour in study of Hinduism. I mean, its in the title - An ALTERNATE History. Otherwise it is a fun read. (Imagine a book called - 'Nazism - An alternate history' based on Inglourious Basterds.)
The criticism comes from people who are taking the book seriously. :)
The criticism comes from people who are taking the book seriously. :)
Should that matter? Even if he finds something objectionable, it's not his business what others should think. Let others make up their own mind.
It definitely shouldn't matter, but I would still like to know what he finds objectionable. He's one of the smartest scholars in Indian politics and his opinions are always interesting, if somewhat controversial.
@cubancigar11
"And ultimately it should Hindus who get to decide the meaning of Hinduism."
Why? Cause I doubt they would agree. To say unless you are X then you can't comment on X is foolish.
Why? Cause I doubt they would agree. To say unless you are X then you can't comment on X is foolish.
If it is foolish to you, then so be it. To categorically ignore the power play implied by defining a section without any input from it (and ignore rest of the comment, I suppose, along with the book and its criticism) seems intelligent to you then so be it. I am deeply aware of my inability to explain what has already been explained by others, so I resign.
"Cause I doubt they would agree." That should tell the complexity of defining Hinduism and the amateurish level western 'Indologists' have achieved which they spread around, calling any criticism to their approach 'foolish'.
"Cause I doubt they would agree." That should tell the complexity of defining Hinduism and the amateurish level western 'Indologists' have achieved which they spread around, calling any criticism to their approach 'foolish'.
The book does not mention anything as foolish IMHO.
How accessible is the book to a layman?
I will certainly not recommend it as a first book on Hinduism. For that I would probably go with http://www.amazon.com/Philosophies-Religions-India-Yogi-Rama... . It's a short and concise read and the treatment is a good mix of outsider (the writer is originally a westerner) and insider (he also happens to be a hindu).
As a second book, The Hindus is pretty accessible if you're used to reading slightly technical books. Her style is good, and she's absorbed the Indian philosophical writing tradition of using far too many analogies :)
As a second book, The Hindus is pretty accessible if you're used to reading slightly technical books. Her style is good, and she's absorbed the Indian philosophical writing tradition of using far too many analogies :)
It's hard to know, really, what to make of the stuff in this article. On one hand, functioning society, business, and government requires a relatively uninhibited flow of information, and it is particularly dangerous when a government, which monopolizes force, also decides to restrict dialog about issues.
But on the other hand, the limits of free speech are ones that must be decided close to those affected. Brandenburg got off with calling for (and stating he wanted to be a part of!) genocide against African Americans at a KKK rally not because this speech contributed anything to the public discourse worth saving but because the US government had made a series of serious overreaches in prosecuting Communists. Since one couldn't draw a principled line between arguing for eventual genocide and arguing for eventual overthrow of the government, Brandenburg had to be set free.
In the end, I think, that communities have a right to make mistakes, and since free speech can't be unlimited (handing someone a gun and saying "I hope someone shoots so-and-so" isn't protected speech anywhere in the world), the peoples affected get to make this discussion.
One thing that bothers me though: there are a number of fields, like historical linguistics which are malaigned by some in India as colonial (and in fact historical Indo-European linguistics arose from the colonial experience historically) but are argued against as straw men (thinking that the Indo-European hypothesis means Europeans invading India, which it doesn't). I do have a concern that by moving towards a more insular culture in this regard, that it is harder and harder for Indian scholars to make their voices and perspectives heard internationally. It would be tragic if in the interest of protecting the Indian cultural experience, these sorts of things lead to the denial of an Indian perspective in these sorts of disciplines.
But on the other hand, the limits of free speech are ones that must be decided close to those affected. Brandenburg got off with calling for (and stating he wanted to be a part of!) genocide against African Americans at a KKK rally not because this speech contributed anything to the public discourse worth saving but because the US government had made a series of serious overreaches in prosecuting Communists. Since one couldn't draw a principled line between arguing for eventual genocide and arguing for eventual overthrow of the government, Brandenburg had to be set free.
In the end, I think, that communities have a right to make mistakes, and since free speech can't be unlimited (handing someone a gun and saying "I hope someone shoots so-and-so" isn't protected speech anywhere in the world), the peoples affected get to make this discussion.
One thing that bothers me though: there are a number of fields, like historical linguistics which are malaigned by some in India as colonial (and in fact historical Indo-European linguistics arose from the colonial experience historically) but are argued against as straw men (thinking that the Indo-European hypothesis means Europeans invading India, which it doesn't). I do have a concern that by moving towards a more insular culture in this regard, that it is harder and harder for Indian scholars to make their voices and perspectives heard internationally. It would be tragic if in the interest of protecting the Indian cultural experience, these sorts of things lead to the denial of an Indian perspective in these sorts of disciplines.
I've seen some crazy shit go down on CSPAN, but definitely nothing as crazy as senators pepper spraying each other.
In many countries, fist fights in parliament are not unheard of.
In a way, it's kind of a shame that we don't see this in the US Congress.
It really would get more Americans engaged in politics.
It really would get more Americans engaged in politics.
Even in the UK. Which is regarded as a civilized country. And even in Japan, too. Well, it confirms my views that politicians are usually just a bunch of monkeys in suits.
There was at least one beating with a cane related to a speech about US slavery that happened in the senate building, if not while the senate was in session.
Yes, the caning of Charles Sumner by Preston Brooks. It was because there was such a heated rift between the north and the south that representative Brooks thought it would be more fitting to discipline his opponent with a cane used to beat an unruly dog than to challenge him to a duel, as was the norm at that time. He beat Sumner repeatedly with the cane, then calmly walked away like a total gangsta - definitely one of the most memorable stories from my high school history class.
It's worth noting that not too long after that incident, there was a civil war...
It's worth noting that not too long after that incident, there was a civil war...
The South Korean congress seems to have a throwdown every month or so.
What you have to understand is India is in someways many little countries pushed together. Different languages a religions. So politicians play this up and do BS such as banning books.
It's a sad day when my country sacrifices freedom of speech, yet again, in response to a mediocre* book from a largely ignored author which would have faded into oblivion on its own.
* or worse - Read the Amazon reviews, specifically the ones by the author's fellow academics http://www.amazon.com/The-Hindus-An-Alternative-History/dp/1...
* or worse - Read the Amazon reviews, specifically the ones by the author's fellow academics http://www.amazon.com/The-Hindus-An-Alternative-History/dp/1...
The news from India these days is rarely cheery.. This sentence pretty much sums up my feeling about my country, these days..
Probably because your feeling is based on news?
The news from the earth these days is rarely cheery.. PRISM and Ukraine and ....
Sounds like you've been hanging out too much on /r/worldnews.
Don't let that distort your mental model of the country.
Don't let that distort your mental model of the country.
IMHO, It is Penguin's fault. There are religious extremists in every country. If you are going to release a book that does not agree to their view of the religion, they will complain. This matter should have settled in court. It is wrong to blame the country for Penguin taking of its book just because an organization asked it to.
Here is the report from New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/world/asia/indian-publishe...