The free speech row over Bloomsbury
The TLDR: Over the weekend, a poster advertising a book launch went viral. The book: ‘Delhi Riots 2020: The Untold Story’ written by three authors closely associated with the Hindu right. More incendiary: the list of guests of honour which included prominent rightwing names, including the infamous Kapil Mishra. Bloomsbury first denied knowledge of the event, and then withdrew the book—which has now sparked a ‘freedom of expression’ row. All of which deflected attention from the bigger question: why did Bloomsbury greenlight this book?
Tell me about this book
‘Delhi Riots 2020: The Untold Story’ is authored by three women: Supreme Court Advocate Monika Arora and two Delhi University professors Sonali Chitalkar and Prerna Malhotra.
The report: The book is based on a ‘fact-finding report’ on the violence in Delhi in February that left at least 53 dead—majority of whom have been identified as Muslim. No one has read the book, but this is what the report concluded:
“The Delhi Riots, 2020 were pre-planned. There are evidences of a ‘Left-Jihadi model of revolution’ that has been executed in Delhi and is sought to be replicated at other places… The Delhi riots are not genocide or a pogrom targeted at any community.”
The report reframed the violence as “anti-Hindu riots,” and claimed that it was “pre-planned in four phases” by “urban naxal jihadi organisers”—who used women protesters in Shaheen Bagh and elsewhere as cover. It also calls for an intelligence investigation into “links across the border.”
The book: From what we can gather, the book appears to be a faithful reproduction of the report. See: the description offered by one of the authors to OpIndia.
Point to note: The report was covered at length by the RSS publication The Organiser.
And who are these authors?
All three women are part of the Group of Intellectuals and Academicians (GIA)—which is headed by one of them, Monika Arora.
The GIA: describes itself as “a group of empowered Indian women, intellectuals & academicians working together to elevate the position of women in our society, committed to work in the service of the nation.” Most of its activities are devoted to pet rightwing causes: Kashmir, ‘anti-national’ activities on student campuses etc.
Fact-finding mission: One of the favourite activities of the GIA is to issue reports that confirm rightwing narratives.
- A previous report raised questions about the Kathua rape case (explained here)—and insinuated that it was deliberately mishandled by an all-Kashmiri investigation team. But the team never spoke to the victim’s family, and ignored most of the medical evidence.
- In October 2019—soon after the suspension of Article 370 in Kashmir—two of the authors were part of another observer team. They also issued a “report from Ground Zero” claiming that locals were “jubilant” and looking “towards the Centre to reach out to them with real changes… Any group or set of persons nationally or internationally trying to derail this process should not be allowed to betray the Kashmiris.”
So Bloomsbury pulped the book because they’re rightwing?
Well, the answer depends on who you ask.
The Bloomsbury defence: This is what their statement claimed:
“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. Bloomsbury India strongly supports freedom of speech but also has a deep sense of responsibility towards society.” (emphasis added)
Points to note: The company a) affirmed the book as a “factual report,” despite the use of “purportedly” to save itself; b) pointed to the event as the reason for its decision, not the book itself.
The authors' response: The statement did little to help Bloomsbury’s cause, especially once the authors released their email to the company—sent soon after it announced its decision. The email claims:
“You called us on phone and informed us that you are withdrawing as a publisher from the aforesaid book due to pressure from Bloomsbury UK which in turn was pressurised by the social media campaign etc.”
More importantly, the email strips Bloomsbury of all deniability:
“You Bloomsbury finalised the draft of the aforesaid book. Authors and you the publisher mutually suggested many changes and all were incorporated in the final draft which the authors finalised and as a publisher you approved...
You Bloomsbury went ahead with the publications, published the books, and gave us 100 hard copies…. The e-card of the book launch was put in public domain. You had full knowledge of this book launch and the guest list. You never objected orally or in writing regarding the guest list or the launch event.”
Point to note: Whatever the merits of Bloomsbury’s decision, it is clear that the book itself—if not the event—was never the problem.
So this is a freedom of expression issue?
The letter of the law: Not in the legal sense. As expert Gautam Bhatia explains, a government ban is a more serious violation of free speech rights than a similar action by a private entity. Bloomsbury’s actions can be seen as detrimental only if it has a monopoly over the industry, and if the authors do not have other outlets for publication. None of which is true since the book already has a new publisher: Garuda Publishers.
The only possible legal action against Bloomsbury would focus on its contract with authors—who have already threatened to sue.
Point to note: Penguin did something very similar when it decided to pulp all copies of Wendy Doniger’s ‘The Hindus’—under pressure from rightwing groups. At the time, The Hoot pointed out: “For all the hosannas we sing about a publisher’s moral duty towards freedom of expression, it is a fact that Penguin India, at the end of the day, is a private, corporate entity and no right to protect free speech can be enforced against it.”
Spirit of democracy: Legal or not, many claim that pulping the book reveals the growing intolerance of a liberal ‘cancel culture’. The rhetoric on the Hindu right—especially its authors and their supporters—is expectedly OTT. Even centre-right authors like Sanjeev Sanyal have boycotted their own publisher:
“I have not read the book in question & have no idea if it is good or bad. However, this is obviously not a quality control problem but about censorship. I commit to never publish a book with Bloomsbury India.”
As for the liberals: Some like director Anurag Kashyap also joined the ‘free speech’ chorus. Others insisted that blatant falsehoods that promote hatred are not protected. And some pointed to Karl Popper's ‘Paradox of Tolerance’. To sum up: moral pressure to withdraw a book is not the same as calling for an outright ban so FoE claims don’t apply.
The bottomline: There is and must be room in a democracy for the publication of propaganda—however, hateful. See: ‘Mein Kampf’. But there is no excuse for passing off misinformation as a “factual report.” And the blame lies entirely on Bloomsbury which enabled the latter. And the decision to first publish and then withdraw the book reveals zero respect for either freedom of speech or any “deep sense of responsibility towards society.”
Reading list
The Wire has a good fact-check of GIA’s fact-finding report. The Print covered the GIA and decoded its report on Kathua. You can also check out GIA’s website. The Telegraph reports on pushback from the authors. For a clear-eyed view of the debate, read Somak Ghoshal in Mint and Vakasha Sachdev in Quint who flags the lack of fact-checking of a ‘factual report’. Sudhanva Deshpande offers a liberal publisher’s point of view. For a contrary view, read Rama Lakshmi in The Print who takes liberals to task for scoring a self-goal.