The Baroda case encapsulates many of the threats to our liberty. There is a direct line that runs from the assault on the autonomy of universities, and the self-abdication by the academic community, to the attack on Chandramohan’s freedoms. The Supreme Court has failed to clarify the principles behind this cherished right. As a society we are too ready to give in to those who invoke community sentiment. As politicians we are too partisan to be credible defenders of free speech. As citizens we are too narcissistic to think only of offences to our community, not about what happens when we succumb to everyone’s sensitivities. From a religious point of view, I find it to be the height of impiety and hubris to suppose that we humans are in the business of protecting our gods rather than the other way round. It betrays a fragility of belief and a crisis of confidence that genuinely religious people ought to find offensive. Our social contract is that we honour the dignity of each individual by giving them freedom of expression, that we value dissent and new forms of articulation even if some of it runs the risk of being silly. But make no mistake about it. The Talibanisation of India is under way. What else do you call a republic where artist after artist is feeling insecure?

The writer is president, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi