We seem reluctant to understand one basic point. Free speech may sometimes be qualified by the need for protecting public order. But in India, public disorder is being fomented because people know they can get things banned. As the ‘P.Jagjivan Ram’ case recognised, the public order defence of banning works has itself become an incitement to public disorder. The more we give the impression that free speech can be abridged the more we will incite disorder.

There are other technical issues here. Are paragraphs in books now to be judged one by one rather than taking the whole context and antecedents of the author? Should judges suggest what on the face of it seems like a compromise, before they pronounce clearly on what our rights in the matter are? But the deeper issue is this. Think of what happened last week at Delhi University where the ABVP has created a ruckus about an essay by Ramanujan, a scholar who did more for Indian culture than all of the ABVP put together. The violence around this essay was disturbing, as was the complete obtuseness of people who attacked Ramanujan. Admittedly, asking something to be removed from the syllabus and asking for bans are different things. But the rank hypocrisy of the BJP leadership in a range of cases involving supposedly offensive speech, from the Laine case to Jodhaa Akbar, while defending freedom for Taslima Nasreen, was disturbing. Machiavelli warned against people who decide to be liberal rather than people who are liberal. In this instance, the BJP’s silence warrants that suspicion.

... contd.