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.
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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
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.<p>* or worse - Read the Amazon reviews, specifically the ones by the author's fellow academics <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Hindus-An-Alternative-History/dp/1594202052" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/The-Hindus-An-Alternative-History/dp/1...</a>
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 <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/world/asia/indian-publisher-withdraws-book-stoking-fears-of-nationalist-pressure.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/world/asia/indian-publishe...</a>