In India, Self-Censorship Is Becoming the Price of Being Published

At the fag end of the last decade, when I was putting together the research for my PhD thesis, I had the opportunity of interviewing many publishing professionals to ask an important question. That question is now a subject of public debate: Are individuals and organisations impacted by their own or their organisation’s political ideology when accepting or rejecting manuscripts for publication?

The reason for choosing this topic for my thesis was an incident that rattled me so much that I wanted to quit my publishing job. As the person in charge of commissioning non-fiction books, I had pitched a book for approval which had been turned down citing a negative legal review.

The author was a prominent Muslim stringer and his book was about the increased hatred and violence against Muslims in India after the Modi regime came into power. The legal review didn’t fact-check the manuscript; it suggested that such a book should not be taken on for publishing. I argued with my boss but soon realised that it is a decision that will not change no matter the merit of my arguments.

Trade publishers have for long censored themselves and their authors – the reasons range from offending a section of the society to offending the party in power to offending high profile persons who may sue for libel. Whether the claims made are factual is usually secondary because the primary objective is not to get into trouble.

So self-censorship in publishing is not new; it’s just more prevalent now, with double-engine governments ensuring no dissident goes unpunished. Arguably it makes more sense for big publishers to stay safe and publish hagiographies of the prime minister rather than dissenting voices.

It was little surprise when, in 2014, a hundred days after Narendra Modi assumed the prime ministership, 180 books were published about him.

Also read: Penguin India Denies Being the Publisher of Sonia Gandhi's Memoir After Reports of Editorial Fallout

Most opinion pieces that have surfaced after the not-so-shocking news that Penguin Random House refused to publish Sonia Gandhi’s autobiography have alluded to self-censorship as the reason for this decision. While it may be true, in my thesis, which revolved around the impact of individual political ideology on organisational behaviour and culture, I explored whether the publishing decisions of any publishing house depended on the political ideologies of individuals in charge of such decisions.

What largely came out of that research was that indie (independent) publishers usually wear their ideology on their sleeve and will stick their neck out to publish anything that meets their core values. The same could not be said for the larger  (read multinational) publishers, who seemed to have very low appetite for risk.

Make no mistake, indie publishers also take their job seriously and ensure fact-checking but they are often looking for reasons to publish voices that must be heard. As long as authors can substantiate their views, they will find indie publishers on both sides of the political spectrum willing to publish them.

The dichotomy is that while real stories struggle to come out, pure propaganda and vitriol are getting freely published because, in the current political climate, there are authors who can assure publishers of good sales and the patronage of those in power.

What we are seeing now is self-censorship by authors themselves. Authors have realised the need to withhold their true opinions even if they can be substantiated by facts, in order to seem palatable to a larger audience. One of the reasons, one would think, self-help books are everyone’s favourite genre now. After all, both the conservatives and liberals want to be physically and mentally healthy. The added advantage is that the genre does not ruffle any feathers.

Also read: Copy-Paste Denials Won't Fix the Indian Issues Global Indices Are Highlighting

For serious writers, it would seem that you can either make money or make a real difference. And sometimes the allure of money and fame outweighs the main reasons one decided to write, which is usually to tell a story – a real, lived, urgent one. The pure pursuit of money is seldom utilitarian. If being neutral and apolitical gets authors more readers, then why not?

But what exactly is being ‘apolitical’? Is it a certain censorship of thought? Thought censorship that says, “I don’t want to get into this discussion” because it is going to be useless. In fact, better to not have thoughts that can be put me out of a job or, much worse, put me in jail. This thought censorship is also being achieved through an overload of information. It makes people baffled about what to believe and what not to believe.

As Aldous Huxley warned us in 1932 through his book Brave New World, there will come a time when society will be controlled by an overload of information that incapacitates our thinking. The fact that any state has systematically achieved this is remarkable.

Remember, we are in a country where, in 1968, the Bombay high court ruled in favour of Gopal Godse, lifting the nearly two-decade ban on the court documents of Nathuram Godse, which led to the successful publication of Why I Assassinated Mahatma Gandhi. The book is still selling while we discuss whether Sonia Gandhi’s autobiography, Belonging, should be published or not.

We are a few steps behind in our debate if we are still discussing self-censorship by publishers when self-censorship of authors is almost complete and thought censorship of citizens is fast moving to the next level – censorship of engagement. As a society, we don’t want to engage in issues that can get us into trouble.

Also read: ‘The Attempt Is to Erase Everything’: Three Women J&K Authors on the Ban on Their Books

Many parents asked their college-going adult children to not be seen around the CJP protest site while universities took out notices informing students of the repercussions of engaging with the protest.

Noted political scientist Zoya Hasan’s talk at Sardar Patel Vidyalaya in Delhi titled “Why Pluralism Matters” was cancelled, after it was claimed that threats had been issued against it. One might wonder what is wrong in talking about pluralism, a constitutional framework? Pluralism demands heterogeneity of thought, it demands engaging with different perspectives, and that is why some people feel that it needs to be censored.

Given the different levels of censorship that currently exist in India, what can authors and publishers do? As an author, you don’t need to have Sonia Gandhi’s clout to say no to changes you don’t agree with, whether it comes in the garb of legal mandate or the promise of a larger market. If a publisher wants you to change your voice, then switch to another publisher who respects your story.

There are way too many publishing houses in India, and your work will see the light of day. Publishers should remember that the real voices will come out despite the obstacles and it’s up to you to choose which side of history you want to be on. Probably, when in doubt, remind yourselves of what Evelyn Hall said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Throttling some voices and amplifying others for short-term gains is short-lived and throttling a famous voice integral to India’s present and past is the opposite of everything publishing stands for. Sorry, you just failed the ‘belongingness’ test.

Manisha Mathews is an educator, author and a former publishing professional based in Delhi.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.