Censorship may not be all bad. Problem is, it doesn’t work. True, all minds are not cultivated to the same degree, trained sufficiently or mature enough to approach with suspicion, question before absorbing the import of what is being said, or to suspect intrigue. But you cannot even censor your own kids: they will find ways to use the words, read the literature, and do the acts you prohibit. So, where does that leave larger entities that try to clamp down on free speech, thought and expression?
Western systems, since millennia, appear to have considered it prudent to censor thought: Plato, in Republic, goes into some detail about what young minds should be exposed to, and Rousseau’s Emile is premised on this. But in India, what has come to be called ‘Hindu’ philosophy preferred healthy debate to censorship, which is one of the reasons it keeps giving rise to breakaway cults and heterodoxies that become strong, individual congregations in their own right.
Nyaya, a precursor of Western Logic, for instance, is among the earliest systematised schools of thought rooted in the ‘Hindu’ philosophy. It predates the Christian era and was the fountainhead of several treatises on Tarka, which may be loosely translated as reflective analysis or argument. Tarka, an important scholarly enterprise of ancient India, which was honed as both a science and an art, was instrumental in establishing the claims of one philosopher or philosophy over another, often in an assembly of scholars, laypersons and aristocrats. The written word was also used to powerful effect at transformational change by following the norms of scientific debate.
Contemporary Indian polity – by which term I mean the nation and its various organs from government to media to the public at large – would do well to reclaim this ancient Indian tradition of logical reasoning and healthy debate to counter what are perceived as deviant opinions rather than try to cow down discomfiting strains of thought with censorship. Rather than ban a book, film or play, write a book, produce a film or stage a play with an alternative viewpoint. Don’t take the easy way out and just try to wish away what you don’t like or want with a blanket ban. The atheist streams have had their space in Indian society: from Carvaka-s of ancient India to Dravidian movements of contemporary times. No one banned them. They did not gather steam or drifted away from their moorings because the larger sections of Indian society found greater meaning in non-atheist thought. If you want your view to prevail, you will take the trouble to give it the contours of reason and substance.