Sunday, August 17, 2025

INDIA


When Police Comes Visiting Bookshops!


Subhash Gatade 




How saffron forces (BJP HINDUTVA) weaponise ignorance and stigmatise intellectauls.

Representational Image. Image Courtesy: Pexels

Silence gives consent

[Qui tacet consentire videtur - In Latin]

There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest ..” –

Elie Wiesel                                                                                                                                                                                    

[Elie Wiesel (1928-2016) was a Romanian Jewish writer and activist best known for his memoir, Night, which captures Wiesel’s experiences of the Holocaust]

"Intellectual terrorists" are "more dangerous than cross-border terrorists"

These were the pearls of wisdom of the then Human Resource Development minister, who was addressing a conference of the Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha (December 19, 2001).  Murli Manohar Joshi had even asked the 'nationalist youths' to counter 'both types of terrorism effectively.'

Hardly a week had passed since the terrorist attack on Parliament and the nation was in a deep sense of shock and mourning and in this ambience these remarks by Joshi had caused a tremendous uproar. These were also construed as another feverish attempt to deflect the attention of the people from the inept security at Parliament which had led to this brazen intrusion.

It would be 25 years soon since these objectionable remarks were targeted at India's topmost historians, scholars, public intellectuals, even provoking followers to deal with them effectively' like the way they deal with 'cross border terrorists.'

Later commenting on these controversial remarks, the legendary historian Romila Thapar had famously said: 'And then the government fell. But the books continued!"

Time for Thought Police?

As everybody can see, there is a sea change in the situation since the past more than a decade in this part of South Asia.

As they say, much water has passed the Ganges, Jamunas, the Jhelums, Chinabs and all the rivers of the sub-continent.

The target of attacks has now become broader, more expansive and more unpredictable. It is no longer restricted to 'leftist' 'progressive' writers, historians.

The recent move to ban 25 books on Kashmir history at a single go 'for propagating false narrative and secessionism' -- written by a spectrum of national and international scholars -- which even do not share a similar world view, books which had been in circulation for years, even decades together is a case in point.

This list of authors includes, A G Noorani, Arundhati Roy, Anuradha Bhasin, Sumanta Bose, Victoria Schofield and several others. What is shocking that these books are based on massive research undertaken to carry conviction, have been published by internationally known publishers and have been vetted few times by the legal advisers of these publications to avoid any controversy and have till date not faced any ban or controversy. 

Anuradha Bhasin, managing editor of Kashmir Times, who has authored the book Kashmir - A Dismantled State (Dec 2021), which tells the story of story of revocation of Article 370, writes in an article how her book was vetted thrice by the publisher before publishing it. (Her book also stands banned with this order)

The notification issued by the Home Department is chilling, it not only claims that this literature 'propagate false narrative and secessionism in Jammu and Kashmir' but also says that it deeply 'impact the psyche of youth by promoting (a) culture of grievance, victimhood and terrorist heroism' and how they have '[c]ontributed to the radicalization of youth in J&K include distortion of historical facts, glorification of terrorists, vilification of security forces, religious radicalization, promotion of alienation, pathway to violence and terrorism etc.' These 25 books have been '“found to excite secessionism and endangering sovereignty and integrity of India, thereby, attracting the provisions of Sections 152, 196 & 197 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023.'

This blanket banning of books without even bothering to follow any established procedure is scary, it demonstrates government’s utter contempt for the constitutional right of citizens to freedom of speech and expression and a planned and deliberate attempt to erase memory of the Kashmiri people.

It seems to be a conscious attempt to put a ban on all sorts of critical thinking in Kashmir and about Kashmir, stopping all critical discussions and debates on the way what this ruling dispensation at the Centre had claimed at the time of revocation of article and what is the reality today.

The sole aim of this banning is presenting and packaging ruling dispensation's narrative about Kashmir, invisibilise, silence all critical voices and 'live merrily hereafter'

The New Normal?

This move to suddenly ban books indiscriminately exposes the government's much tommed-tommed claim that situation in Kashmir is 'normal'.

Nothing could be more ironic to demonstrate that around the sixth anniversary of the abrogation of Article 370, which was done to ' correct a historical wrong' or open the floodgates of development to the region, the government decided to ban books.

A government which could not even protect the lives of tourists from all over the country at Pahalgam (April 2025) because of its inept handling of security, feels that with banning books it can prove its 'hardline image' once again.

The timing of this move of banning books is worth emphasising.

The valley's first national book festival is being organised in Srinagar in mid-August, set against the picturesque Dal Lake, (August 17-25, 2025) where apart from National Book Trust, Indi  or National Council for Promotion of Urdu Language, around 40 publications from rest of India are participating.

The message is clear that the ruling dispensation even wants to decide what people should read, what people should remember, as a British writer of Kashmiri origin said in an interview, such banning of books is an attempt to 'arrest thinking'

It is abundantly clear that with its firm grip on the levers of power at the Centre and many states its attempts to package and present a singular, homogenised version of history and silence all critical voices which present the other side of history, it is exposing its own fear of knowledge and truth., how it is 'scared of words challenging its lies' .

It is a multipronged attempt to provide legitimacy to its own version of the world, which involves appointing its own people, who are close to the Sangh's very own world view on key posts, filling new vacanices lying in various academic and research institutions with people who are either close to its world view or are pragmatic enough to toe the official line and also attacking every established vision of the world and India which is not conducive to its own world view, making arbitrary changes in academic courses without any explanation and discussion and also presenting its own version of things as the 'history'

Why Forfeiture Notification is Illegal and Unconstitutional?

The detailed statement issued by PUCL explains why this banning is 'illegal and unconstitutional'. It also underlines the many nuances of the ban and its implications for the people of Kashmir but rest of India as well.

One, according to the statement a constitutional democracy is based on the fact that dissenting opinions exist and should be respected. and the state government should appreciate that there may be viewpoints with which it disagrees , but it should learn to respect dissenting opinions

Two, it questions this omnibus forfeiture order of 25 books, without any specific reference to the content of any of the books, and says  prima facie it appears that the exercise of the power of forfeiture is not a justified exercise of power under Section 98 of the BNSS and will not come within the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

Thirdly, it refers to the Supreme Court's decision where it had upheld the Bombay High Court order striking down the forfeiture of the book, ‘Shivaji – Hindu King in Islamic India’ by James Laine [`State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Sangharaj Damodar Rupawate’ (2010)] and shares key features of the decision

“Undoubtedly, the power to forfeit a newspaper, book or document is a drastic power inasmuch as it not only has a direct impact upon the due exercise of a cherished right of freedom of speech and expression as envisaged in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, it also clothes a police officer to seize the infringing copies of the book, document or newspaper and to search places where they are reasonably suspected to be found, again impinging upon the right of privacy. Therefore, the provision has to be construed strictly and exercise of power under it has to be in the manner and according to the procedure laid down therein”.

It had further elaborated how in this case the Court also held that the grounds for forfeiture must be based upon reading of the whole book and ‘the State cannot extract stray sentences of portions of the book and come to a finding that the said book as a whole ought to be forfeited’. The government extracting sentences from the book to makes its case for forfeiture was deemed insufficient within the understanding of the law, by the SC.

It does not need underlining this blanket ban the state government exhibits its total contempt for the freedom of speech and expression and also their egregious hubris (arrogance) as it has not even bothered to even seek to justify how, why and on what basis, each of the 25 books should be forfeited. 

No doubt, this banning of 25 books has received widespread condemnation from thinking people from rest of Indian as well as from thinking people from rest of the world but perhaps the dangerous implications of this order have not been properly understood, appreciated in rest of India. A mere perusal of the notification exposes the drastic nature of the censorship it imposes on people in India

The statement further adds how with this order,

1. The police are empowered to seize all copies of these 25 books after searching all locations.

2. The notification is marked to the Director Archives, Archaeology, and Museum and the  Director of Libraries, among others, indicating that these published literature on Kashmir will disappear from publicly accessible facilities. Even homes are not exempt from this power of search, seizure and forfeiture.

3. A plain reading of the provision indicates the permissibility of this notification being enforced throughout the country, with the J&K police approaching jurisdictional magistrates in other states for warrants to search and seize these 25 books from bookstores around the country!

It is not difficult to imagine how this will have a chilling effect on the development of critical inquiry into the situation in Kashmir.

Any sane and democracy-loving person would concur with that PUCL has demanded:

That this forfeiture notice of 25 books be immediately withdrawn by the Jammu and Kashmir government.

Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita be repealed as it is nothing other than the old sedition law in a new decolonial disguise.

Ideas Cannot Be Vanquished

Analysts have rightly noted how the "[T]he book ban is part of a wider campaign since the revocation of Article 370 in August 2019—a campaign aimed at dismantling Kashmir’s autonomy and identity'

How media has being gagged , journalists have been arrested Journalists arrested, newspaper offices raided, critical reporting silenced; how a digital censorship is enforced marked by frequent internet shutdowns, social media restrictions;  how cultural erasure is being implemented by renaming landmarks, rewriting textbooks, and now, banning books.'

It is part of history book bans carry a long and dark lineage.

One can recall the situation in Nazi Germany when works by Jewish, socialist, and liberal authors were burnt to “protect” the nation. (1933)

Perhaps it would also be opportune to recall what Helen Keller wrote in an open letter to German Students then

“You may burn my books and the books of the best minds in Europe, but the ideas those books contain have passed through millions of channels and will go on,

Keller’How I Became a Socialist was on the list of books to be burned. “History has taught you nothing if you think you can kill ideas. Tyrants have tried to do that often before, and the ideas have risen up in their might and destroyed them,

Or how in Turkiye,

'[a]fter the failed 2016 coup, thousands of books were removed from libraries, some for containing the word “Pennsylvania” — a reference to exiled cleric Fethullah Gülen. The stated aim was security; the real goal was silencing dissent.

Will books—repositories of knowledge that stimulate people to think—survive this onslaught?

Read Also: https://www.newsclick.in/History-Conservative-Strikes-Books

Perhaps the last scene in the 1966 film, Fahrenheit 451, provides an answer. The only English movie directed by renowned French director Francois Truffaut, was based on a dystopian novel by American author Ray Bradbury, which depicts a future in which books are outlawed and burned. Fahrenheit 451 is supposedly the temperature at which books burn. It was written during the growing anti-communist hysteria in the United States after the Second World War, when McCarthy was leading a witch-hunt against communists and other anti-establishment people.

In the film, the central character is a fireman named Guy Montag, who destroys properties considered illegal, including books escapes to the countryside where he meets the Book People, a large community of ordinary citizens who have memorised texts to keep them alive.

One day, Guy Montag also selects a book to memorise and becomes one of the Book People.

The writer is an independent journalist. The views are personal.

 

Ivory Coast: Thousands Protest Slide Into Dictatorship


Pavan Kulkarni 



Taking power in 2011 with the help of French military intervention, 83-year-old President Alassane Ouattara is attempting to grab office for a fourth term by barring both main contestants from running for the upcoming election in October.


Mass protest in the Ivory Coast. Photo: PCRCI

France is “closely watching over the upcoming elections in October in its former colony, to ensure its protégé, President Alassane Ouattara, does not lose”, said Achy Ekissi, General Secretary of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Ivory Coast (PCRCI).

Taking power in 2011 with the help of French military intervention, 83-year-old Ouattara is attempting to grab office for a fourth term by barring both main contestants from running for the upcoming election in October.

While “half-heartedly asking Ouattara to step down”, France is “in reality, supporting his dictatorial drift because they have not yet found another pawn to replace him,” he told Peoples Dispatch.

Protesting against a fourth term for Ouattara, tens of thousands took to the streets in the capital, Abidjan, on Saturday, August 9, demanding that his opponents, Laurent Gbagbo and Tidjane Thiam, be allowed to contest.

Gbagbo, the former president of the country, with socialist and pan-Africanist inclinations, was bombed out of office by the French military in 2011 to bring Ouattara to power.

He is arguably the most “popular” of Ouattara’s rivals. However, his popularity, mainly in the working class, does not translate into votes because large sections are not registered on the electoral rolls, explained Ekissi.

In terms of voter consolidation, Thiam, former CEO of the Swiss bank Credit Suisse, is a greater threat to Ouattara. Both “share the same social base of the upper strata of civil servants, businessmen, wealthy and middle peasants, traders, artisans, and transport operators,” with “strong ties with Western imperialist powers,” Ekissi added. Thiam took over the leadership of the Democratic Party of Ivory Coast – African Democratic Rally (PDCI-RDA) in 2023.

A history of shifting alliances

He is the political successor to Henri Konan Bédié. A former ally of Ouattara, Bédié became his main opponent after 2018, after Ouattara’s refusal to honor a power-sharing agreement by ceding the presidency to PDCI in 2020, in exchange for its support in the 2010 and 2015 elections.

The PDCI-RDA is Ivory Coast’s oldest political party, which ruled as a one-party, France-backed dictatorship under President Felix Houphouet-Boigny from the time of formal independence in 1960 until he died in 1993. During the last three years of this dictatorship, Ouattara had served Boigny as the Prime Minister.

However, Ouattara was marginalized in the succession race within the ruling party after President Boigny’s death. Henri Bédié, the then president of the National Assembly, took the reins. Ahead of the first multi-party election in 1995, Bédié amended the constitution to mandate that both parents of candidates must be Ivorians and the candidate must have stayed in the country for more than five years.

By thus disqualifying both Gbagbo, who had spent decades underground resisting Boigny’s dictatorship, and his former PM, Ouattara, Bédié won the election with 96% votes.

Ouattara went on to serve the IMF as its Deputy Managing Director from 1994 to 1999. Late that year, army chief Robert Guéï took power in a coup, after which deposed Bédié fled to France. Returning to Ivory Coast, Ouattara took reins of the Rally of the Republicans (RDR), a splinter group composed of his supporters who had broken away from the PDCI.

However, the law prohibiting him from contesting was still in place, disqualifying him from the 2000 election for the same reasons as in 1995. Gbagbo defeated Guéï in the election. Although initially reluctant to cede power, Guéï was forced to flee the country in the face of mass pro-democracy protests.

France fueled the civil war against Gbagbo’s presidency

Although President Gbagbo was at the time “hesitant in directly combating French interests”, France would not allow a socialist to lead “its most important French neo-colony in West Africa”, especially after the Socialist Party-led coalition that was ruling France lost power in 2002, Ekissi explained.

Taking advantage of the discontent that had been brewing in the Muslim north, which had for decades felt marginalized by the Christian south, the new French government helped Ouattara organize an armed rebellion in 2002.

The French troops moved in, positioning themselves along the center, dividing the country into north and south, ostensibly to keep the two sides from fighting. In reality, however, it was helping Ouattara’s rebels from the north while cracking down on the civilian protests against French deployment in the south by Gbagbo’s supporters.

Amid the civil war, the 2005 election was postponed. That year, PDCI’s Bédié, RDR’s Ouattara, Guéï’s party, the Union for Democracy and Peace in (UDPCI), then led by Albert Toikeusse, and another smaller party, met in Paris. Claiming to be political descendants of Boigny, they formed the coalition, Rassemblement des Houphouëtistes pour la Démocratie et la Paix (RHDP).

This coalition, including Bédié, backed the candidacy of Ouattara in the 2010 election, putting up a united front against Gbagbo. The election was “manipulated by France” in Ouattara’s favor, Ekissi maintains.

The election commission’s president fled from his office to Ouattara’s base at a hotel in Abidjan guarded by French troops, before announcing, after the deadline, that Ouattara had won with 54.1% of the vote. Nevertheless, the Constitutional Council reversed his verdict in favor of Gbagbo, citing irregularities in the results submitted by the commission.

Within months after Gbagbo took the oath, French troops killed thousands of soldiers and protesting civilians defending him, before bombing the Presidential Palace in April 2011, helping Ouattara’s forces capture Gbagbo, who was then tried in the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Almost eight years after his arrest, he was acquitted in 2019. Prosecutors’ appeal against his acquittal did not succeed. The ICC upheld his acquittal in 2021, following which he returned to Ivory Coast.

In the meantime, Ouattara had won the 2015 election without any major opponent. Bédié did not contest. His PDCI supported Ouattara, on the basis of an understanding that in 2020, after Ouattara finished serving two terms, his RDR would support a PDCI candidate.

However, Ouattara did not intend to keep this promise. By 2018, when he pushed the electoral alliance RHDP into a unified political party, the PDCI refused to dissolve, broke the coalition, and joined the opposition.

In the 2020 election, when Gbagbo was still under trial, Bédié was the main opposition leader. However, he boycotted the election, calling Ouattara’s candidacy illegal because constitutional amendments in 2016 had limited the presidential terms to two, the first ending in 2015 and the second in 2020.

Maintaining that the two-term limit started afresh after the amendment – meaning 2020 would be the first of his limited two terms – Ouattara contested and won, with no major opponent challenging him.

PDCI’s shift to opposition

State repression intensified. Earlier reserved for the sovereigntist and anti-imperialist opposition parties, it was now used to target the PDCI also, “even though it belongs to the same camp” as the ruling party in terms of class composition and relation to neocolonialism, Akissi explained.

France goes along with this repression because it has “not yet found another pawn of at least equivalent stature to Ouattara”, he adds. It regards Ouattara as the solid “pillar” of its colonialism in West Africa, which it is not prepared to risk losing.

Its puppet regimes have already been ousted in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger since 2020. “Senegal is uncertain,” under the new government formed after the election in 2024. “Benin is wavering under a strong sovereigntist opposition. Guinea is unstable. Ghana and Nigeria are not firmly in their camp. Togo and Guinea-Bissau are economically weak,” he added. Under the circumstances, “a setback” to Ouattara’s power “would be a major loss” for its neocolonial power, he reasons.

“These contradictions have led the PDCI to move closer to the sovereigntist opposition, without adopting the sovereigntist ideological line,” Akissi explained. Against this backdrop, Tidjane Thiam, who had remained in exile, fleeing the country after the 1999 coup, returned to Ivory Coast in 2022. After Bédié’s death in mid-2023, he took charge of PDCI.

Thiam’s PDCI and Gbagbo’s African Peoples’ Party – Ivory Coast (PPA-CI) had together called for the protest against Ouattara on August 9, in which the Communist Party also took part, alongside unions and other civil society groups that are not a part of either’s coalition.




Members of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Ivory Coast (PCRCI). Photo: PCRCI


“Contradictions between Thiam and Gbagbo have been set aside for the moment. But as soon as the ban against their participation in the 2025 election is lifted, this alliance will come to an end,” Akissi said.

“It should be noted that this opposition is very fragmented. The protest on August 9 was the first united action” against “Ouattara’s drift toward dictatorship. But on the question of governing, there is not yet any agreement between the political coalition led by Thiam and the sovereigntists.”

Ouattara’s contested legacy

Reporting on this protest, several Western media outlets like Bloomberg made it a point to mention that Ouattara had delivered an average of 6% growth during his decade-and-a-half rule so far.

“But the wealth produced by the workers did not benefit them,” maintains Atse Désiré, deputy secretary general of the General Confederation of Workers of Ivory Coast (CGT-CI), which also took part in the protests.

“Apart from a few meager gains concerning salary supplements, the workers have gained nothing since Ouattara took power, despite all the struggles – most of which were repressed with dismissals, arrests, salary suspensions, and deductions,” he told Peoples Dispatch.

Even the “meager gains” are being fast eaten away by the cost of living soaring against stagnant wages, Désiré adds.

Although there has been considerable infrastructural improvement in terms of roads, electricity, and water supply, education, and healthcare, these resulted from the foreign investments that came for post-civil war reconstruction “after imperialists destroyed Ivory Coast in 2011 and installed Ouattara”, Akissi said.

The cost was enormous in terms of debt accumulation, “rising from 2,000 billion FCFA to over 30,000 billion,” he added. “It should be noted that the investment in infrastructure amounts to only 60% of the loans. The rest was embezzled by those in power.”

It is in the backdrop of the resulting discontent growing among the popular classes that the left and the trade unions participating in the protest on August 9 also called for wage hikes and remunerative prices for farmers, and tax relief for small enterprises and the informal sector.

Courtesy: Peoples Dispatch