[sarfaraz]

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.

[r0h1n]

No, irony does not abound.

No court or executive or politician or big business intervened to stop Swamy from teaching at Harvard. Instead, its faculty voted [0] to remove his course after he wrote this hateful diatribe [1].

[0] http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/12/12/swamy-racism-di...

[1] https://janamejayan.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/how-to-wipe-out...

Edit: corrected minor typo

[cshenoy]

Harvard is a private institution. The US government does not (and cannot) control the actions of Harvard. The first amendment protects our rights to say what we like but that guarantee does not extend to your place of employment. There is no irony or double standard in that.

[xmonkee]

Penguin India is also a private institution. The book isn't banned, simply withdrawn by Penguin for what are likely commercial reasons.

[protomyth]

"what are likely commercial reasons"

Well, yes, the probability that you will get sued into oblivion because the system of laws doesn't offer free speech protections could be seen as "commercial reasons". The article states as much.

A private institution censoring its own is very different than an outside entity forcing censorship via threats of lawsuits.

[einhverfr]

> A private institution censoring its own is very different than an outside entity forcing censorship via threats of lawsuits.

But the lawsuit here is private also though right? How do you separate an incorporated entity from a community? I don't know that this can be reasonably done.

[protomyth]

There is a big difference between what standards you hold yourself to and being imposed upon by an outside entity. Its one thing to realize your wrong and correct, that happens all the time with outside critics. Its another thing to have the outside critics use a broken law system to force you to change against your will.

"How do you separate an incorporated entity from a community?"

An incorporated entity is still a group of people and you shouldn't have to give up your speech rights to get liability protection. So, my answer is the same for a blog as a publisher. You either believe you were right or come to see you might have been wrong. If you believe you are right, but the lack of protection under the law allows others to crush you, then something is seriously wrong.

I think you're mixing the meaning of "private". A lawsuit is a part of the public law system.

[einhverfr]

> There is a big difference between what standards you hold yourself to and being imposed upon by an outside entity.

And which of these is a local community? I would argue that the local community, generally has far less power over individuals than their employers and therefore such restrictions are likely to be far less intrusive.

For example, if you are a salaried employee and your employer fires you for speech you make on, say, a political cause that goes against your employer's interests, that's quite possible and if that's ok, that is far more threatening IMO to free speech generally than allowing lawsuits in court over defamation. If it is solely an employer's prerogative, then this means it is something that the wealthy upper classes can hold unilaterally over everyone else, without any political constraints.

[venomsnake]

Self censorship is much worse than state imposed one IMO. The later can be formed, the former creates meek and obedient societies.

[protomyth]

"formed" did you mean reformed?

Almost everyone self censors or society would be quite different. In fact, inability to self censor tends to get people in trouble or is seen as a sign of mental problems[1].

However, I cannot really say your wrong. I'm not sure about the meek or obedient, but I would go with stilted or excessively formal. Societies with massive self censorship are very scary.

I have noticed that societies with massive self censorship often have governments that enforce it with an iron fist. I'm not sure if there is a laid back government with a society into self censorship.

(sorry for the late response - driving 7 hours and I missed your post the first time)

1) played for effect in "Silver Lining Playbook"

[chimeracoder]

So I take it that you also opposed Reddit's decision to ban clothed pictures of teenage girls, as well as teenage hentai, which was due to the threat of a slanderous smear campaign from Something Awful users[0]?

(Remember that, despite what SA falsely claimed when making these threats, nothing posted on /r/jailbait and the like was actually illegal under US law, and that most of the pictures were in fact reposted from sites like Facebook where they were originally posted by the owner of the photo).

[0] http://www.policespecials.com/forum/index.php/topic/126893-s...

[protomyth]

see my response to einhverfr for further clarification. I have no opinion or desire to learn about this situation to form an opinion.

[sizzle]

I'm using this line in the future

[sn41]

There is. I, as a free speech supporter in India, think that it is ridiculous that you are not allowed free speech in a place where you spend majority of your waking hours.

Violations of free speech by private institutions should be a crime, just like labour violations are. It should only take an amendment, there is no fundamental irony.

Notice that the state infringes on private parties anyway - the most obvious example is when the state decides to take away children from families if there's harassment of the child at home. I am not debating whether this is right or wrong, but I am just pointing out that the state is not so hands-off as it is generally made out to be.

[elnate]

Question as an outsider: How does this interact with your right not to be discriminated against in the workplace based on religion or political views?

[EdwardDiego]

Pointing at America doesn't lessen the issues in India though. It's like me saying that homelessness in my country isn't a problem because there's way more homeless people in the US of A.

[sidcool]

You might be right about US double standards, but that does not mean India can be allowed to trounce free speech.

[xmonkee]

I agree with you on the hypocrisy of US media on this one. But I still don't understand what Dr swamy finds so objectionable in the book. I've started reading it, and it seems like a very scholarly treatment of the ignored sections in the history of hinduism. Surely Dr swamy understands the importance of protecting controversial academic works?

[cubancigar11]

What seems scholarly to you looks extremely offensive to most Hindus. And ultimately it should be Hindus who get to decide the meaning of Hinduism. The over-the-top reaction to what is effectively a caricature in the likes of 'Innocence of Muslims' is enabled because such treatment of Hinduism by Christians has a history, a history that still plays its part in everyday life of Indians (not just Hindus). Point in case, the article talks about the 'criminalization of homosexuality', but fails to mention that it was criminalized by British-raj. Indian judiciary just rejected to get involved into executive branch, a very sensible approach IMHO.

The article itself refers to such treatment by naming Edward Said, for example. But then swoops in with personal judgements, calling Rajiv Malhotra's essay as a right-wingist parody and trying to link everything with rise of business-friendly nationalist Modi.

This is to be expected. Economical rise of any non-western country has historically correlated with doom-and-gloom about it in articles in western media, whether it is liberal or conservative. Even now it is hard for me to read an article about China in The Economist. Just today I saw an article about Chinese government cracking down on sex-racket, and how it is fomenting unrest and civil disobedience among Chinese.

[xmonkee]

>What seems scholarly to you looks extremely offensive to most Hindus

Um... I am Hindu. I don't practice folk Hinduism too much but Hinduism and it's history are one of my areas of interest. I really want to discuss with some others who have read this book and find out what exactly put them off. Have you?

[cubancigar11]

I have read the book and its criticism. TL;DR: The book suffers from cherry-picking for telling a story. It ought not to be taken seriously as an endeavour in study of Hinduism. I mean, its in the title - An ALTERNATE History. Otherwise it is a fun read. (Imagine a book called - 'Nazism - An alternate history' based on Inglourious Basterds.)

The criticism comes from people who are taking the book seriously. :)

[jetru]

Should that matter? Even if he finds something objectionable, it's not his business what others should think. Let others make up their own mind.

[xmonkee]

It definitely shouldn't matter, but I would still like to know what he finds objectionable. He's one of the smartest scholars in Indian politics and his opinions are always interesting, if somewhat controversial.

[bruceb]

@cubancigar11 "And ultimately it should Hindus who get to decide the meaning of Hinduism."

Why? Cause I doubt they would agree. To say unless you are X then you can't comment on X is foolish.

[cubancigar11]

If it is foolish to you, then so be it. To categorically ignore the power play implied by defining a section without any input from it (and ignore rest of the comment, I suppose, along with the book and its criticism) seems intelligent to you then so be it. I am deeply aware of my inability to explain what has already been explained by others, so I resign.

"Cause I doubt they would agree." That should tell the complexity of defining Hinduism and the amateurish level western 'Indologists' have achieved which they spread around, calling any criticism to their approach 'foolish'.

[z3phyr]

The book does not mention anything as foolish IMHO.

[EdwardDiego]

How accessible is the book to a layman?

[xmonkee]

I will certainly not recommend it as a first book on Hinduism. For that I would probably go with http://www.amazon.com/Philosophies-Religions-India-Yogi-Rama... . It's a short and concise read and the treatment is a good mix of outsider (the writer is originally a westerner) and insider (he also happens to be a hindu).

As a second book, The Hindus is pretty accessible if you're used to reading slightly technical books. Her style is good, and she's absorbed the Indian philosophical writing tradition of using far too many analogies :)