Thread by @VakashaS

Here's why the withdrawal of that book by @BloomsburyIndia is NOT an attack on free speech.

The book wasn't an expression of opinion or a comment, or anything like that. It purported to tell the truth, ie, set out the facts about the Delhi riots.
1/n

Since that is the case, then it needs to be subjected to strict scrutiny in terms of its contents and the qualifications of its authors. This was something that should have been done by the publishers at the outset.
2/n

While one cannot speak to the contents since we haven't read the book yet, the fact that Kapil Mishra - whose activities at the time are known to all - agreed to be Guest of Honour at the launch event, gives a pretty clear idea.
3/n

The description of the book that was available also made it reasonably clear that the book sought to establish the connection between the riots and anti-CAA protesters, and to pin the blame on the Muslim community, which bore the brunt of the riots.
4/n

You don't have to necessarily think this is untrue, to be concerned about the publication of such a book claiming to speak the truth about the riots - again, not one couched as an opinion or comment, but an authoritative result of fact-finding.
5/n

The 'fact-finding report' that these very same authors put out on the Kathua rape and murder case is a strong argument against accepting what they claim, without the publisher conducting an exhaustive fact-check of its own.
6/n

It was evident that no such fact-check exercise had been conducted by the publishers here, as such a fact check is not possible at this time, given the ongoing investigations and cases.
7/n

With the police version already running into deep trouble with the courts on multiple points, no responsible fact-checker would be able to assess the veracity of all the claims in this book (or even a book arguing the opposite) till such time as the cases are finally decided.
8/n

Does this mean that the authors can't put out their opinion? Of course not. But the packaging of such an opinion as fact, where veracity of said facts cannot be ascertained, is not something a responsible publisher should be doing.
9/n

The fact finding report can be released to the public, can be covered in the media, all of that, ensuring that freedom of speech is upheld. But publishing this as a book is rightly being criticised.
10/n

Nobody is saying the book should have been banned by the government. State censorship isn't the demand here. But we have every right to criticise the decision-making by a private publishing house when they choose to put out such a book by such authors.
11/n

It would have been ideal if @BloomsburyIndia had realised the problem with this book before agreeing to publish it. Nonetheless, it has evidently dawned on them, following the news about who was attending the launch event, that the are problems with the book.
12/n

This is no assault on free speech. Nobody threatened to attack the publishers or the authors, they were just subjected to entirely reasonable scrutiny and criticism.
The book can still be put out as a report, or picked up by another publishing house.
13/n

In the event that some other publishing house does put out the book, one can only hope it will be after the required scrutiny for such claims, and an understanding of the impact these claims could have if published without verification. Lives are at stake, after all.

14/n

Note that I'm not making the argument that freedom of expression doesn't include articulating whatever the authors of the book are saying. The issue is what is the responsible way to platform those views.
15/n

Also, for those who want more reasons why zero scrutiny has evidently taken place, here's the 'fact-finding' report on the Delhi Riots by the same authors. If you still see no editorial mistake in greenlighting it, up to you.

theindiapost.com/wp-content/upl…

16/n

Here's an attempt to put this all together, with details from the GIA report on the Delhi riots and fact sheet on the Kathua case. Links to both included. Read them for yourself if you don't agree with me.
17/n

thequint.com/voices/opinion…