Silencing the Page: Do We Ban Books to Protect Society or to Protect Our Fear?”

“Silencing the Page: Do We Ban Books to Protect Society or to Protect Our Fear?”

There are few acts as symbolically powerful as banning a book. It is not merely the removal of paper and ink from a shelf; it is the silencing of a voice, the arrest of an idea, the throttling of dissent. From the burning of manuscripts in ancient empires to the censorship boards of modern democracies, societies have wrestled with a perennial question: Should intellectual property ever be banned?

This is not a question of convenience. It is a question of conscience.

The Historical Shadow of Censorship

History is a stern teacher. When the Qin dynasty in ancient China burned Confucian texts, it was not just books that were destroyed, but memory itself.

In Europe, the Catholic Church’s Index Librorum Prohibitorum sought to regulate thought. In the twentieth century, the images of books aflame under the regime of Adolf Hitler remain an indelible reminder of how fear of ideas often precedes fear of people.

Closer to home, even in democratic India, debates have surrounded works by writers such as Salman Rushdie and Perumal Murugan. The controversy around The Satanic Verses demonstrated how literature can ignite passions, challenge faith, and unsettle established norms.

But the deeper question remains: do bans protect society, or do they expose its fragility?

The Case for Banning: Order, Morality, and National Security

Let us be fair. Those who argue for banning intellectual property often do so in the name of protection. They claim that certain content may:
– Incite violence or communal hatred
– Promote obscenity or moral decay
– Threaten national security
Spread misinformation

Indeed, most modern democracies, including India under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, allow reasonable restrictions on free speech in the interests of sovereignty, public order, decency, or morality.

One cannot deny that propaganda literature has, in some cases, fuelled extremism. Words can wound. Ideas can mobilise mobs. The pen, as the proverb goes, can be mightier than the sword.

The Case Against Banning: The Marketplace of Ideas

Yet, John Stuart Mill in On Liberty argued that silencing an opinion robs humanity. Even a false opinion has value — it sharpens the truth. When we ban a book, we do not eliminate the idea; we merely push it underground, where it festers without scrutiny.

In our own Indian philosophical tradition, debate was not feared but encouraged. The Upanishadic dialogues, the Shastrarth between scholars, even the robust arguments within the epics like the Mahabharata — all demonstrate that truth emerges from dialogue, not suppression.

If we begin banning books because they offend, we may soon find ourselves banning questions because they disturb.

Intellectual Property in the Digital Age

Today, censorship extends beyond books. Films are trimmed, songs are muted, digital content is geo-blocked, and social media posts are removed. Intellectual property now includes blogs, podcasts, research papers, and even software.
But the digital world complicates bans. The internet knows no borders. What is prohibited in one country may circulate freely in another. Thus, banning often becomes symbolic rather than effective — a gesture to appease sentiment rather than a solution to a problem.

The Slippery Slope of Moral Policing

Who decides what is offensive? Whose morality prevails? In a pluralistic society like India — with its tapestry of religions, languages, and cultures — uniformity of thought is neither practical nor desirable.

As a former Principal and an educationist, I have seen young minds blossom when exposed to diverse ideas. Shielding them excessively may produce conformity, not character. A student who never encounters disagreement never learns discernment.

Education must build resilience, not fragility.
When, If Ever, Is a Ban Justified?

There are rare circumstances where restriction may be justified — direct incitement to violence, explicit criminal propaganda, or material that demonstrably endangers public safety. Even then, such action must be:
– Transparent
– Legally accountable
– Time-bound
– Subject to judicial review

A ban should be the last resort, not the first reflex.

The Philosophical Dilemma

Socrates was executed for “corrupting the youth.” Galileo was silenced for asserting heliocentrism. Many ideas once banned are now celebrated. If society had permanently suppressed dissenting thought, would progress have been possible?
Fear often masquerades as morality. But civilisation advances not by extinguishing candles of thought, but by learning to live in the light they cast.

Ban the Harm, Not the Thought

The real question is not whether we can ban books — governments certainly can. The question is whether we should.

A mature society does not tremble at printed words. It debates them. It critiques them. It counters them with stronger arguments.

To ban a book is to confess insecurity. To engage with it is to demonstrate confidence.

In the end, perhaps the true safeguard of society is not censorship, but education. Not silence, but wisdom. Not prohibition, but discernment.
For when we silence a page, we may unknowingly silence a possibility.

And a society that fears ideas is already in quiet retreat.