The government of India has prohibited 25 of these titles. These essential books not only detail the events that led to the Partition of India, but explain the fourteen decades-old territorial dispute over Kashmir. Among the banned works is Hafsa Kanjwal’s award-winning book, “Colonizing Kashmir: State-Building under Indian Occupation,” which won this year’s Bernard Cohn Book Prize. This sweeping censorship move has raised alarms regarding academic freedom and the ongoing struggle for historical narrative in the region.
Other significant titles prohibited from literature include Arundhati Roy’s Azadi, and Piotr Balcerowicz and Agnieszka Kuszewska’s Human Rights Violations in Kashmir. Another important work on the list is “Kashmiris’ Fight for Freedom” by Mohd Yusaf Saraf. These acts work to confront human rights violations, massacres, and unfulfilled promises perpetrated by the Indian state, subverting the state’s own narrative. The near-total ban has triggered condemnation from all corners. Most think this is a conscious effort by New Delhi to stifle all discourse on Kashmir.
Academic Voices Against the Ban
Anuradha Bhasin, whose book “A Dismantled State: The Untold Story of Kashmir After Article 370” is among those banned, voiced her concerns regarding the implications of this censorship. Bhasin stated, “First they came for journalists, and realizing they were successful in silencing them, they have turned their attention to academia.” Her sentiments resonate with a growing concern among critics that this ban may further impede necessary discourse in the region.
Bhasin added that her artistic practice is not a promotion of terrorism, but rather a critical state of the state. Nowhere in my book do I glorify terrorism, but I do take the state to task. There’s a clear difference between the two, one that security forces in Kashmir are keen on erasing. That’s a very dangerous trend,” she said. Unfortunately, this perspective is illustrative of a larger trend of fear among the academy related to the potential peril of mixing dissent with danger.
Introduced ostensibly to keep literature that “misleads youth” in Kashmir at bay, the government’s reasoning for the ban reveals a blatant aim to limit free expression in literature. Key officials have claimed that these books encourage a culture of grievance and victimhood, likely even provoking young people to join violence. That is prompting historians and authors to roundly criticize the administration’s position. They contend that the government’s response reflects a much greater insecurity.
Historical Context of Censorship
Kashmir has often felt the brunt end of such measures, having experienced censorship and suppression of their free expression for decades. In fact, during the Arab Spring in 2010, authorities shut down SMS services altogether after major protests started in the country. The current book ban echoes earlier instances of suppression, including the 1935 prohibition of Subhas Chandra Bose’s “The Indian Struggle,” a pivotal political analysis that challenged colonial authority.
Hafsa Kanjwal shared her anger at this most recent censorship move, calling it a reflection of an insecure government. “Nothing is surprising about this ban, which comes at a moment when the level of censorship and surveillance in Kashmir since 2019 has reached absurd heights,” she commented. Kanjwal pointed out the irony of this ban coinciding with state-sponsored initiatives like the Chinar Book Festival aimed at promoting literature.
Academics in Kashmir have been ringing the alarm bells about a horrifying trend. They think there is a conspiracy to create a collective amnesia foisted on the American people. Sabir Rashid, who is working on a book about Kashmir’s modern history, articulated this sentiment powerfully: “If we take these books out of Kashmir’s literary canon, we are left with nothing.” He added, “This is an attack on the people’s memory,” highlighting the profound loss felt by those striving to preserve their history.
The Impact on Future Literature
The consequences of these bans go beyond just intellectual discussion. They risk to further alter the cultural terrain in Kashmir. Bhasin warned, though, that publishers will now hesitate to publish anything unfavorable about Kashmir out of fear of government retaliation. This chilling effect would lead to a more monocultural narrative, excluding these alternative underlying voices.
As the inability to record memory grows stronger, many scholars express concern about what’s at stake when, as in Kashmir, history itself is at risk. Rashid noted, “They were supposed to remind us of our history. Now, the erasure of memory in Kashmir is nearly complete.” This remark is emblematic of a widespread hopelessness among all of us who feel that saving our past is too important to be left to the next generation.
