I will start off this debate saying banning books for political reasons is a practice as old as literacy. The Romans, otherwise liberal, did it. The Nazis turned it into a form of public display, burning 25,000 books on one night alone. And despite the fall of the Iron Curtain and the gradual relaxation of attitudes in countries like China, it persists to this day. Take India, for example. Book banning in India is very popular; as recently as 2010, an article in the Calcutta Telegraph, called it "the State"s favorite pastime". How awful, you might think. This should be stopped at once. But ask yourself the question why a country which has an independent press, a secular government and which has operated as a democracy (albeit of a shaky kind) since the end of British rule in 1947 has this strange aversion to free speech, and a different picture emerges.
Books may be widely banned and burned in other countries, but in our country books are highly read throughout our youth and used for knowledge and imagination. Without books, kids will be forced into other hobbies such as video games and television, causing the next few generations to slowly get more and more used to technology and being told how to imagine things instead of imagining them themselves. This is where I stand in this argument and I'm ready to hear a comeback
Look at it this way and book banning becomes a lesser of two evils, a way of keeping the lid on a situation which might spiral into bloodshed. And in practice, the Indian government polices its bans lightly. The point appears to be to reassure touchy factions that their concerns are being taken seriously, and so far, this is a policy which has worked. You might say that in other, more peaceful countries, banning books which incite hatred " racial, gender-based or religious " can be justified on the same grounds. Consider another issue with regard to political dissent. Books can seek to obscure as well as enlighten. Is it acceptable to allow revisionists to publish their arguments? To deny the Holocaust happened; to downplay the massacres in Bosnia? It's one rule for all. If we want the authors we approve of to have freedom of speech, that same freedom has to apply to those we don't approve off as well.