Blasphemy: Let me speak

The Abrahamic–Dharmic encounter, as Kushal writes, is the context of this very rigorous and multifaceted argument against the concept of blasphemy, particularly in India but globally as well. Over and above the deontological imperative of free speech, competitive censorship is a mug’s game from a consequentialist perspective too. There is no alternative to a hard, strong but limited state with expanded capacity, technology, and resources to deter and punish vigilante violence of all hues. Unsurprising that a Carvaka, steeped in the Vedic ways of our forefathers, has been able to see that.

Kushal rejects the notion of mere “tolerance”. He demands active blasphemy as the only antidote to civilization ossification, especially to a new generation that associates argument with offence and censorship with virtue. His argument is that a culture can only survive through evolution, and evolution requires constant, painful scrutiny. Clearly this isn’t a book for those with fragile egos.

How much free speech is acceptable in a society? Who decides? Is “feeling offended” sufficient ground to silence, censor, or punish? And when speech—or the power to censor—is misused, who draws the line? In Blasphemy: Let Me Speak, Kushal argues for more speech, not less. Let every idea find expression. Let society function as a true marketplace of ideas, where arguments are openly tested and debated. The state, he contends, must remain an enabler of free speech even when it offends. As he builds his case, he takes us through the history of censorship and its consequences, past and present. One may agree or disagree, but this book compels you to think—and more importantly, to think consistently—because it deals with a question that affects us all in one way or another.

The Abrahamic–Dharmic encounter, as Kushal writes, is the context of this very rigorous and multifaceted argument against the concept of blasphemy, particularly in India but globally as well. Over and above the deontological imperative of free speech, competitive censorship is a mug’s game from a consequentialist perspective too. There is no alternative to a hard, strong but limited state with expanded capacity, technology, and resources to deter and punish vigilante violence of all hues. Unsurprising that a Carvaka, steeped in the Vedic ways of our forefathers, has been able to see that.