On Monday afternoon, two individuals pretending to be customers entered the Banglabazar branch of University Press Limited (UPL) and requested Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s book “Oshomapto Attojiboni”, also known as “The Unfinished Memoirs” in English. Upon receiving the book, they began causing disturbance, claiming it was banned and objecting to its sale. As the situation escalated with more people joining in, the shop was locked, and two UPL staff members were taken to the Faridabad outpost under Sutrapur Police Station. The station’s officer-in-charge later stated that the employees were released under the condition that they would cease selling the book. A senior DMP official informed The Daily Star that the book was not banned, no restrictions were in place for its sale, and imposing such conditions would be inappropriate.
Despite reports that the book has not been reprinted since 2024, the incident highlighted the repercussions of unauthorized individuals attempting to restrict a book’s circulation, effectively leading to a form of censorship. The scenario illustrated the disruption caused when individuals lacking legal authority feel empowered to impede the sale or distribution of a legal book. While censorship is often associated with formal government actions such as bans, seizures, or prosecutions, informal pressures and restrictions can also play a significant role, especially when non-state actors believe their actions align with the prevailing political climate.
The UPL incident underscored the distinction between formal censorship and informal coercion. While “The Unfinished Memoirs” had not been officially banned, the two individuals had no right to impose their own ban. This distinction is crucial as formal censorship involves identifiable authorities and legal procedures, whereas informal censorship operates subtly, influencing behavior through fear and social pressures. Publishers, writers, and booksellers may self-censor in anticipation of potential repercussions, even in the absence of official bans.
The episode at UPL reflects a broader societal issue where uncertainties surrounding freedom of expression can lead to preemptive self-censorship. The connections to laws like the Digital Security Act highlight how vague provisions can fuel self-censorship, affecting not only writers and publishers but also readers. Upholding the freedom of publication requires safeguarding each link in the publishing chain—from writing to distribution to reading—against external pressures that aim to stifle diverse voices.
By resisting external pressures and maintaining a commitment to publishing diverse perspectives, institutions like UPL uphold intellectual freedom. While criticism is essential for engaging with differing viewpoints, censorship undermines the autonomy of readers by restricting their access to diverse opinions. Defending the publication of lawful books irrespective of personal preferences is a cornerstone of intellectual freedom and democratic discourse.
In conclusion, protecting the lawful activity of publishing, selling, and buying books is crucial for upholding intellectual freedom. The state plays a vital role in safeguarding these activities against undue interference, ensuring that individuals without the authority to censor do not exert practical control over public discourse. Preserving a democratic public sphere necessitates not just tolerance for diverse viewpoints but active protection of the freedom to express and engage with differing ideas.
