Should Non-Fiction Have A ‘Voice’? The Fine Line Between Free Speech And The Law

The title is sort of confusing. It sounds like this article suggests the opposite of ‘Freedom of Speech’. That’s not it.

An article can have a ‘voice’ which alludes to the style the author writes in. A book can have a ‘voice’. But the ‘voice’ in the title (of this article) is about having the freedom to say whatever one wants to. This debate has found new turf with Mrs. Sonia Gandhi’s memoir and the ‘voice’ that is being suppressed.

As a publisher I examined the issue from the dissemination angle. After all publishing is all about dissemination. There have been articles that crossed my path suggesting ‘self-censorship’, forced editing, rewriting, etc, are becoming the norm, especially under the new government. Everyone is entitled to opinions, without data, they border on fiction.

A work classified as ‘non-fiction’ comes with a certification that a publisher must provide. An author can classify it based on their understanding of the law. A publisher doesn’t have this freedom.

A publisher is guided by three commandments that are sacrosanct.

1. The company founder’s vision of the publishing program

2. Economics of publishing

2. The law of the land is followed to meet the first two commandments

The focus of books like memoirs fall foul largely of the third commandment. Mrs. Gandhi or anyone else is free to write and publish a memoir and state whatever they want to. All they need is to state clearly that sections of the memoir are from memory, or not factually accurate or otherwise used to keep the book readable. I agree this is counter intuitive. No one is going to call their memoir, part fiction. And that is where the publisher’s role becomes even more critical.

By law, the publisher has to stand by what they have published. And this means certifying that they have fact-checked the entire manuscript. Mrs. Gandhi’s book seems to fail this test, and I am stating whatever is in the public domain; I don’t have any privy information about this.

The publisher protects itself by signing an author agreement, which explicitly states that the content is by the author and hence the author’s responsibility alone. In a court of law this doesn’t stand to scrutiny. A publisher is treated as a filter responsible for ensuring content published is verifiable. I have struggled to understand how “freedom of speech” enters the conversation, let alone fathoming the term ‘self- censorship’.

Mrs. Gandhi’s book is fact-checked for the original publisher’s domain, that is, for the USA. The publisher has certified that the content doesn’t violate any USA law. How does that automatically mean it doesn’t fall foul of a law in some other country? In my career I have encountered these problems on several occasions. In many ways the process of fact-checking is internal to a publishing house. Becoming public knowledge is generally an insider job.

In my stint as MD of a publishing house, I was given a particularly questionable book about Shaheen Bagh. The acquisition department were vociferous about its addition to our list. To me the issue was a local New Delhi event; the table of content talked about local issues. I didn’t understand the economics of the book. But without allowing my personal opinion to override the process, I sent it for a legal opinion. The report that came back stated the contents couldn’t be verified. There were large gaps in what was stated and what was verifiable because most of the content was taken from blogs, or unverifiable news reports. To me this was legal exposure that was not defensible. To the acquisition team it became an issue of ideology!

There were multiple problems that should have been tackled ahead of the manuscript arriving at our doorstep. The first is that non-fiction wasn’t in the company’s founder’s mandate. It crept in because many years ago the acquisition team head proposed this. It was a judgement error on my part to accept this proposal and a fatal mistake by the Board of Directors of that time to approve. The consequence was the creation of a list that didn’t fit the safe guards a competent non-fiction publisher puts around their publishing programs. Acquisition editors became activists who were more emotional about the books they brought in as opposed to being passionate about the job they were hired to perform. Activist publishers have an important role to play in the publishing ecosystem. This goes back to the First Commandment —the founder must be clear about the publishing vision.

I am reminded of one book that turned the fortunes for a publishing house and proved the Second Commandment. The book was Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses. Rushdie was an icon in 1988 when this book was published. The Satanic Verses was a publishing success but protests about the content started around October 1988. The then government in India banned its entry in October 1988. In February 1989 when the Fatwa arrived, the book exploded globally. There were no protests in India against the ban.

The book Delhi Riots 2020: The Untold Story was ready for release. The lead author is a lawyer (Advocate Monika Arora). The book was withdrawn on the day it was to be released. Many prominent authors and activists associated with the publisher protested about the content of this book. The publisher buckled under the pressure exerted by these authors and proved the Second Commandment to be true. Freedom of Speech or self-censorship didn’t play any role then I guess.

Mrs. Gandhi’s book not being published by one publisher shouldn’t be viewed as ‘buckling under pressure’. Similarly, another major publishing house announcing the publication without editing shouldn’t be treated as a ‘victory for free speech’. The law of the land is applied after an action takes place. I stand in solidarity with the publishing fraternity in furthering the cause of publishing excellence. However, that doesn’t take away the importance of the law of the land and how it is applied to published books. The consequences will have to be reviewed as and when they unfold.

Published on: Sunday, October 25, 2026, 08:25 AM IST