By Narayan Prasad Mishra

A democratic society is founded on free expression, open debate, and access to information. In any thriving democracy, the free flow of information is the lifeblood of an informed and active citizenry. The right to read—and the right to choose what to read—is central to this framework. To defend democracy, we must defend the freedom to read. And to defend that freedom, we must protect our libraries—not just as buildings filled with books, but as living institutions that safeguard our right to think, to question, and to grow.

The library, as a symbol and sanctuary of knowledge, serves as a cornerstone of this democratic ideal. Yet, the rise of censorship and the growing trend of book bans across various parts of the world challenge the fundamental principles of intellectual freedom, open inquiry, and democratic participation. When books are banned and libraries are pressured to remove or restrict access to certain materials, democracy itself is at risk of erosion.

Censorship and book bans threaten the very essence of democracy by undermining the public’s right to know and to think freely. Libraries, as democratic sanctuaries, must resist these pressures and uphold their commitment to intellectual freedom. In an age when misinformation spreads quickly and the truth is often contested, open access to literature and ideas is more crucial than ever.

Censorship—the deliberate suppression or restriction of information—has long been a tool of authoritarian regimes, religious orthodoxy, and ideologically driven groups. In democratic societies, censorship is more subtle but no less dangerous. It often disguises itself in the language of protection—shielding young minds from “harmful” ideas, preserving “public morality,” or preventing “divisiveness.” However, beneath these justifications lies a desire to control narratives, silence dissent, and prevent critical thought.

Book bans, in particular, are among the most visible forms of modern censorship. Books dealing with race, gender identity, sexuality, history, and political critique are frequent targets of criticism. From school boards to state legislatures, some seek to erase voices they find uncomfortable or inconvenient. These actions not only rob readers of diverse perspectives but also foster ignorance and intolerance—conditions ripe for democratic decay.

Libraries are not mere warehouses of books; they are democratic institutions committed to the public good. They provide free access to information for people of all backgrounds and economic statuses. In a world increasingly driven by profit and polarization, libraries stand as neutral ground—places where ideas compete and co-exist.

When libraries are compelled to remove certain books or collections, their role as defenders of democracy is compromised. The library’s mission to offer “something for everyone” does not mean it should cater only to the parties in government or to the majority’s comfort. On the contrary, libraries must also protect minority voices, controversial works, and uncomfortable truths. In doing so, they nurture the intellectual diversity that democracy depends on.

Even though it is so, President Trump’s recent policy in the USA is pressuring libraries to remove some books and materials related to African American history, transgender issues, etc., as they are asking to close some study, teaching, and research programs conducted in educational institutions, including schools, colleges, and universities. In this context, President Donald Trump even fired Carla Hayden, the Librarian of the Library of Congress, for disobeying his policy—the person equivalent to the position of Assistant Secretary of State, the top-most respected librarian in the country, who is considered the President’s information and knowledge advisor. It is undoubtedly a sad chapter in the history of libraries in the USA.

We have a strong view that libraries, as the organized centers of knowledge and information, are supposed to collect and disseminate all kinds of books and materials in any form on any subject or area, without bias toward any nationality, culture, race, or community, as needed for study, teaching, and research. So, in democratic countries where freedom of speech is guaranteed, libraries are undoubtedly independent in their jurisdiction to provide services to their clients. We have always thought that book bans violate these rights by narrowing the spectrum of ideas that citizens—especially young readers—can explore. Without access to diverse literature and critical history, future generations are deprived of the tools necessary to question, reflect, and participate meaningfully in civic life. 

Keeping this idea of independence in mind, Shanti Mishra, the creator and chief librarian of the Tribhuvan University Central Library, started providing its services. According to this principle, we ran the Tribhuvan University Central Library by acquiring all kinds of materials that we thought necessary to preserve for the development of this institution.

At the time, the country was governed under the constitution of the partyless Panchayat system. According to the constitution, no one was supposed to write or speak against the Crown, the King, or the political system of the country. But all other human rights, fundamental rights, and freedoms of speech and writing were guaranteed by it. The offices of the zonal commissioner used to seize books, magazines, newspapers, etc., from time to time under the constitution, when the publications were brought to their notice as being against the system and the King. 

Even in those circumstances, we never experienced any government pressure or request to ban or remove any books, magazines, or publications from the racks or the library—neither in writing nor verbally. I do not know whether it was because their attention did not go to it. Neither did we give any attention or thought to it. More than that, we acquired even those banned publications for our service through different means and preserved them with the aim of preserving history for the future. I also remember that we even collected some of those seized publications from the zonal commissioner’s office by convincing the commissioner of our purpose. I believe those publications are still available in that library. 

In the context of President Trump’s recent policy of removing certain books from libraries in the USA, I realize now, with happiness, that the then Panchayat system—which was called despotic by its opponents—was undoubtedly more democratic than present-day American democracy.

narayanshanti70@gmail.com