Maybe it was 'censored' because it wasn't good? Haven't read further than the first two words of the article, which say: "Acharya Sengupta". Isn't the guy's name Arghya?
I see that he he calls Arghya's book cover (Union Jack on the Constitution) as "provocative". I would prefer to say "ridiculous" and "shameful". The Constitution is founded on anti-colonial principles, not colonial principles!!!!
I am no fan of Arghya or the BJP, but this guy Ajay Kumar doesn’t sound credible. He posts weird stuff on Twitter. The Leaflet probably rejected the article because wasn’t good enough, as one of the comments says.
Link to Article: https://t.co/5Zs0YR2BqH
Tweet on Censorship: Ajay Kumar on X: "I was censored by a publication that I was one of the founding columnists of because I refused to toe the party line on Gandhi. I am angry yes. But I am also very very hurt. Being censored, hurts." / X (twitter.com)
By this logic, are all first-year law students who ambitiously send their articles to SCOPUS journals are "censored" on an everyday basis.
And if someone is crying censorship over THIS, I wonder what credibility they have even otherwise...