Indian Express, 29 Feb 2008
Tannu Sharma
NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 28: The Supreme Court has suggested that if certain “objectionable” portions were deleted from Shivaji: Hindu King of Islamic India by US academic James W Laine, “the interest of justice would be best served.” This suggestion from the bench, comprising Justices Dr Arijit Pasayat and P Sathasivam, came during the hearing of an appeal filed by the Maharashtra government that banned the book in 2004 fearing more of the protests and large-scale vandalism following its publication. The court clarified that this suggestion “shall not in any way affect the merits of the issues involved in the case” and said that it would wait for the author’s views on this.
Claiming that Laine’s book allegedly portrayed Shivaji in a bad light, there were wide protests in Pune by the Shambhaji Brigade. On January 5, 2004, a mob even ransacked the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Apprehending more such violence, the state government came out with a notification dated December 28, 2006 declaring that every copy of the said book be forfeited to the Government.
In the last hearing on Tuesday, the apex court said: “We feel paragraphs 2, 5, 7 and 8 (four of the eight)...are omitted, interest of justice would be best served.”
These paragraphs comment on the attacks carried out by him, his parents and his secular credentials. For example, Para 2 questioned the killing of Afzal Khan in 1659: “...looking back from coronation, it was not simply an act of courage but a pre-mediated violence in the service of Brahaminic world order.”
Para 5 contains the quote: “...in other words, Shivaji’s secularism can only be assured if we see him as motivated less by patriotism than by simple quest of power.”
As there was no response to an earlier notice to Laine, who’s a professor of religious studies at Macalester College in the US, the bench ordered the Registry to serve a notice upon him along with the “suggestion.” On October 11, 2007, Laine was made a party in the case and was issued notice.
This time, the court also specifically asked him to consider as to “whether he is agreeable to the suggestion given for deletion of the aforesaid four paragraphs.” The other two paragraphs advised to be deleted, include one that comments on Shivaji’s “absentee father.”
While suggesting what it thought as an amicable solution to the entire controversy, the court took strong note of the violence that followed the book’s release as pointed out by Prashant Bhushan, advocate for Sangharaj Damodar Rupawate who filed petitions in the Bombay High Court questioning the notification and the ban it ensued.
“In the name of protecting the image of Shivaji, large scale violence was unleashed resulting in the destruction of properties, valuable books and damage to persons and properties physically. This issue shall be considered separately,” the Court agreed. However posting the matter after 10 weeks, the judges made it clear that they would look into it in detail only after receiving Laine’s response.
The state government had approached the apex court after the High Court on April 5, 2007, quashed the notification banning the book in the state.
|
