B.B.A, LL.B. (Hons.

) / Second Trimester- 2016

LEGAL ENGLISH FINAL DRAFT

Research Project Topic

Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India

Synopsis submitted to: Mr. Rakesh Nambiar

Submitted by : SAURABH SHARMA
Roll no : A059

1
 Legal English Project
Synopsis In The Motion Of Banning The Book

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr. No. Particulars Page No.

1. Introduction 3

2. Facts of the case 4

3. Relevant Statutory Provisions 4

4. Legal Issues Involved 5

5. Judicial precedents 5
6. Analysis 6-7

7. Conclusion 8

2
TITLE - Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India

Introduction : background of the case

Chhattrapati Shivaji Maharaj also known simply as Shivaji lived 1627 to 1680. A Maratha
leader, he was fiercely opposed to the Mughals that at that time controlled much of what is
now India, and was instrumental in establishing Marathi independence. Crowned the first
Maratha king in 1674, he is a founding-father figure who is still highly revered in India,
especially in the state of Maharashtra.

Shivaji is a well-known hero in western India. He defied Mughal power in the seventeenth
century, established an independent kingdom, and had himself crowned in an orthodox
Hindu ceremony. The legends of his life have become an epic story that everyone in western
India knows, and an important part of the Hindu nationalists' ideology. To read Shivaji's
legend today is to find expression of deeply held convictions about what Hinduism means
and how it is opposed to islam.

James Laine traces the origin and development if the Shivaji legend from the earliest
sources to the contemporary accounts of the tale. His primary concern is to discover the
meaning of Shivaji's life for those who have composed-and those who have read-the
legendary accounts of his military victories, his daring escapes, his relationships with saints.

In the process, he paints a new and more complex picture of Hindu-Muslim relations from
the seventeenth century to the present. He argues that this relationship involved a variety
of compromises and strategies, from conflict to accommodation to nuanced collaboration.
Neither Muslims nor Hindus formed clearly defined communities, says Laine, and they did
not relate to each other as opposed monolithic groups. Different sub-groups, representing a
range of religious persuasions, found it in their advantage to accentuate or diminish the
importance of Hindu and Muslim identity and the ideologies that supported the
construction of such identities. By studying the evolution of the Shivaji legend, Laine
demonstrates, we can trace the development of such constructions in both pre-British and
post-colonial periods..

My opposition representative ADITYA PRATAP SINGH RATHOD is representing the following

case in favour of the ban.

3
Facts of the case
 The statement in the book that appears to have provoked the greatest outrage is the
mention that it has been suggested that Shivaji's father was not Shahaji.
 Laine writing: "Maharashtrians tell jokes naughtily that Shivaji’s biological father was
Dadoji Kondeo Kulkarni".
 This statement indeed, even the mere suggestion -- is apparently considered an
outrageous insult and defamation of Shivaji, Shahaji, and Shivaji's mother, Jijabai .
 The claim is also widely considered unfounded and gratuitous; apparently this
‘naughty joke' is not familiar to most Maharashtrians (or at least none appear to
have come forward acknowledging that they've heard this sort of banter).

Relevant statutory provisions

 Section 153 and 153(A) of indian penal code

Section 153A of the penal code says

Whoever (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible

representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of
religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other
ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between
different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or
(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between
different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and
which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, shall be punished with
imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

 Section 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 read with Article

226 of the Constitution of India

Application to High Court to set aside declaration of forfeiture. (1) Any person having
any interest in any newspaper, book or other document, in respect of which a
declaration of forfeiture has been made under section 95, may, within two months
from the date of publication in the Official Gazette of such declaration, apply to the
High Court to set aside such declaration on the ground that the issue of the
newspaper, or the book or other document, in respect of which the declaration was

4
 made, did not contain any such matter as is referred to in sub-section (1) of section
95.
High court directed the forfeiture of every copy of the book captioned as "Shivaji -
Hindu King in Islamic India" written by Prof. James W. Laine.

Judicial History / Precedents

Narayan Dass Indurakhya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1972) 3 SCC 676
There is a considerable body of statutory provisions which enable the State to curtail the
liberty of the subject in the interest of the security of the State or forfeit books and
documents when in the opinion of the Government, they promote class hatred, religious
intolerance, disaffection against the State, etc. In all such cases, instances of some whereof
are given below the State Government has to give the grounds of its opinion. Clearly the
grounds must be distinguished from the opinion. Grounds of the opinion must mean the
conclusion of facts on which the opinion is based.

Uttar Pradesh Vs. Lalai Singh Yadav (1976) 4 SCC 213

It is a fundamental principle, long estab- lished, that the freedom of speech and of the press,
which is secured by the Constitution, does not confer an absolute right to speak or publish,
without responsibility, whatever. one may choose, or an unrestricted and unbridled licence
that gives immunity for every possible use of language and prevents the punishment of
those who abuse this freedom.

Legal Issue involved

The publication of Laine's book, Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India, was followed by heavy
criticism and the attack on the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute in Pune, India. In view
of the attacks and the public unrest, the book was banned in the state of Maharashtra in
January 2004. The ban was lifted by the Bombay High Court in 2007, and in July 2010 the
Supreme Court of India upheld the lifting of ban, which was followed by public
demonstrations against the author and the decision of the supreme court.

Charges were filed against James Laine and OUP India by the Deccan Gymkhana police. The
charges are registered under Sections 153 and 153(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

5
ANALYSIS: ARGUMENTS
 Article 19 (A) states that the citizens of India has a freedom to express their view
point. Here, defendant has all the right to express what in his opinion is right.
Banning his work will violate his fundamental right.
 The book got banned because of very small portion which could have been changed
or removed. Banning the whole book is not the solution.
 Banning the publication of any author or poet may demoralize them which could end
them up with anxiety and the world might become deprived of some excellent work
of these artists.
 Instead of praying to ban the book, petitioner should prove the fact that shivaji’s
father was shahaji. In shivaji’s era, technology was not that advanced that we could
test the DNA of shivaji and identify his real father. Claiming defendant’s point of view
wrong and unaccepted in my opinion should not be a criteria to ban a book.

Counter-Arguments
 It must be asserted that at no time in history has India been Islamic. Indeed, how
could it have been so, when it has always had a majority of non-Muslims in its
population. It is true that islamic invasions began in right earnest around the
12th century and certain parts of the country did have Muslim rulers who imposed
Islamic law on the entire population they governed, but that does not make
India Islamic. Thus, the astonishing title ‘Hindu King in Islamic India’ leaves one
wondering about the extent of Laine’s understanding of the subject he addressed.
By ‘Islamic’, Laine wanted to show the domination of Islamic rulers at the time of
Shivaji. It is wrongly interpreted by the opposing representative. Since interpretation
is a subjective thing, no one can justify what exactly Laine meant by ‘Islamic India’.

 Laine mentioned that maharashtrians tell jokes naughtily suggesting that his
guardian dadaji konddev was his biological father. The reader may such wonder
that the history known to him which last for four centuries before this book was
published is wrong and old magical legend who is known for centuries is
questioned on his birth. This hurts the sentiments of the people and disturbs public
tranquillity.
History is just the interpretation by historians based on the remains found. It may or
may not be correct. There is a possibility that the history known to the people even
from last four centuries may be wrong. Laine by his publication did not intended to
hurt the sentiments of the people. He simply kept his interpretation based on
observation of Maharashtrians telling jokes naughtily suggesting that Shivaji’s
guardian, Dadaji Konddev was his biological father.

6
 Laine wrote “Can one imagine a narrative of Shivaji’s life in which, for example:
Shivaji had an unhappy family life ? Shivaji had a harem? Shivaji was uninterested
in the religion of bhakti saints ? Shivaji’s personal ambition was to build a kingdom,
not liberate a nation ? Shivaji lived in a cosmopolitan Islamicate world and did little
to change that fact ?”. To go further back in history, let us recall that Lord Rama’s
father too had several queens. The custom had nothing whatsoever to do with
practices prevailing in a "cosmopolitan Islamicate world". However, isn’t having
several legally wedded wives very different from keeping a harem, which latter
may even include several official and unofficial concubines. Hence saying that
shivaji lived in a cosmopolitan islamicate world is totally wrong and against the
people who treat shivaji as an ideal.
This is again just an interpretation of Laine about Shivaji. He by no means intended
to hurt the sentiments of people by claiming Shivaji as Islamic. Banning a book just
on a mere interpretation is not right in the eyes of law

7
CONCLUSION

Laine's book sparked controversy in India, leading Oxford University Press India to withdraw
it from the local market in November 2003. American professor Laine had done some of the
research for his book at BORI, and he thanked the institute and some scholars affiliated with
it in his acknowledgements; the institute and its members were then targeted by those
angered by the book. In December 2003 one of those thanked by Laine, historian Shrikant
Bahulkar, was assaulted, his face blackened by Shiv Sena activists. Then, in January, came
the attack on the institute itself.
While the attack was widely condemned, and over 70 of the participants were arrested,
Laine and his undertaking continue to be denounced.
As a result, High court directed the forfeiture of every copy of the book captioned as "Shivaji
- Hindu King in Islamic India" written by Prof. James W. Laine and the book was banned.
Supreme Court Upholded the judgement of Bombay High Court that the Maharashtra
government could not establish which groups would suffer enmity by the publication of
James Laine.
Hence, the ban was illogical and will not be counted among the wise decisions.