Lost in the din over the FTV ban and the targetting of couples in Mumbai was the Supreme Court judgment quashing the criminal proceedings against American historian and Professor James W Laine. The Maharashtra police had filed an FIR against Laine for “defaming” Maratha king Chhatrapati Shivaji and "attempting to disturb the communal peace and harmony" through his controversial book, Shivaji, Hindu king in Islamic India.
The book was relased in India in 2003, but was withdrawn from circulation following protests against it for making “wanton and malicious” comments against Shivaji. The controversy took a political turn on January 5, 2004 when a mob of more than 100 people ransacked the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (BORI), Pune, and destroyed 18,000 books and 30,000 rare manuscripts.
The FIR against the author and publisher was filed by the Maratha Vikas Sangh under Section 153 of IPC, saying it was promoting social enmity. The case under sections 153, 153A and 34 IPC was registered at Deccan police station, Pune. On May 6, 2004, the Bombay High Court directed the state police to investigate and file a report within three months. However, the publisher and printer moved the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the probe.
A three-Judge Bench headed by Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan April 5 restrained the state police from proceeding further against Laine. The Bench while reversing the HC order observed, “Prof James W Laine, the author of the book has exercised his reason and his own analytical skills before choosing any literature which he intends to include in his book. It is very improbable to imagine that any serious and intense scholar will attempt to malign the image of this glorious Institute.” [Link]
Now, if only the petitioners follow what the Supreme Court meant by that. Tolerance of conflicting views, after all, is not a virtue with many in this country.
Incidentally, Laine's The Epic of Shivaji was also banned around the same time [Link].
The ban was enforced after Udhayanraje Bhonsle, the 13th descendent of Shivaji and a former Bharatiya Janata Party legislator, filed a case in the Satara court against Laine for an allegedly offensive remark the scholar made on Shivaji's parentage. Laine uses the term "Oedipal rebel" in the context of Shivaji's relationship with his father. The government statement says: "Sentiments of people who have immense respect for Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj as a national hero have been hurt by the book. The author has created a question mark about the very motive for the book by writing carelessly, without bothering about public sentiments".
But then, Laine actually never wrote the second book — it was a direct translation of Sivabharata, a Sanskrit text written by Kavindra Paramananda.
