Rangila Rasul or Rangeela Rasool (transl. Colourful Prophet[5]) is a book published anonymously in Urdu[1] in 1924.[4]
The book was considered highly controversial due to its satire of the marital life of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.[5][6][7] Its publication led to reforms in India's penal code that made blasphemy illegal[8][9] and may have contributed to promote the partition of India.[2]
Background
In the decade of 1920, the British Raj experienced episodes of violence between the Muslim and Hindu communities.[10]
The Muslims of Malabar not only rebelled against the British authorities, but also against the Hindu elites of the area[12][13] who suffered from massacres and forced conversions at the hands of the Mappilas.[14][15]
Between April and September 1927 there were at least 25 riots spread across Mumbai, Punjab, Bengal, Bihar, Odisha and other regions, leaving over a hundred dead (103) and over a thousand injured (1084).[16]
In the Punjab region, these hostilities were accompanied by texts published by members of a religious community with the intention of criticizing or offending other religious communities.[17]
Rangila Rasul was published by members of the Hindu community in response to a pamphlet entitled "Sitaka Chinala" published by members of the Muslim community and that depicted the Hindu goddess Sita (wife of Rama, the hero of the Ramayana) as a prostitute.[18]
Publication
Rangila Rasul was published in May 1924[4] and its copies sold out in a matter of a few weeks.[19]
Originally published in Urdu[1] and later translated into Hindi, it was written by a member of the Hindu reformist Arya Samaj sect[20] by the name of Pandit Chamupati[21] (or Champovati). The Arya Samaj sect was no stranger to religious controversy, as many of its leaders and ministers had made a name for themselves offending other religions, including other Hindu sects.[22]
The Publisher
Its publisher was Mahashe Rajpal (also known as Mahashay),[2][3] a journalist[23] who founded his publishing house 'Rajpal & Sons' in 1912.[23] Rajpal published the book anonymously,[2] without disclosing or making public the name of the author (Chamupati) despite public pressure and threats,[1][24] for which Rajpal bore the subsequent legal consequences.[21]
As a publisher Rajpal became recognized in various social circles in Lahore,[25] as he was committed to freedom of expression[24][26] and did not shy from controversial issues, even publishing a Hindi translation of Marie Stopes "Married Love" in 1925 under the title of "Vivahit Prem"[27] and an illustrated text on family planning and contraception in 1926,[28] both written by B. A. Santram, a scholar and social reformer member of the labor caste.[29]
Content
The book deals with the marriages of Muhammad and his predisposition to take wives.[5]
Being a satire, Rangila Rasul had a surface appearance of a lyrical and laudatory work on Muhammad and his teachings, while the marital life of the prophet is treated in a praising tone, in the style of a bhakti[30] (that is, a show of devotion to a god or saint in the Hindu tradition), and some of the controversial points of the book are in fact faithful to what the Islamic tradition indicates about the life of Muhammad.[31] This was because the author was familiar with Islamic literature.[20]
In one part, the author cites characteristics of the prophet, highlighting his ability to marry, which included "a widow, a virgin, an old woman, a young woman... even a budding girl", and insists on how the active sexuality of marriage is more compatible with the common man in contrast with lifelong celibacy of Hindu saints or the asceticism of other prophets.[32] In fact, the text opens with the following lines:
A calamity's to be averted: he weds her;
An unkindled lamp’s to be lit: he weds her.
One's beauty appeals: he weds her;
Another has treasure: he weds her.
As the nightingale serves the flowers in the garden;
I devote myself to the Colourful Prophet.
"The book 'R. Rasul' which is the subject of the case is a small brochure written by some anonymous but well-informed author who has tried to draw instances from the life of the Prophet. Those who have read the book know that there is no attempt at ridiculing and the facts put forward in simple and innocent language are entirely based on the writings of standard authors on Islam - both European and Muhammedan."
In June 1924, Mahatma Gandhi referred to Rangila Rasul in his weekly Young India. In his article Gandhi noted that:
"A friend has sent me a pamphlet called R. Rasul written in Urdu, The author's name is not given. [...] The very title is highly offensive. The contents [are] in keeping with the title. I cannot without giving offence to the reader's sense of fine give the translation of some of the extracts. I have asked myself what the motive possible could be in writing or printing such a book except to inflame passion. Abuse and caricature of the Prophet cannot wean a Musalman from his faith and it can do no good to a Hindu who may have doubts about his own belief. As a contribution, therefore, to the religious propaganda work, it has no value whatsoever."
Following the publication of Rangila Rasul and its subsequent controversy, the Punjab government stated its intentions to stop the distribution of the book and prevent further publication. Later the publisher, Mahashe Rajpal, received several legal demands.[37] It eventually became clear that the Punjab government had no intention of escalating the controversy over the publication of the book, and when the Punjab Legislative Council discussed the case (at about the same time that the trial of the lawsuits against the publisher Rajpal started), concluded that:
The book [...] contained language which was open to objection, it was [however] decided not to prosecute as there was no ground for thinking that the book had attracted any general attraction.
— Official report of the Legislative Council, 1924.[38]
On May 4, 1927, Justice Dali Singh of the Punjab High Court in Lahore acquitted Rajpal of the charges, but personally condemned the book as "malicious in tone" and its propensity to offend religious sensibilities of the Muslim community.[39] The finding of innocence earned Judge Singh severe criticism and threats.[40] In response to the finding of innocence, a mass gathering of Muslims was held in early July in front of the Jama Masjid in Delhi, which was preceded by the activist, journalist and politician Maulana Mohammad Ali.[41] Of the event the Hindustan Times reported:
The vast gathering of Muslims declares to the Government with one voice that it should immediately shut down the door now open for the destruction of law and order, "by having the judgement immediately revised." Any further delay in the matter will be an indicator that Government wants to compel the Muslamans to take the law in their hands and such matters like this will precipitate a catastrophe which no forces on earth will be able to check.
Due to social tensions, the legal case against Rangila Rasul's publisher was taken up by a Lahore magisterial court, and this time the verdict was guilty, with a sentence of 6 months in prison.[43] However, the ruling was appealed and Judge Singh took up the case a second time, concluding that while the malicious nature of the pamphlet was a fact, it was difficult for him to proceed as there was no law against insult on religious prophets,[44] leaving Rajpal free in 1928.[26]
Violence
Unrest
Tensions between Muslims and Hindus in the city of Lahore in the summer of 1927 were greatly fueled by the publication of Rangila Rasul and Sair-e-Dozakh ("A Walk Through the Hell", an article critical of Islam published in a magazine called Risala-i-Vartman[45]), and this eventually erupted into riots that left several dead.[46] In fact, in Punjab the publication of Rangila Rasul facilitated social tensions for up to 6–7 years.[2]
Publisher murdered
Rangila Rasul's editor, Mahashe Rajpal, suffered an assassination attempt in 1926. Although he survived, he was hospitalized for 3 months.[47] Some extremist Muslim individuals, however, continued to try to take Rajpal's life and in 1927 there was another assassination attempt, but the assassin attacked a different person whom he mistook for Rajpal. Like Rajpal, the victim also survived.[47] Ultimately, Rajpal was assassinated in Lahore[48] on April 6, 1929,[3][47][49][50] when a Muslim carpenter named Ilm-ud-Din (also known as Alimuddin[51]), who was barely 20 years old,[52] stabbed Rajpal while he was outside his business.[50][53]
Trial of Ilm-ud-Din
Ilm-ud-Din was tried, found guilty and sentenced to death. His defence lawyer obtained an appeal before the Punjab High Court of Justice in Lahore, and to present his arguments he asked for help from Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Jinnah accepted and presented two arguments:
Questioning the evidence presented by the court.
Arguing that the punishment was excessive given the age of the killer.
However, Ilm-ud-Din's verdict was not overturned and the sentence was carried out on 31 October 1929.[54]
Ilm-ud-Din's Exaltation
Some Muslim fundamentalist groups gave Rajpal's killer the title of "Ghazi",[51] which means "Warrior of the Faith".[55] Recognition of the killer reached such a point that a TV movie about his actions was eventually produced in Pakistan.[51]
Condemnation by Mahatma Gandhi
On April 18, 1929, Gandhi published an article in his weekly "Youth India" under the title "The Bomb and the Knife"[56] in which he compared the knife from the assassination of Mahashay Rajpal with the bombs from the revolutionary act (planned not to injure anyone) against the Legislative Assembly in Delhi on April 8, 1929, by Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt (notable members of the pro-independence Hindustan Socialist Republican Association),[57] given the use of force and violence in both cases. Gandhi declared that both acts (the bombs thrown at the Legislative Assembly and the assassination of publisher Rajpal) followed the "same philosophy of mad revenge and impotent rage."[58]
Rajpal's Posthumous Recognition
Nearly 80 years after his death, in 1997, Rajpal was posthumously recognized by the Federation of Indian Publishers with the Freedom to Publish Award,[59] at the Delhi Book Fair.[60]
The book remains banned in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh given their penal codes. Physical copies of the book are hard to find.[61]
In India
Given the controversy over the ruling that acquitted the editor (Rajpal) of Rangila Rasul, the government tried to show a stronger hand with a similar case that followed shortly after, with another publication critical of Islam in a magazine called Risala-i-Vartman. However, the new trial was not enough, and it was decided that the Imperial Legislative Council (colonial predecessor of the current Parliament of India) would analyse a possible reform of the criminal law.[9]
The result was the Penal Code Amendment Act XXV of India in 1927,[8] which led to the current section 295A of the Indian Penal Code that is in use today,[9][62] which states:
295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. —Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of (citizens of India), (by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise), insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to [three years], or with fine, or with both.
— Indian Penal Code. XV Of Offences Relating to Religion.[63]
In Pakistan
Since Pakistan and India were part of the same political unit during the colonial period, the penal reform passed by the Imperial Legislative Council was also inherited in section 295A of the Pakistan Penal Code.
During the government of General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (1978 - 1988), Pakistan further extended the criminalization of blasphemy by introducing sections 295B and 295C in its penal code, as well as new sections to other similar laws, namely:
298 A: Introduced in 1980, criminalises direct or indirect desecration of wives and relatives of Muhammad.[64]
298 B: Introduced in 1984, it criminalises terms used by the Ahmadiyya Muslim minority with imprisonment.[65]
298 C: Introduced in 1984, it criminalises Muslim members of the Ahmadiyya minority who call themselves "Muslims" and preach or propagatie their version of Islam.[65]
295 B: Introduced in 1982, it criminalises the desecration of the Quran. It was introduced as a reaction to a period of social panic over reports of alleged desecration of the Quran in the media.[66]
295 C: Introduced in 1986, it criminalises with life imprisonment or the death penalty any direct or indirect desecration of Muhammad.[67]
While some of the norms are open discrimination (against the minority Ahmadis), others discriminate indirectly, since although 295A in theory covers all religions from possible profanation, the new sections 295B and 295C (introduced in 1982 and 1986 respectively), as well as 298A; give preferential protection to Islam.[68]
^ abcdKumar 1997, p. 47: "The pamphlet had been brought out anonymously. The real author of the pamphlet was one Pandit Champovati. It must be said to the credit of the publisher that he refused to disclose the mane of the real author of the pamphlet, in spite of the pressure brought to bear upon him. The pamphlet was in Urdu, the normal language of communication at the intellectual plane."
^ abcdeKumar 1997, p. 9: "The earlist [sic?] censorship controversy relates to the publication of the anonymous pamphlet Rangila Rasul in 1924. The whole of the Punjab was on fire for almost six or seven years. Perhaps the seeds of the partition were sown in this unseemly controversy leading to the assassination of Mahashe Rajpal (Malhotra), the publisher of the pamphlet in 1929."
^ abcNair 2009, p. 655: "However, the publisher of the pamphlet, Mahashe Rajpal, was stabbed on 6 April 1929."
^ abcKumar 1997, p. 53: "It was in such an unauspicious atmosphere that the explosive pamphlet came into being in May 1924."
^ abcPande 2017, p. 675: "These opening lines of the provocative Rangila Rasul [The Colourful Prophet], a slim volume published in 1924 in colonial north India, masqueraded as an innocuous ‘celebration’ of the ‘Prophet of Many Wives’. [...] the anonymous author listed the wide-ranging ‘qualities’ of the Rasul [Prophet], most notably his prodigious capacity for marriage."
^Ambedkar 1945, pp. 165, 170: "Some of the most serious of these outrages were perpetrated in connection with the agitation relating to Rangila Rasul and Risala Vartman two publications containing a most scurrilous attack on the Prophet Muhammed [...] whose pamphlet "Rangila Rasul", containing a scurrilous attack on the Prophet of Islam"
^Nair 2009, p. 655: "Hindu–Muslim relations in the Punjab had reached a new low with the publication of the bigoted pamphlet ‘Rangila Rasul’ in 1924."
^ abNair 2009, p. 655: " The ensuing tension abated only with the passage of the Criminal Law Amendment Act XXV that made it a cognizable crime to insult the founders and leaders of any religious community."
^ abcAssad 2018: "The colonial authorities were surprised when Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, Sir Shadi Lal, chose Singh, who was a Christian convert from Hinduism, to hear the case. They were even more surprised at Rajpal’s acquittal and Singh’s reasoning for it. They moved swiftly to do damage control by trying to ensure an authoritative judgment in a similar case involving Arya Samaj. They hoped the judgement, in what was known as the Risala-i-Vartman case, would supersede Singh’s judgment. Ultimately, however, they decided that the Vartman judgment was insufficient and a new law was required."
^Ambedkar 1945, pp. 159–164: "Beginning with the year 1920 there occurred in that year in Malabar what is known as the Mopla Rebellion. [...] In the year 1921-22 communal jealousies did not subside. [...] Though the year 1922-23 was a peaceful year the relations between the two communities were strained throughout 1923-24. [...] But even after settlement had been reached and evacuees had returned to Kohat there was no peace and throughout 1924-25 the tension between the Hindu and Musalman masses in various parts of the country increased to a lamentable extent. [...] The year 1926-27 was one continuous period of communal riots. [...] By far the most serious riot reported during the year was that which took place in Lahore between the 4th and 7th of May 1927."
^Hardgrave 1997, p. 58: "The Mappillas, the Muslims of Malabar, traditionally trace their origins to the ninth century. [...] By 1921, the Mappillas (or Moplahs) constituted the largest and the fastest growing community in Malabar."
^Hardgrave 1997, p. 61: "For whereas the lower Hindu castes were part of a hierarchy in which an oppressive Nambudri landlord was also a social and religious superior, the Mappillas as Muslims would identify the Nambudri as an unbeliever and could invoke Islamic tenets to justify a challenge to his authority. [...] The Mappillas were then free from previous restraints and their actions made explicit the profound antagonisms that prevailed between the Mappillas and the dominant Hindu castes in rural Malayali society. [...] Reduced to insecure tenancy, vulnerable to racketering and eviction at the hands of Hindu landlords (janmi) sustained by British courts, the Mappillas responded in a series of outbreaks, which Dale has described as social protests conducted as religious acts."
^Hardgrave 1997, p. 82: "With each day came new accounts of Hindus who had been massacred by frenzied Mappillas. Landlords Nambuduris and Nairswere were principal victims of the attacks, but reports on incidents occurring during the first weeks of the rebellion frequently implicated Hindus in the rioting, and arrests often included Hindus taken along with the Mappilla rebels."
^Hardgrave 1997, p. 61: "Many Hindus fled in fear of death or forced conversion before the advancing army and the even more terrifying bands of marauding Mappillas who in the areas of Ernad and Walluvanad had become a law unto themselves"
^Ambedkar 1945, p. 159: "The Hindus were visited by a dire fate at the hands of the Moplas. Massacres forcible conversions, descration of temples, foul outrages upon women, such as ripping open pregnant women, pillage, arson and destruction in short, all the accompaniments of brutal and unrestrained barbarism, were perpetrated freely by the Moplas upon the Hindus until such time as troops could be hurried to the task of restoring order through a difficult and extensive tract of the country. This was not a Hindu-Moslem riot. This was just a Bartholomew. The number of Hindus who were killed, wounded or converted is not known. But the number must have been enormous."
^Ambedkar 1945, p. 164: "Coming to the year 1927-28 the following facts stare us in the face. Between the beginning of April and the end of September 1927, no fewer than 25 riots were reported. Of these 10 occurred in the United Provinces, six in the Bombay Presidency, to 2 each in the Punjab, the Central Provinces, Bengal, and Bihar and Orissa, and one in Delhi. The majority of these riots occurred during the celebration of a religious festival by one or other of the two communities, whilst some arose out of the playing of music by Hindus in the neighbourhood of mosques or out of the slaughter of cows by Muhammadans. The total casualties resulting from the above disorders were approximately 103 persons killed and 1,084 wounded."
^Nair 2013, p. 317: "Late nineteenth–early twentieth century Punjab has been commonly regarded as a space for ‘competitive communalism’ whereby each of the province’s major religious communities participated in activities that increased hostilities between the communities. Such an assertion has been substantiated with reference to an increasing number of publications that were quickly deemed offensive to one or the other religious community of the Punjab and then banned."
^Ambedkar 1945, p. 165: "Rangila Rasul was written in reply to Sitaka Chinala a pamphlet written by a Musalman alleging that Sita wife of Rama, the hero of Ramayana was a prostitute."
^Kumar 1997, p. 51: "All copies of the book were reported to have been sold within few weeks."
^ abKumar 1997, p. 53: "Its anonymous author, now known to be one Pandit Champovati (a committed Arya Samajist) seemed to be well-versed with Islamic literature."
^ abSpruijt 2010, p. 3: "This meant that the publisher would take all the responsibility of writing and publishing this book on himself and would never divulge the name of the real author, Pandit Chamupati, who was afraid of the wrath of the extremists."
^Kumar 1997, p. 53: "The Punjab Arya Samaj headed the list of polemicist per excelence. Indeed there was a horde of Arya Samaji preachers who specialized in the art of polemics, emphasizing the negative features of other faiths including those of other Hindu sects. Islam was, no doubt, their special target."
^ abRajpal & Sons 2019: "Rajpal and Sons was founded in 1912 in Lahore (now in Pakistan) by Shri Rajpal Malhotra, a journalist-turned-publisher."
^ abSpruijt 2010, p. 3: "Rajpal was threatened and asked to reveal the name of the author. He was offered by the fundamentalists that if he came out with the name of the real author, his life would be spared. But because he was courageous, because he defended freedom to publish even before such a concept really existed, because he dared to publish, he did not do such a thing. Thus, the whole burden, the entire agitation was directed against the publisher. Let’s face it: Late Shri Rajpal gave his life to save the author’s life, and to uphold the sacred principle of Freedom to Publish."
^Spruijt 2010, p. 1: "He had a humble beginning, but by the work done by him, he was admired by all the social circles in Lahore and throughout Punjab. Late Shri Rajpal was a fearless publisher."
^ abRajpal & Sons 2019: "An ardent champion of the freedom of expression, Rajpal won a bitterly fought legal battle in 1928 in the Punjab High Court in defence of an author's right to express his opinion."
^Gupta 2020, pp. 1108, 1120: "12. Santram B.A., Santan Sankhya ka Seema-Bandhan, Arthat Dampati Mitra (Limiting the Number of Children, Meaning Friend of the Couple) (Lahore: Rajpal, 1926). [...] Figure 6 (a–c). Birth control devices. Source: Santram B.A., Santan Sankhya ka Seema-Bandhan, Arthat Dampati Mitra (Lahore: Rajpal, 1926), pp. 44, 46, 49, respectively."
^Gupta 2020, p. 1108: "Santram B.A. (1887–1998) was a learned, radical Shudra caste reformer from Punjab, and founder of the Jat-Pat Torak Mandal (Organisation to Break Caste). [...] At the same time, he wrote several articles and books on sex and birth control, including translations into Hindi of some of the Sanskrit sex classics, and for the first time of Mary Stopes’ most celebrated books like Married Love, Contraception and Enduring Passion."
^Pande 2017, p. 675: "Mimicking the style of bhakti or devotion for a saintly object of intimate affection in the Hindu religious-literary tradition, the anonymous author listed the wide-ranging ‘qualities’ of the Rasul [Prophet], most notably his prodigious capacity for marriage."
^Spruijt 2010, p. 2: "As the entire material in the book was based on facts, it could not be challenged, according to the High Court."
^Pande 2017, p. 675: "There was more to learn from the Rasul's 'experiences' in his marriages 'to a widow, a virgin, an old woman, a young woman... even a budding girl', the author insisted, than from other saints and prophets of yore – the celibate Dayanand, virgin Christ, or the renouncing Buddha – whose lives offered little by way of practical example to the everyman."
^Pande 2017, p. 675: "A calamity’s to be averted: he weds her; An unkindled lamp's to be lit: he weds her. One’s beauty appeals: he weds her; Another has treasure: he weds her. As the nightingale serves the flowers in the garden; I devote myself to the Colourful Prophet."
^Kumar 1997, p. 54: "The book 'R. Rasul' which is the subject of the case is a small brochure writtren by some anonymous but well-informed author who has tried to draw instances from the life of the Prophet. Those who have read the book know that there is no attempt at ridiculing and the facts put forward in simple and innocent language are entirely based on the writings of standard authors on Islam both Europeans and Muhammedan."
^Kumar 1997, p. 54: "A friend has sent me a pamphlet called R. Rasul writrren in Urdu, The author's name is not given. It is published by the manager, Arya Pustakalaya, Lahore. The very title is highly offensive. The contents in keeping with the title. I cannot without giving offence to the reader's sense of fine give the translation of some of the extracts. I have asked myself what the motive possible could be in writing or printing such a book except to inflame passion. Abuse and caricature of the Prophet cannot wean a Musalman from his faith and it can do no good to a Hindu who may have doubts about his own belief. As a contribution, therefore, to the religious propaganda work, it has no value whatsoever."
^Kumar 1997, p. 48: "A series of cases were filled in the courts, after the Government of the Punjab sought to ban it from distribution and publication."
^Kumar 1997, p. 50: "The matter was discussed in the Punjab Legislative Council about the time the court proceedings had begun against R. Rasul. The response to the debate by the Government of Punjab was laconic, with an obvious attempt to play down the controversy. The official response put forward during the debate in the legislature was not encouraging: The book came to the notice of the Government in March last, but it contained language which was open to objection, it was [however] decided not to prosecute as there was no ground for thinking that the book had attracted any general attraction. "
^Kumar 1997, p. 48: "A fresh bout of tension was generated, after Justice Dalip Singh (a Christian by faith) of Lahore High Court absolved the publisher of the pamphlet of all charges on May 4, 1927. [...] He [Maulana] was scornful, of the hon'ble Judge of Lahore High Court for the "defective judgement," in spite of the fact, that he, [Dalip Singh] "has condemned the pamphlet as malicious in tone and likely to wounding religious feeling of the Musalman community.""
^Kumar 1997, pp. 48–49: "The gravamen of the charge was not only against the publisher of the pamphlet, but it had also been extended to Justice Dali Singh, in the case, "involving the honour and respect of their Prophet. The court was charged with overlooking the guilt of the publisher for, "having cast unholy, uncharitable, nay filthy aspersions on the person of the Holy Prophet." [...] Even then Justice Dalip Singh had the temerity to "reluctantly" accept the revision and acquit the petitioner. It gave an opportunity to the Maulana to charge the judge with hiding behind the skirts of "detective law." [...] Here he was now in full command of the fundamentalist forces, mobilizing them for the religious cause, and exhorting the mob to a full state of frenzy to wage an unceasing Jehad, not only against Rajpal and Justice Dalip Singh, but also against the Hindus in general and the Government of India."
^Kumar 1997, p. 49: "The Maulana had very cleverly prepared the ground for public agitation by positioning himself advantageously by commanding heights through the manipulation of gullible public to his political advantage. [...] The vast gathering of incited audience before the Juma Masjid presided over by the Maulana passed a resolution by placing the Government of India in his firing line."
^Kumar 1997, p. 49: "The vast gathering of Muslims declares to the Government with one voice that it should immediately shut down the door now open for the destruction of law and order, "by having the judgement immediately revised." Any further delay in the matter will be an indicator that Government wants to compel the Muslamans to take the law in their hands and such matters like this will precipitate a catastrophe which no forces on earth will be able to check. [Hindustan Times, July 2, 1927.]"
^Kumar 1997, pp. 55–56: "There was so much communal tension generated in the Punjab that the provincial Government was left with no alternative but to move the court to prosecute the publisher under Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code. [...] Accordingly, the magistrate sentencend Mahashe Rajpal to six months of rigorous imprisonment. The court went not only for the contents of the pamphlet, for also the real intentions of the petitioner."
^Kumar 1997, p. 58: "The judge very "reluctantly" acquitted the petitioner because the law as it stood then did not treat the satirization of saints and prophets as legal offense. A hell was let loose after judgement was pronounced. Justice Dalip Singh besides Rajpal and the Arya Samaj became the subject of unbridled attacks by the media and from the pulpit. The ferocity of the attacks assumed qualitative proportions."
^Kumar 1997, p. 51: "Here was a controversy generated around an article entitled Sair-e-Dozakh (A Walk Through the Hell) published in Risala-i-Vartmanof Amritsar."
^Ambedkar 1945, p. 165: "Some of the most serious of these outrages were perpetrated in connection with the agitation relating to Rangila Rasul and Risala Vartman two publications containing most scurrilous attack on the Prophet Muhammed and as a result of them, a number of innocent persons lost their lives, sometimes in circumstances of great barbarity. In Lahore a series of outrages against individuals led to a state of great excitement and insecurity during the summer of 1927."
^ abcSpruijt 2010, p. 2: "He was first attacked in 1926 and was consequently hospitalised for three months, but his life was saved. Then, a second attack by another fanatic was made in 1927, which hit another person by mistake who, thankfully, also survived the attack. [...] The third attempt, on 6 April 1929, proved fatal when another fanatic, Ilm-ud-Din, took his life on this very dark day, Rajpal thus having only lived 44 years."
^Ambedkar 1945, p. 170: "An event which caused considerable tension in April was the murder at Lahore of Rajpal."
^Rajpal & Sons 2019: "The third attempt on April 6, 1929 proved fatal when Rajpal was stabbed to death while working in his office in Lahore."
^ abKumar 1997, p. 48: "Maulana Mohammed was to be prophetic, because Rajpal was stabbed to death on April 6, 1929 while sitting in this bookshop."
^ abcKumar 1997, p. 47: "Alimuddin, the unabashed murderer, was raised to the status of ghazi in the eyes of his co-religionist. In Pakistan, a full-length feature film has been produces on the exploits of Alimuddin and secreened on Pakistan TV several times."
^Assad 2018: "But Rajpal’s trial, and his eventual acquittal, had already stoked communal acrimony. In April 1929, two years after his acquittal, he was attacked by a 20-year-old Muslim, Ilm-ud-Din."
^Ambedkar 1945, p. 152: "Rajpal the author of the Rangila Rasool was stabbed by Ilm-ud-Din on the 6th April 1929 while he was sitting in his shop."
^Assad 2018: "After Ilm-ud-Din was convicted and sentenced to death, his trial lawyer requested Jinnah to represent him during the hearing of his appeal before the Lahore High Court. Jinnah’s strategy was to attack the prosecution evidence produced before the trial court as insufficient. He also challenged the death penalty as being too harsh a punishment given the defendant’s age. But these arguments were rejected and the sentence was affirmed. Ilm-ud-Din was executed and buried on October 31, 1929 in Mianwali. Shortly thereafter, at the request of leading members of the Muslim community, including Allama Muhammad Iqbal, the colonial authorities allowed him to be reburied in Lahore on November 14."
^Dr. Zuhur & LTCDR Aboul-Enein 2004, p. 6: "Ghazw is a raid that has evolved into the term for battle, ghazah, or ghazwa. These were battles in which the Prophet Muhammad personally participated. The term ghazi came to mean “warrior for the faith.”"
^Nair 2009, p. 655: "M.K. Gandhi, ‘The Bomb and the Knife’, Young India, 18 April 1929 in Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi."
^Gupta 1997, p. 21: "Following the authorities' failure to locate the retributioners, the H.S.R.A. went for a more dramatic act of revolutionist propaganda. It was to coincide with the discussions in the Central Legislative Assembly, Delhi, on such official measures as the Public Safety and Trade Disputes Bills to counter the spread of both revolutionism and trade-unionism. Apparently in protest against these Bills, Bhagat Singh and Batukeswar Dutta raised slogans in the Assembly Hall on 8 April 1929, scattered away the H.S.R.A. leaflets and hurled bombs - not to hurt anybody, but "to make the deaf hear." The duo made no attempt to escape, allowed themselves to be arrested on the spot and sent before a special tribunal for trial."
^Nair 2009, p. 655: "However, the repressive side to British colonialism was making itself felt in a series of illiberal bills due to be passed in the Central Legislature. Just as the president of the Assembly rose to give his ruling on the unpopular Public Safety Bill on the 8 April 1929, Bhagat Singh and B. K. Dutt threw two bombs from the visitor’s gallery towards the officer’s gallery in the Assembly in New Delhi. [...] Public criticism of this terrorist action was unequivocal. Gandhi equated the bombs with the knife that killed Rajpal, the author of the notorious pamphlet Rangila Rasul, as subject to the ‘same philosophy of mad revenge and impotent rage.’"
^ abRajpal & Sons 2019: "In 1997, Rajpal was posthumously bestowed the first Freedom to Publish Award by the Federation of Indian Publishers. In 2010, the International Publishers' Association bestowed on him the Dare to Publish Award and paid tribute to the timeless and exemplary integrity, determination, and courage that he embodied in upholding the fundamental human right of Freedom of Expression."
^ abSpruijt 2010: "In 1997, the Federation of Indian Publishers gave Rajpal a posthumous Freedom to Publish Award at the time of the Delhi Book Fair. Now, thirteen years later, [...] IPA is giving a special “Dare to Publish Award” to Late Shri Rajpal who, despite the attacks, did not bear any ill-will against the Muslim community [...]. Even after the first two attacks against him, he used to say that these were the acts of fanatics, not the entire Muslim community."
^Kumar 1997, p. 48: "Copies of the controversial pamphlet are hard to come by."
^Nair 2013, p. 317: "This article examines the controversies following the publication of one such pamphlet ‘Rangila Rasul’. These ultimately necessitated the addition of section 295A to the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a section that would punish those who, ‘with deliberate and malicious intention,’ insulted or attempted to insult ‘religious beliefs’ of any class of His Majesty’s subjects."
^Imperial Legislative Council 1927, p. 68: "295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. —Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of (citizens of India), (by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise), insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to [three years], or with fine, or with both."
^Assad 2018: "Zia sought to cultivate support for himself by co-opting various religious groups and, to that end, organised Ulema and Mashaikh Conferences in quick succession in August and September of 1980. [...] Less than a month later and days before the start of the Mashaikh Conference, the government added Section 298-A to the PPC."
^ abAssad 2018: "The next Zia-era addition – an ordinance that introduced two new sections, 298-B and 298-C – was even more explicitly discriminatory. Its very title, The Anti-Islamic Activities of Qadiani Group, Lahori Group and Ahmadis (Prohibition and Punishment) Ordinance of 1984, made no bones about it. [...] The new sections criminalised Ahmadi engagement with Islam. Section 298-B criminalises the use of various Islamic terms by Ahmadis whereas 298-C is so unlimited in its scope that it basically criminalises anything Ahmadis may say or do in relation to Islam."
^Assad 2018: "Two years later, in 1982, another section, 295-B, was added through an ordinance. It criminalised the defiling of the Quran and seems to have been induced by a media-led moral panic. Urdu newspapers began to report instances where the Quran was apparently defiled."
^Assad 2018: "If the intention of the legislators who approved Section 295-C back in 1986 was to ensure that, as Mir Nawaz Khan Marwat said, “…in the future no one will dare commit blasphemy of the Holy Prophet.”"
^Assad 2018: "Both of the new sections, 298-A and 295-B, are technically discriminatory. They privilege one religion, Islam, through specification of particular sacred persons and books, and imply that other religions are secondary. [...] The new sections criminalised Ahmadi engagement with Islam. Section 298-B criminalises the use of various Islamic terms by Ahmadis whereas 298-C is so unlimited in its scope that it basically criminalises anything Ahmadis may say or do in relation to Islam."
