The cover of Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India

New Delhi, Aug. 7: Bal Thackeray has new company; so does Taslima Nasreen.

CPM organ People’s Democracy has backed the now-revoked ban on James Laine’s “scurrilous” biography of Shivaji, saying the Supreme Court’s decision to lift the ban was “unfortunate”.

The CPM stand on the American scholar’s book almost mirrors that of the Shiv Sena and most other political parties in Maharashtra. The Marxists had earlier supported the ban on some of Taslima’s books on grounds of law and order.

In its July 25 edition, People’s Democracy has carried an article that says the party’s Maharashtra unit would have demanded a ban on Laine’s book. But, it adds, since “the Supreme Court had ruled in favour of lifting the ban, there was no question of again demanding a ban”.

Therefore, it says, it is asking “the state government (Maharashtra) to file a defamation suit against James Laine for making such scurrilous and baseless insinuations” in Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India.

The write-up says Laine’s “insinuations against venerated historical figures in the name of freedom of expression was an invitation to social unrest”.

The article makes a weak attempt at distinguishing the CPM’s stand from that of the Sena and the BJP.

It says the book has a “mischievous” title that “harks back to the so-called British historians in the colonial era who arbitrarily divided the history of India into sections like the Hindu period, the Mughal period and the British period with the intention to deepen communal discord”.

However, its other objections to the book are identical to those raised by the Sena and others. The articles says: “The most objectionable part of the book is the insinuation that Shahaji, who Laine derides as an absentee father, was not Shivaji’s biological father. He further writes that there are jokes that Shivaji’s biological father was Dadoji Konddeo, a Brahmin who looked after Shahaji’s estates in Pune. He thus casts aspersions on Shivaji’s mother Jijabai’s character.”

The CPM’s Maharashtra state committee had on July 11 discussed the Supreme Court’s July 9 judgment lifting the ban.

The apex court had said that governments cannot ban books on the basis of “stray sentences” and added: “The intention of the author has to be gathered from the language, content and import…. If the allegations… are based on folklore, tradition or history, something in extenuation could perhaps be said for the author.”

The court had also said: “The effect of the words… must be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong-minded and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view. The class of readers for whom the book is primarily meant would also be relevant for judging the probable consequences of the writing.”

Oxford University Press had published the book in 2003. Maharashtra had banned it through a notification in 2004, which was revised in 2006. The high court had in 2007 quashed the government notification after some citizens challenged it in Bombay High Court.

The court had said the state had shown no evidence that the book had led to public tranquillity being disturbed or affected harmony between groups. The government had then appealed in the Supreme Court, saying the book was prejudicial to harmony between Brahmins and Marathas.