Superstar Aamir Khan’s son Junaid Khan is all set to make his debut with the film ‘Maharaj’, which will premiere on Netflix on Friday. The film ran into controversy even before its release as a section of netizens are calling for a ban on the film as it hurts religious sentiments. Directed by Siddharth P Malhotra and produced by Aditya Chopra under YRF Entertainment, the film is set in pre-independent India and is based on the Maharaj Libel Case of 1862.
Despite being Junaid Khan’s debut, the movie is being released on the streaming platform without any promotion. The makers have not released any teasers or trailers, except for a poster featuring Jaideep Ahlawat and Junaid. The poster shows Ahlawat's character with a 'tilak' on his forehead and Junaid's character dressed in a waistcoat.
Who is Karsandas Mulji?
The film follows Karsandas Mulji (played by Junaid Khan), a journalist and social reformer, who was a pioneering advocate for women's rights and social reform. A student at Elphinstone College in Mumbai and a protege of the scholar-leader Dadabhai Naoroji, Mulji wrote on widow remarriage, stood up for the oppressed, and sowed the seeds of reform in society.
What is the Maharaj Libel Case of 1862?
In 1861, Mulji, then the editor of the influential Gujarati weekly 'Satyaprakash,' published a series of articles that sent shockwaves through the conservative society of Bombay. The articles targeted the Pushtimarg Vaishnava sect, specifically its revered leaders, the Maharajas. These articles alleged that the Maharajas engaged in sexual misconduct with female devotees under the guise of religious rituals.
Founded in the early 16th century by Vallabhacharya, Pushtimarg, literally translating to "the Path of Nourishing or Flourishing," centers on the worship of Lord Krishna.
In his article dated September 21, 1861, in Satyaprakash, titled "Hinduono Asal Dharma ane Haalna Pakhandi Mato" (The Primitive Religion of the Hindus and the Present Heterodox Opinions), he accused the Maharajas of engaging in sexual liaisons with female devotees, among various other charges. The article also asserted that the book of Gokulnath, the grandson of Vallabhacharya - endorsed immorality.
According to The Leaflet, the article highlighted that the sect encouraged men to "offer their wives and daughters" to the Maharaj for his pleasure. It expressed strong disapproval of the sect's practices, accusing it of promoting shamelessness, cunning, immodesty, rascality, and deceit. It specifically named Jadunathj Maharaj multiple times, questioning whether he intended to further deceive simple people and blind the public. The article accused the Maharaj of leading a licentious and immoral life, corrupting the wives and daughters of his devotees.
Lawsuit against Mulji
This led to Jadunath Maharaj, a prominent leader of the Pushtimarg sect, filing a libel lawsuit against Mulji and the publisher of ‘Satyaprakash,’ Nanabhai Rustomji Ranina. As per The Leaflet, the lawsuit claimed that the libel severely damaged the Maharaj's reputation as a Brahmin, a Hindu High Priest, and a member of the Vallabhacharya sect. It said that the publication brought public scandal, infamy, and disgrace upon the Maharaj among the Hindu residents of Bombay, leading people to suspect him of holding unorthodox religious views. The suit sought Rs. 50,000 in damages from Karsandas and Nanabhoy.
The case attracted immense public interest and was called the “greatest trial of modern times since the trial of Warren Hastings”.
The case that commenced on January 25, 1862, drew large crowds to the court, public galleries overflowed, eager to witness the case. Mulji found a champion in Thomas Chisholm Anstey, a brilliant but controversial lawyer known for his fierce independence. Sir Lyttleton Holyoake Bayley represented the Maharaj.
Over the course of the trial, thirty-one witnesses for the plaintiff and thirty-three for the defendants were examined, including Jadunath Maharaj, whose defamation charges were ultimately dismissed.
The judgement
On 22nd April 1862, Sir Matthew Richard Sausse, who was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Bombay, ruled that the defendant engaged in this controversy with the sincere intention of exposing actions he genuinely believed were detrimental to social morality.
Justice Joseph Arnould concluded that the article in question did not constitute libel.
Arnould’s observation are quoted by The Leaflet, “It is not a question of theology that has been before us! it is a question of morality. The principle for which the defendant and his witnesses have been contending is simply this – that what is morally wrong cannot be theologically right—that when practices which sap the very foundation of morality, which involve a violation of the eternal and immutable laws of Rights, are established in the name and under the sanction of Religion, they ought, for the common welfare of Society, and in the interest of Humanity itself, to be publicly denounced and exposed. They have denounced-they have exposed them. At a risk and to a cost which we cannot adequately measure, these men have done determined battle against a foul and powerful delusion. They have dared to look Custom and Error boldly in the face, and proclaim before the world at their votaries, that their Evil is not Good, that their Lie is not the Truth. In thus doing they have done bravely and well.”
Karsandas, who died in 1871, continued his journalistic endeavours, establishing other publications and advocating for social reforms.