MAHARAJ LIBEL CASE -
1862
The
case known as the "Maharaj
Libel
Case", was tried in 1862 in the Supreme Court, before Sir Joseph
Arnould. The plaintiff in the suit was the head of the Vallabhacharya
sect of the Vaishnavas.
The defendant was one Karsandas Mulji, who edited a newspaper in
which
he wrote a number of articles, exposing the abuses that, according to
him,
prevailed in the Vallabhacharya sect. It seems that something akin to
what
was known in Roman Law as Jus Primae Noctes, was claimed by or accorded
to
the religious heads of the sect; and their blind votaries, in their
ignorance and credulity, sacrificed young women at the altar of a foul
superstition. The articles created a great stir in the community, and
threw the parasites of their temples, and the worshippers of the" holy"
religious head, into consternation
and fury. The hold of spiritual superstitions was so strong upon
ignorant
people in those days, that it demanded great courage and determination
to
expose and denounce practices which, if essentially lewd and repulsive,
were
sacrosanct in the eyes of the ignorant and orthodox classes. Karsandas
braved
public odium, and persisted in his course in the face of threats and
persecution.
The result was that the head priest, the subject of the attacks, sought
legal
redress. He filed a suit for defamation against Karsandas. In doing so,
he
threw himself unwittingly into the arms of an enlightened court, and a
fierce
and fearless advocate. Karsandas was lucky in securing for his defence
the
services of Anstey. Anstey's brain was inflamed by the tale of
trickery,
fraud, and filth, which was placed before him; and he came to court
determined
to expose the foul practices, and crush a dangerous delusion. Few could
withstand
the scathing and relentless cross-examination of Ansteyleast of all
anybody
with a dark and dubious record. It is not necessary to narrate the tale
of
credulity and corruption, licence and degradation, elicited in the
course
of the evidence; nor is it necessary, as Edwardes puts it, "to trace
the
gradual conversion of the high-toned mysticism of early Hindu religion,
into
a debasing anthropomorphic superstition." The case excited
great
public interest; and the contemporary press referred to its result as
"triumph
over public immorality". The true significance of the case
is
stressed in the concluding portion of the judgment of Sir Joseph
Arnould:
"This 'trial is spoken of as having involved a great waste of public
time;
I cannot agree with that. No doubt, much time has been spent in hearing
this
case; but I would fain hope it has not been all wasted. It seems
impossible
that this matter should have been discussed thus openly before a
population
as enlightened as that of the natives of Western India, without
producing
its results. It has probably taught some to think; it must have led
many
to inquire. 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 that sap the very
foundations
of morality, which involve a violation of the eternal and immutable
laws
of Right, are pursued 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 been exposed and
denounced.
At a risk and a cost which we cannot adequately measure, these men have
waged
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
of their votaries that their evil is not good, that their lie is not
truth.
In thus doing, they have done bravely and well. I may be allowed to
express
a hope that what they have done will not have been in vain; that the
seed
they have sown will bear its fruit; that their courage and consistency
will
be rewarded by a steady increase in the number of those whom their
words
and their example have quickened into thought and animated into
resistance,
whose homes they have helped to cleanse from loathsome lewdness, and
whose
souls they have set free from a debasing bondage." It seems
that
the public conscience had indeed been stirred to its depths by the
exposures
in the case. Karsandas Mulji's brave example emancipated the minds of
many,
and redeemed them from debasing and defiling beliefs and practices. He
illuminated
Carlyle's maxim that" a lie cannot live ".
The story goes that as Anstey entered the court-room on the first day of the trial, he brushed past a man who was standing there, and his gown touched the man. The man shouted in vernacular, "do not contaminate me with your touch." Anstey turned round and asked what the man was saying. He was told that it was the plaintiff; and "His Holiness" felt contaminated by the touch of an alien. Anstey retorted fiercely, "Tell the foul beast that I won't touch him with a pair of tongs". That was the beginning of a battle which ended in the complete defeat and discomfiture of the plaintiff. * *
* * *
|