Rangila Rasul

De Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

Rangina Rasul (Urdu: رنگیلا رسول, Devanagari: रंगीला रसूल, español: El Profeta colorido[1]​) es un libro publicado anónimamente en Urdu en 1924.

El libro fue considerado sumamente controversial debido a su sátira de la vida marital del Profeta Mahoma.[1]​[2]​[3]​ Su publicación llevó a reformas en el código penal de la India que hicieron ilegal la blasfemia[4]​[5]​ y pudo contribuir a sentar las bases para la partición de la India.[6]​

Rangila Rasul
de Pandit Chamupati
Editor(es) Mahashe Rajpal.[6]​[7]​
Género No ficción, Panfleto, Sátira religiosa.
Tema(s) Esposas de Mahoma, Vida personal de Mahoma.
Edición original en Urdu[8]​
Título original رنگیلا رسول
Ciudad Lahore
País India Británica
Fecha de publicación Mayo de 1924.[9]​
Formato Impreso
Páginas 58 Ver y modificar los datos en Wikidata
[editar datos en Wikidata]

Contexto[editar]

En la década de 1920, el Raj británico (que comprendía a los actuales países de Bangladés, Birmania, India y Pakistán) experimentó episodios de violencia entre las comunidades musulmana e hinduista.[10]​

Entre 1921 y 1922 se dio la rebelión de Malabar, también conocida como rebelión de Mopla o Mappila, que es como se conoce a los musulmanes de Malabar.[11]​

Los musulmanes de Malabar no solo se rebelaron contra las autoridades británicas, sino también contra las elites hindús de la zona[12]​[13]​ que sufrieron de masacres y conversiones forzadas a manos de los mappilas.[14]​[15]​

Entre abril y septiembre de 1927 se dieron al menos 25 disturbios repartidos entre Bombay, Punyab, Bengala, Bihar, Odisha y otras regiones, dejando un saldo de poco más de un centenar de muertos (103) y poco más de mil heridos. (1084)[16]​

En la región del Punyab estás hostilidades se vieron acompañadas de textos publicados por miembros de una comunidad religiosas con la intención de criticar u ofender a otras comunidades religiosas.[17]​

Rangila Rasul fue publicado por miembros de la comunidad hinduista como respuesta a un panfleto titulado «Sitaka Chinala» publicado por miembros de la comunidad musulmana y que representaba a la diosa hindú Sita (esposa de Rama, héroe del Ramayana) como una prostituta.[18]​

Publicación[editar]

Rangina Rasul fue publicado en mayo de 1924[9]​ y sus ejemplares se agotaron en cuestión de pocas semanas.[19]​

Originalmente se publicó en urdu[8]​ y luego fue traducido a hindi.

Rangina Rasul fue escrito por un miembro de la secta reformista hindú Arya Samaj[20]​ de nombre Pandit Chamupati[21]​ (o Champovati). La secta Arya Samaj no era extraña a polémicas religiosas, siendo que muchos de sus líderes y ministros se habían hecho fama ofendiendo a otras religiones, incluyendo otras sectas hinduistas.[22]​

El editor[editar]

El editor de Rangila Rasul fue Mahashe Rajpal,[6]​[7]​ un periodista[23]​ de Lahore.

Rajpal publicó el libro de manera anónima,[6]​ sin revelar o hacer público en nombre del autor (Chamupati) a pesar de la presión pública y amenazas que recibió,[8]​[24]​ por lo que Rajpal asumió las consecuencias legales posteriores.[21]​

Mahashe Rajpal (también conocido como Mahashay) fundó su editorial «Rajpal & Sons» («Rajpal e hijos») en 1912.[23]​

Como editor Rajpal llegó a ser reconocido en varios círculos sociales de Lahore,[25]​ siendo que era comprometido con la libertad de expresión[24]​[26]​ y no se escondía de temas controversiales, llegando a publicar una traducción al hindi de «Amor conyugal» («Married Love») de Marie Stopes en 1925[27]​ y un texto ilustrado sobre planificación familiar en 1926,[28]​ ambos escritos por Santram B. A. (1887 – 1998) un erudito y reformista social miembro de la casta social Shudrá.[29]​ (La casta de los siervos.)

Contenido[editar]

El libro trata sobre los matrimonios y la vida sexual del profeta Mahoma.[1]​

Al ser una sátira, la vida marital del profeta Mahoma es tratada en tono de elogio, al estilo de un bhakti[30]​ (es decir, una muestra de devoción a un dios o santo en la tradición hinduista), siendo que algunos de los puntos controversiales del libro son de hecho fieles a lo que indica la tradición islámica sobre la vida del profeta Mahoma.[31]​ Lo anterior se debió a que el autor era versado en literatura islámica.[20]​

En una parte, el autor cita características del profeta, destacando su habilidad para el matrimonio, que abarcó «a una viuda, a una virgen, a una anciana, a una joven... incluso una niña en ciernes».[32]​

De hecho, el texto abre con las siguiente líneas:

Hay que evitar una calamidad: él se casa con ella;

Una lámpara apagada debe encenderse: él se casa con ella.
La belleza de una es llamativa: él se casa con ella;
Otra tiene un tesoro: él se casa con ella.
Como el ruiseñor sirve a las flores en el jardín;

Me dedico al Profeta Colorido.
Rangila Rasul, 1914.[33]​

El diario bangladesí Amrita Bazar Patrika refirió el libro de la siguiente manera:

«El libro R. Rasul, que es el sujeto de este caso, es un pequeño folleto escrito por un anónimo pero bien informado autor que trató de concluir instancias de la vida del profeta. Aquellos que han leído el libro saben que no hay intento de ridiculizar y los hechos expuestos en un lenguaje simple e inocente están enteramente basados en escritos de autores estándar del islam, ya sean europeos o musulmanes.»
Amrita Bazar Patrika.[34]​

Reacciones[editar]

Condena de Mahatma Gandhi[editar]

En junio de 1924, Mahatma Gandhi refirió a Rangila Rasul en su semanario «Young India». («India Joven»)

En su artículo Gandhi señaló que:

«Un amigo me ha enviado un panfleto llamado R. Rasul escrito en Urdu. No tiene el nombre del autor. [...] El solo título es sumamente ofensivo. El contenido va de acuerdo con el título. No puedo, sin ofender el sentido de lo que es correcto del lector, dar la traducción de algunos extractos. Me he preguntado cuál podría ser el motivo de escribir e imprimir tal libro, sino inflamar pasiones. El abuso y la caricaturización del Profeta no pueden distanciar al musulmán de su fe y no pueden hacer bien alguno al hindú, que podría empezar a dudar de su propia fe. Como contribución, por lo tanto, a los trabajos de propaganda religiosa, no tiene ningún valor en lo absoluto.»
Mahatma Gandhi en Young India, junio de 1924.[35]​

Juicio contra el editor[editar]

Tras la publicación de Rangila Rasul y su posterior polémica, el gobierno de Punyab manifestó sus intenciones de detener la distribución del libro e impedir posteriores publicaciones. Posteriormente el editor, Mahashe Rajpal, recibió varias demandas legales.[36]​

Eventualmente fue claro que el gobierno de Punyab no tenían intención de hacer más grande la polémica por la publicación del libro, y cuando el Consejo Legislativo de Punyab discutió el caso (más o menos al mismo tiempo que comenzó el juicio por las demandas contra el editor Rajpal), concluyó que:

«El libro [...] contiene lenguaje abierto a objeción, [pero] se ha decidido no procesar [legalmente] ya que no hay bases para pensar que el libro ha atraído mucha atención general.»
Reporte oficial del Consejo Legislativo, 1924.[37]​

El 4 de mayo de 1927, el ministro Dali Singh de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de Punyab en Lahore exoneró a Rajpal de los cargos, pero a título personal condenó el libro por considerarlo «malicioso en su tono» y su propensión a herir la sensibilidad religiosa de la comunidad musulmana.[38]​ El fallo de inocencia le valió severas críticas y amenazas al juez Singh.[39]​

En respuesta al fallo de inocencia, a inicios de julio se llevó a cabo una reunión multitudinaria de musulmanes frente a la gran mezquita de Jama Masjid en Delhi, que fue precedida por el activista, periodista y político Maulana Mohammad Ali.[40]​ Del evento el Hindustan Times reportó:

«La vasta reunión de musulmanes le declara al gobierno, con una sola voz, que debería cerrar inmediatamente la puerta que ha abierto a la destrucción de la ley y el orden. Esto lo puede lograr "revisando inmediatamente la sentencia." Cualquier retraso en este aspecto será un indicador de que el gobierno quiere forzar a los musulmanes a tomar la ley en sus propias manos y tales asuntos propiciarían una catástrofe que ninguna fuerza en la tierra podría refrenar.»
Hindustan Times, 2 de julio de 1927.[41]​

Debido a tensiones sociales, el caso legal contra el editor de Rangila Rasul fue retomado por una corte magisterial de Lahore, y en esta ocasión el fallo fue de culpable, con una condena de 6 meses de prisión.[42]​

No obstante, el fallo fue apelado y el juez Singh retomó el caso por segunda vez, concluyendo que si bien la naturaleza maliciosa del panfleto era un hecho, le era difícil proceder ya que la ley no contemplaba ataques a profetas religiosos,[43]​ dejando a Rajpal libre en 1928.[26]​

Violencia[editar]

Disturbios[editar]

Las tensiones entre musulmanes e hinduistas en la ciudad de Lahore en verano de 1927 se vieron en buena medida avivadas por la publicación de Rangila Rasul y Sair-e-Dozakh («Paseo a través el infierno», un artículo crítico del islam publicado en una revista llamada Risala Vartman[44]​). Finalmente las tensiones estallaron en disturbios que dejaron varios muertos.[45]​

En Punyab, la publicación de Rangila Rasul facilitó disturbios por un periodo de hasta 6 a 7 años.[6]​

Asesinato del editor[editar]

El editor de Rangila Rasul, Mahashe Rajpal, sufrió un intentó de asesinato en 1926. Aunque sobrevivió, estuvo hospitalizado por 3 meses.[46]​

En 1927 hubo otro intento de asesinato, pero el asesinó atacó a una persona inocente a la que confundió con Rajpal. Como Rajpal, la víctima también sobrevivió.[46]​

Finalmente, Rajpal fue asesinado en Lahore[47]​ el 6 de abril de 1929[7]​[46]​[48]​[49]​, cuando un joven carpintero musulmán de nombre Ilm ud din (también conocido como Alimuddin[50]​ o Ilam Din[46]​) de apenas 20 años[51]​ acuchilló a Rajpal mientras se encontraba afuera de su negocio.[49]​[52]​

Reacciones al asesinato del editor[editar]
Juicio al asesino[editar]

Ilm-ud-din fue juzgado, encontrado culpable y condenado a pena de muerte.

Su abogado defensor consiguió una apelación frente ante la Suprema Corte de Justicia Punyab en Lahore, y para presentar sus argumentos solicitó ayuda al mismo Muhammad Ali Jinnah, abogado, político y considerado como padre de la nación en Pakistán.

Jinnah aceptó y presentó dos argumentos base:

  1. Cuestionar las evidencias presentadas por la corte, y
  2. Sostener que el castigo era excesivo dada la edad del asesino.

No obstante, la sentencia no se revocó e Ilm-ud-din fue ejecutado el 31 de octubre de 1929.[53]​

De grupos fundamentalistas[editar]

Algunos grupos fundamentalistas musulmanes dieron al asesino del editor Rajpal el título de «Ghazi»[50]​, que significa «Guerrero de la fe».[54]​ El reconocimiento del asesino llegó a tal punto, que en Pakistán eventualmente se produjo una película para televisión sobre sus acciones.[50]​

Condena de Gandhi[editar]

El 18 de abril de 1929 Gandhi publicó un artículo en su semanario «Youth India» bajo el título «The Bomb and the Knife»[55]​ («La Bomba y el Cuchillo») en el que comparaba el cuchillo del asesinato de Mahashe Rajpal con las bombas del acto terrorista (planeado para no dejar víctimas) contra la Asamblea Legislativa en Delhi del 8 de abril de 1929, por parte de Bhagat Singh y Batukeshwar Dutt[56]​ (miembros notables de la independentista Asociación Republicana Socialista del Indostán).[57]​ Gandhi declaró que ambos actos (las bombas arrojadas a la asalmble legislativa y el asesinato del editor Rajpal) seguían la «misma filosofía de loca venganza e ira impotente.»[56]​

Reconocimiento póstumo al editor[editar]

Casi 80 años después de su muerte, en 1997, Rajpal fue reconocido póstumamente por la Federación India de Editores con el premio «Freedom to Publish Award» («Libertad para Publicar»),[58]​ otorgado en el marco de la Feria del Libro de Delhi.[59]​

En 2010 recibió otro reconocimiento póstumo: el premio especial «Dare to Publish Award» («Atrévete a Publicar») de parte de la Unión Internacional de Editores.[58]​[59]​

Censura[editar]

Hasta el día de hoy, Rangila Rasul está prohibido en India y Pakistán dado sus códigos penales. Las copias físicas del libro son difíciles de encontrar.[60]​

India[editar]

Dada la polémica por el falló que absolvió al editor (Rajpal) de Rangila Rasul, el gobierno trató de demostrar una mano más dura con un caso similar que se dio poco después, con otra publicación crítica del islam en una revista llamada Risala-i-Vartman. No obstante, el nuevo juicio no resultó suficiente, y se optó porque el Consejo Legislativo Imperial de la India (antecesor colonial del actual Parlamento de la India) analizará una posible reforma de la ley penal.[5]​

El resultado fue la ley XXV de reforma al código penal de la India en 1927,[4]​ que llevó al actual inciso A de la norma 295 del código penal que usaría la India usa hoy en día,[5]​[61]​ que establece:

295 A. Actos deliberados y maliciosos, con la intención de ofender sentimientos religiosos de cualquier clase ofendiendo a su religión o creencias religiosas. —Quien, con la intención deliberada y maliciosa de ultrajar los sentimientos religiosos de cualquier clase de (ciudadanos de la India), (mediante palabras, ya sea habladas o escritas, o mediante signos o representaciones visibles o de otro modo), insulte o intente insultar la religión o las creencias religiosas de esa clase, serán castigados con pena de prisión de cualquier descripción por un término que puede extenderse a (tres años), o con multa, o con ambas.
Código penal de la India. Capítulo XV, de ofensas relacionadas a la religión.[62]​

Pakistán[editar]

Dado que Pakistán y la India eran parte de la misma unidad política durante el periodo colonial, la reforma penal aprobada por el Consejo Legislativo Imperial también fue heredada en el inciso A de la norma 295 del código penal de Pakistán.

Durante el gobierno del general Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (1978 - 1988), Pakistán extendió aún más la criminalización de la blasfemia introduciendo los apartados B y C a su norma 295, así como nuevos apartados a otras normas similares. A saber:

  • 298 A: Introducida en 1980, criminaliza profanaciones directas o indirectas de esposas y familiares del profeta Mahoma.[63]​
  • 298 B: Introducida en 1984, criminaliza con prisión términos usados por la minoría de los musulmanes ahmadíes.[64]​
  • 298 C: Introducida en 1984, criminaliza que los musulmanes miembros de la minoría ahmadíe se autodenominen «musulmanes» y prediquen o propaguen su versión del islam.[64]​
  • 295 B: Introducida en 1982, criminaliza la profanación del sagrado Corán. Fue introducida como reacción a un periodo de pánico social por reportes de supuestas profanaciones del Corán en medios.[65]​
  • 295 C: Introducida en 1986, criminaliza con prisión de por vida o pena de muerte cualquier profanación directa o indirecta del profeta Mahoma.[66]​

Mientras algunas de las normas son abierta discriminación (contra la minoría de los musulmanes ahmadíes), otras lo son indirectamente, ya que si bien 295 A en teoría cubre a todas las religiones de posibles profanaciones, los nuevos incisos introducidos en 1986 (B y C), así como el inciso A de 298; dan una protección preferencial al islam.[67]​

Véase también[editar]

Bibliografía[editar]

  • Kumar, Girja (1997). «R. Rasul and its aftermath» (Google Books). The Book on Trial: Fundamentalism and Censorship in India (en inglés) (Primera edición). Har Anand Publications (publicado el 1 de septiembre de 1997). pp. 47 - 60. ISBN 8124105251. Consultado el 2 de mayo de 2022. 
  • Dr. Zuhur, Sherifa D.; Capt. de Corbeta Aboul-Enein, Youssef H. (Octubre 2004). Islamic Rulings on Warfare (PDF) (en inglés). United States Army War College Press (publicado el 1 de noviembre de 2004). ISBN 1-58487-177-6. Consultado el 2 de mayo de 2022. 

Referencias[editar]

  1. ↑ a b c Pande, 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."
  2. ↑ Ambedkar, 1945, p. 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 most scurrrilous attack on the Prophet Muhammed [...] whose pamphlet "Rangila Rasul", containing a scurrilous attack on the Prophet of Islam"
  3. ↑ 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."
  4. ↑ a b Nair, 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."
  5. ↑ a b c Asad, 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-e-Vartman case, would supersede Singh’s judgment. Ultimately, however, they decided that the Vartman judgment was insufficient and a new law was required."
  6. ↑ a b c d e Kumar, 1997, p. 9: "The earlist 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 assasination of Mahashe Rajpal (Malhotra), the publisher of the pamphlet in 1929."
  7. ↑ a b c Nair, 2009, p. 655: "However, the publisher of the pamphlet, Mahashe Rajpal, was stabbed on 6 April 1929."
  8. ↑ a b c Kumar, 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 intelectual plane."
  9. ↑ a b Kumar, 1997, p. 53: "It was in such an unauspicious atmosphere that the explosive pamphlet came into being in May 1924."
  10. ↑ Ambedkar, 1945, p. 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."
  11. ↑ Hardgrave, 1977, 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."
  12. ↑ Hardgrave, 1977, 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 saxne 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 which prevailed between the Mappillas and the dominant Hindu castes in rural Malayali society. [...] Reduced to insecure tenancy, vulnerable to rack rentirlg 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."
  13. ↑ Hardgrave, 1977, 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."
  14. ↑ Hardgrave, 1977, 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"
  15. ↑ 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 Barthalomeio. The number of Hindus who were killed, wounded or converted is not known. But the number must have been enormous."
  16. ↑ 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."
  17. ↑ 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"
  18. ↑ 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."
  19. ↑ Kumar, 1997, p. 51: "All copies of the book were reported to have been sold within few weeks."
  20. ↑ a b Kumar, 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."
  21. ↑ a b Spruijt, 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."
  22. ↑ 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"
  23. ↑ a b Rajpal & Sons, 2019: "Rajpal and Sons was founded in 1912 in Lahore (now in Pakistan) by Shri Rajpal Malhotra, a journalist-turned-publisher."
  24. ↑ a b Spruijt, 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."
  25. ↑ 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."
  26. ↑ a b Rajpal & 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."
  27. ↑ Gupta, 2020, p. 1108: "11. Santram B.A., Vivahit Prem (Married Love) (Lahore: Rajpal, 1925)."
  28. ↑ Gupta, 2020, p. 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."
  29. ↑ 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."
  30. ↑ 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."
  31. ↑ 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."
  32. ↑ 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."
  33. ↑ 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."
  34. ↑ 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 attemp 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."
  35. ↑ 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 si published by the manager, Arya Pustakalaya, Lahore. The very title is highly offensive. The contents in keeping with the tittle. I cannot without giivng offence to the reader's sense of fine give the transalation of some of the extracts. I have asker myself what the motive possible could be in writting 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 abut his own belief. As a contribution, therefore, to the religious propaganda work, it has no value what-soever."
  36. ↑ 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."
  37. ↑ 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. "
  38. ↑ 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," inspite 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.""
  39. ↑ Kumar, 1997, p. 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 oportunity to the Maulana to charge the judge with hiding behind the sirkts 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."
  40. ↑ Kumar, 1997, p. 49: "The Maulana had very cleverly prepared the ground for public agitation by positioning himself advantageously by commandign heights through the manipulation of guillible 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:"
  41. ↑ Kumar, 1997, p. 49: "The vast gathering of Muslims declares to the Government with one voice that it should inmediatly shut down the door now open for the destruction of law and order, "by having the judgement inmediatly 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.]"
  42. ↑ Kumar, 1997, p. 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 contentsof the pamphlet, for also the real intentions of the petitioner."
  43. ↑ 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."
  44. ↑ 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."
  45. ↑ Ambedkar, 1945, p. 165: "Some of the most serious of these outrages were perpetrated in connection with the agitation relating to Rangila Rasul and Rilisala Vartman two publications containing most scurrrilous 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."
  46. ↑ a b c d Spruijt, 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, Ilam Din, took his life on this very dark day, Rajpal thus having only lived 44 years."
  47. ↑ Ambedkar, 1945, p. 170: "An event which caused considerable tension in April was the murder at Lahore of Rajpal"
  48. ↑ 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."
  49. ↑ a b Kumar, 1997, p. 48: "Maulana Mohammed was to be prophetic, because Rajpal was stabbed to death on April 6, 1929 while sitting in this bookshop."
  50. ↑ a b c Kumar, 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-lenght feature film has been produces on the exploits of Alimuddin and secreened on Pakistan TV several times."
  51. ↑ Asad, 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."
  52. ↑ Ambedkar, 1945, p. 152: "Rajpal the author of the Rangila Rasool was stabbed by Ilamdin on the 6th April 1929 while he was sitting in his shop."
  53. ↑ Asad, 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 jail. 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."
  54. ↑ Dr. Zuhur y Capt. de Corbeta 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,”"
  55. ↑ Nair, 2009, p. 655: "M.K. Gandhi, ‘The Bomb and the Knife’, Young India, 18 April 1929 in Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi"
  56. ↑ a b 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’."
  57. ↑ 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 centralegislative 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."
  58. ↑ a b Rajpal & 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."
  59. ↑ a b Spruijt, 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."
  60. ↑ Kumar, 1997, p. 48: "Copies of the controversial pamphlet are hard to come by."
  61. ↑ 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."
  62. ↑ Parlamento de la India, 1860, 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."
  63. ↑ Asad, 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."
  64. ↑ a b Asad, 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."
  65. ↑ Asad, 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."
  66. ↑ Asad, 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 future no one will dare commit blasphemy of the Holy Prophet”"
  67. ↑ Asad, 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."

Enlaces externos[editar]

Obtenido de «https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rangila_Rasul&oldid=157506096»