Article

A Pamphlet and its History and Sociology of South Asia

9(2) 146–162
(Dis)contents: © 2015 Jamia Millia Islamia
SAGE Publications
sagepub.in/home.nav
A Case Study of DOI: 10.1177/2230807515572213
http://hssa.sagepub.com
Rangila Rasul and the
Controversy Surrounding
it in Colonial Punjab,
1923–29

Richa Raj1

Abstract
This article aims to study the communal tension generated by the publication
of inflammatory literature by the extreme factions of two important religious
groups in colonial Punjab, the Hindus and the Muslims. It would particularly
examine the tension fuelled by the controversy surrounding the pamphlet
entitled, Rangila Rasul, a product of the reformist zeal of an Arya Samajist, and
attempts to gain political mileage from the controversy by the leaders of the
‘victimised’ community, in this case the Khilafatists and the Ahmadis. This paper
would give a general impression of the effect such publications had on the masses
who most of the times could not remain immune to religious attacks of this kind
and study the judicial interpretation by the colonial state of Article 153A of the
Indian Penal Code which dealt with such cheap productions of the ‘gutter press’,
called so by the colonial government.

Keywords
Ahmadiya, Arya Samaj, communal, Khilafatists, Punjab

Colonial Punjab in the nineteenth century was an area of diversity with three
religious groups, Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs, where each group possessed a
complete social hierarchy, ranging from outcasts to religious and aristocratic
elites. Into this diverse province, the British government introduced the Christian

1
Department of History, Jesus and Mary College, University of Delhi, India.

Corresponding author:
Richa Raj, Assistant Professor, Department of History, Jesus and Mary College,
University of Delhi, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi 110021, India.
E-mail: rch.raj@gmail.com
Raj 147

missionaries, who brought about a new element of communal conflict and

competition by threatening the fabric of Hindu social structure—the outcasts and
upper caste students attending the newly established Christian schools, through
conversions.2 This new Christian threat became one of the major motivating
forces for religious revivalism throughout the Punjab. The threat of proselytisation,
both from Islam and Christianity, led to the establishment of a defence mechanism,
the institution of shuddhi or purification, as a process of reconversion. Swami
Dayanand Saraswati, the founder of the Arya Samaj, was the first reformer in late
nineteenth century to seriously turn his attention to shuddhi, where he aimed at
reconverting Hindus from either Christianity or Islam.3 This earliest form of
shuddhi was broadened with due course of time to include the conversion of non-
Hindus and even those whose ancestors had never been Hindus, in the early
decades of the twentieth century. This in turn threatened certain sections of
Muslims who began to look upon shuddhi as a threat to their community and Arya
Samaj as a communal organisation.
Veena Dua has argued that the communalism of the Arya Samaj was the
outcome of the forces of British imperialism.4 According to her, prior to 1886,
the government had followed a policy of religious impartiality in the case of
appointments, and the Hindus were the major beneficiaries of it. However, in
1886, under pressure from the educated Muslims, the government decided
to review its policy of employment in the public service so as to bring about
a balance between the Hindus and Muslims. It was decided to bring in more
Muslims into the administration as it would reduce Muslim militancy as well as
help create an atmosphere in which Hindus and Muslims could be used to keep a
watch over each other’s actions.5 Religious representation was later extended to
colleges, courts and legislative bodies, where an attempt was made to increase the
number of Muslims so as to bring their representation in these bodies at par with
that of Hindus. The result was intense communal competition for employment as
each community began to appeal to the government for protection of its legitimate
rights and redressal of its grievances. While the Hindus tried to pressurise the
government to end the policy of discrimination against their community and to
resort to open examination for jobs, the Muslims appealed for social concessions
on account of their poverty and backwardness.6
Class issues further complicated the situation. The attempt to forge Hindu–
Muslim unity in early 1920s through the Khilafat and Non-cooperation movements
in the Punjab saw an early demise mainly because of the success of the colonial
state and its collaborators in forming a loose alliance of agricultural interests,
2
See Kenneth W. Jones, ‘Communalism in the Punjab: The Arya Samaj Contribution’, Journal of
Asian Studies 28, no. 1 (1968), 39–54.
3
J.T.F. Jordens, ‘Reconversion to Hinduism: The Shuddhi of the Arya Samaj’, in Religion in South
Asia Religious Conversion and Revival Movements in South Asia in Medieval and Modern Times, ed.
G.A. Oddie (Delhi: Manohar Publications, 1991), 216. In Jalandhar, six months after his arrival in
Punjab in 1877, Dayanand performed the shuddhi of a Hindu who had become a Christian.
4
Veena Dua, Arya Samaj in Punjab Politics (New Delhi: Picus Books, 1999), 163–76.
5
Ibid., 170.
6
Ibid., 170–71.
148 History and Sociology of South Asia 9(2)

Muslim, Hindu and Sikh. The resultant Unionist Party led by an urban-based
Muslim lawyer, Mian Fazl-i-Husain, dominated the provincial ministry after
the first elections to the reformed councils in 1920 (the Montagu–Chelmsford
reforms). It validated the faith reposed by the Raj in the landlord element, the
latter being protected by the Punjab Land Alienation Act of 1900.7 The network
of collaboration created by the colonial state sharpened communitarian identities
and a corresponding polarisation in the informal arenas. The colonial state’s
decision to restrict the cross-communitarian alliance to a specific class left those
outside this charmed circle with no option but to try and elbow for political
space by unleashing a volley of narratives based on idioms of exclusionary
communitarianism.8 According to Ayesha Jalal, the urban-educated Punjabis
belonging to the intermediate strata, having been denied direct access to the
colonial state and its channels of patronage, sought to make their presence felt
by rustling up support among segments of the subordinate social classes, either
through political rallies and meetings, or through stirring newspaper articles and
pamphlets. The Unionists represented the main obstacle to the regeneration of
nationalism in the province. When the party proposed amendment of election
rules for the municipal committees, it was condemned as a transparent device to
keep Congress and Khilafat workers out of the formal political system. The Arya
Samajist paper Milap accused the leading Unionist minister, Fazl-i-Husain for
tinkering with election rules and ensuring that ‘the best brains and servants of the
Punjab… ha[d] no part in local self-government’ and only those willing to ‘act as
puppets’ served on the municipal committees.9
The category of religion used in colonial enumeration and the consequent
quibbling over representation in electoral institutions or government service had
set Punjabis at each others’ throats. The formal political arenas merged into the
informal social ones as marshalling popular support required mobilising political
opinion with a language accessible to a largely illiterate populace. In this way
the Arya Samaj’s shuddhi and sangathan and the Muslim tabligh and tanzim
movements tried to win the colonial numbers game. In an assessment of the Arya
Samaj’s purification and social uplift campaign in the Punjab a few years later,
a police intelligence report found it ‘difficult to resist the conclusion that since
the reforms the main object of shudhi ha[d] been to swell Hindu voting strength
in anticipation of democratic Government’.10 The Punjabi Muslims too, on the
other hand, were anxiously shoring up the claims of their numerical majority. So
much so that even a committed Congressman like Saifuddin Kitchlew had felt
compelled to concentrate on organising the Muslims. His organ, the Tanzim, took

7
The basic objective of this Act was to impose a check on the alienation of land from agriculturists to
the non-agriculturists, thus discouraging the moneylenders. This turned the moneylender, shopkeeper,
professional and trader classes, most of them Hindus, against the government where many of them
joined the Indian National Congress.
8
Ayesha Jalal, Self and Sovereignty: Individual and Community in South Asian Islam since 1850
(Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2001), 265.
9
Cf. Ibid, p. 266.
10
Supplement to SPPAI, 2 February 1929, vol. LIi, no. 5, 51. Cf. Jalal, Self and Sovereignty, 2001, 268.
Raj 149

strong exception to an article by Lala Hardayal advising Indians to become one

nation by ‘making them study Hindu history and adopt the Hindi language and
the Hindu mode of living’.11 For many influential urban Hindus the experience
of the Mont–Ford reforms based on the principle of separate electorates seemed
like the beginning of a ‘Muslim raj’ and every step taken by Fazl-i-Husain
was interpreted as tilting the balance of advantage in favour of the Muslims.
For example, even though the ‘communal’ motive behind Husain’s adoption
of reforms in the domain of higher education and the extension of separate
electorates to the municipalities and local boards remains debatable, it did pass
on benefits to Muslims.12 What is significant is the vehemence with which many
Punjabi Hindus assailed Fazl-i-Husain’s brand of politics as ‘communalism’.
Under separate electorates only Muslims voted for Muslims. Because of separate
electorates, candidates had to appeal to the voters on the basis of religion,
which naturally aggravated religious dissension and was manifested in many
ways. For instance, the introduction of the Moneylenders’ Registration Bill by
a Muslim member of the legislative council sent the Hindu-edited press into
spasms of anger in defence of the class interests of an influential segment of their
co-religionists. Charges of Muslim ‘communalism’ reverberated as the Punjab
Hindu Sabha allied with Hindu members of the council to attack a bill intended as
a measure of relief for debt-ridden Punjabi agriculturists. The bill was attributed
to Fazl-i-Husain, the evil genius whose ‘brains invent[ed] new plans to harm
Hindus’. If passed, the legislation would ‘paralyse’ Hindu sahukars or creditors
and dramatically shrink the amount of credit available to the zamindars. Apart
from being ‘impracticable, premature and unreasonable’, the bill unfairly placed
urban moneylenders in the same rack as rural creditors although the former had
no direct dealings with agrarian society.13 Kabuli Pathans who charged interest at
the rate of 4 annas per rupee and resorted to dreadful measures to realise their due
were excluded from the ambit of the legislation. The Hindu wondered whether
this was because ‘the Kabuli usurers [we]re Mussalmans?’ Milap thought ‘the real
object’ of the bill was to ‘destroy what little power was left to the Hindus under the
Land Alienation Act’.14 Joining the hysteria, the Sangathan noted that whenever
arrangements were being made for ‘crushing Hindus, our Mussalman friends’
pleaded ‘in a transport of ecstasy’ that the issue should not be given ‘a religious
colour’.15 The Tanzim deemed the bill necessary to save agriculturists, and not
just Muslims, from ruin. And the Siyasat while supporting the bill felt it did not

11
NPP, 22 November 1924, 367. Cf. Jalal, Self and Sovereignty, 2001, 268.
12
See Mushirul Hasan, ‘Communalism in the Provinces: A Case Study of Bengal and the Punjab
1922–1926’, in Communalism and Pan-Islamic Trends in Colonial India, ed. Hasan (New Delhi:
Manohar Publications, 1981), 268–72 and Page, Prelude to Partition: The Indian Muslims and the
Imperial System of Control, 1920-1932 (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1982), 68–72.
13
This was the opinion of the Lahore-based papers Milap and Bande Mataram of 3 November 1924,
NPP, 8 November 1924, 257. Cf. Jalal, Self and Sovereignty, 2001, 269.
14
See Hindu, Lahore, 7 November and Milap, Lahore, 12 November, NPP, 15 November 1924, 363.
Cf. Ibid.
15
Sangathan, 26 November 1924, NPP, 29 November 1924, 378–79. Cf Ibid.
150 History and Sociology of South Asia 9(2)

go far enough in protecting zamindars against ‘blood-sucking moneylenders’.16

The close interplay between formal and informal arenas of politics, as in the
debate over the Moneylender’s Registration Bill shows how class issues could
be draped in ‘communal’ or ‘national’ hues through the powerful undercurrents
of religious communitarianism displayed in the vernacular newspapers, severely
undercutting the mainstream nationalist narrative.
It is in this context that polemical contestation, a phenomenon which was
so much a part of social praxis of late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries
should be seen. Before addressing the question of participation of the Arya Samaj
in the communal rhetoric of the 1920s, it is important to note that the organisation
should not be looked upon as a monolithic structure as the ideology of the Samaj
impacted individuals at different levels. For some, it represented the question
of lifestyle: a way of reforming orthodox Hinduism. For the more zealous, the
impact was manifested in productions of the local printing presses, often giving
way to communal expression. This latter faction became increasingly aggressive
as they participated in tract warfare attacking Prophet Mohammad or responding
to offensive articles published by the Muslim communal groups.
A dominant theme of most of the pamphlets was to hold up the Prophet for
ridicule and contempt of which Rangila Rasul,17 written by Pandit Chamupati18
and published by Mahashay Rajpal in Lahore in May 1924, is illustrative. The use
of the adjective rangila, which could have a wide range of meaning from ‘jovial’
to ‘libertine’, provided the basis for a conceit set forth from the opening of the
work.19 The message conveyed through these pamphlets was that the Prophet’s
philosophical teachings, which form the essence of Islam, were derived from his
sexual ‘experiences’. It ridiculed the Prophet for imposing purdah on his women,
practicing polygamy and promoting idol worship. The Arya Samaj had taken
upon itself to remove these evils from the society. To ridicule the Prophet in the
form of a satire seemed a viable tool for presenting a justification for the social
reforms they advocated. This zealous act of the extreme elements of the Samaj
was not confined to Muslims; tract warfare of such kind was engaged in with the
Sanatanis (Orthodox Hindus) and Christians as well.
By mid-1920s, apart from theological debates the Punjabi public sphere was
rife with popular inflammatory material in newspapers controlled by extremist
sections of both the Hindu and Muslim communities. On one hand, was a
proliferation of stories of atrocities against Hindu women, ranging from allegations
of rape, aggression and abduction to luring, conversion and forced marriage by
16
Tanzim, 7 November, NPP, 15 November 1924, 363 and Siyasat, 24 November 1924, NPP, 29
November 1924, 378.
17
A translation in Devanagari script entitled ‘Rangila Rasul: Arab ke Paigambar ka Ek Shikshaprad
Itihas’ (published in 1927 and proscribed by the Bombay government the same year) from the original
pamphlet written in Urdu is available at National Archives of India. ‘Proscription of Hindi or other
reprint of the pamphlet entitled Rangila Rasul’, File No. 132/II, Home (Political) 1927.
18
Though the name of the author was not published in the booklet, it has been established that Pandit
Chamupati, an Arya Samajist, was the author of Rangila Rasul. Indra Vidyavachaspati, Arya Samaj ka
Itihas, vol. 2 (Delhi: Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, 1957), 167.
19
Gene R. Thursby, Hindu–Muslim Relations in British India (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975), 44.
Raj 151

Muslim males, popularising the concept of the Muslim badmash (goon). These
communally-driven newspapers argued that abduction campaigns demonstrated
the ‘lack of character’ of Muslim men for they showed scant respect for Hindu
women.20 Referring to the disturbances in Multan in 1923, a correspondent writing
to Shanti (edited by Kishan Chand Mohan, Rawalpindi) noted that the insult being
offered to Hindu women was intolerable and one should retaliate for the misdeeds
of the evildoers, that is, the Muslims.21 The Gulzar-i-Hind (edited by Ahmed Ali
Chisti, Lahore) complained that Pratap (edited by Radha Krishnan, Lahore) and
Kesari invariably used the word ‘badmash’ while referring to Muslims.22 The
extreme factions among the Muslims, on the other hand, replied with equal vigour
to the polemical attacks on the Prophet. They attacked Hinduism, particularly
the Arya Samaj, for its concept of Niyog.23 The Gulzar-i-Hind noted that it were
not Muslims but those who practiced Niyog were badmashes.24 While the tracts
by Hindu communalists were laced with scathing criticism of the Prophet, those
written by extreme sections of Muslims were replete with indignation at the lives
of Hindu sages. The latter accused Krishna of stealing and adultery. Hindu Gods
such as Brahma, Vishnu and Mahadev were also placed under the scanner.25

Case and Conflict

The pamphlet Rangila Rasul was published by Mahashay Rajpal who belonged to
the Khatri caste, a dominant Hindu caste in Punjab, and was a member of the Arya
Samaj. The pamphlet quickly sold its first edition of a thousand copies and orders
had been put in for a second edition in late June when the colonial government
banned it under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code26 (IPC) after the Muslim
population of Lahore raised strong objections to it as being most offensive to the
religious feelings of the community.27 A complaint was registered against Rajpal
in July and proceedings commenced in October of the same year.

20
See Charu Gupta, Sexuality, Obscenity, Community: Women, Muslims and the Hindu Public in
Colonial India (Delhi: Permanent Black, 2001).
21
Shanti, 14 May 1923, Punjab Press Abstract, No. 21, 26 May 1923, Lahore.
22
Gulzar-i-Hind, 26 May 1923, Punjab Press Abstract, No. 23, 9 June 1923, Lahore.
23
Niyog, Dayanand Saraswati’s prescription, meant strictly regulated sexual relationship for the
purpose of procreation. This, according to him, prevented widowed men and women from straying
into immorality.
24
Gulzar-i-Hind, 26 May 1923, No. 23, Punjab Press Abstract, 9 June 1923, Lahore.
25
These authors have been named in the preface of Vichitra Jiwan (available as part of Proscribed
Communal Literature, in the Manuscript Section of Nehru Memorial Museum and Library): they
were, allegedly, Ghazi Abdul Ghafur alias Miyan Dharampal, Khwaja Hasan Nizami, Miyan Qutb-ud-
din, Munshi Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani and his followers.
26
Section 153A of the IPC read, ‘Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible
representations, or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between
different classes of Her Majesty’s subjects shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to
two years, or with fine, or with both’, File No. 132, GoI, Home (Poll.).
27
File No. 132, 1927, Government of India (GoI), Home (Poll.), 14.
152 History and Sociology of South Asia 9(2)

The accused pleaded that the allegations made in the pamphlet were based
upon Islamic books and that quotations were made from the writings of European
historians to support the authority of the Islamic books. He stressed that the book
had been sold almost exclusively to Hindus and was published ‘in the ordinary
course of business without any mala fide intention’.28 Moreover, the purpose
for which the pamphlet was written was the removal of such evils as polygamy,
concubinage and gross disparity of age in marriage and secondly, to wean and deter
people from a system of thought which sanctions those evils. Asserting that the
pamphlet was a rational study of the life of the Prophet of Islam which was open
for study and criticism to everybody and that in this pamphlet ‘have been pointed
out from a broad humanitarian ground the virtues which stand out so prominently
in the character of Muhammad and the vices and weakness from which He suffers’.
The Magistrate pronounced the judgement on 18 January 1927, wherein he
accorded to Rajpal rigorous imprisonment for a period of eighteen months and a
fine of Rs 1000 and remarked, for publishing the pamphlet with the ‘deliberate
intention of wounding the feelings of the Muhammadans and thus to promote
hatred and enmity between the Muhammadans and the community to which he
himself belongs’.29
When Rajpal appealed against this order in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Lahore,
the latter also maintained that in view of the peculiar situation in which members of
the two communities concerned have to live side by side and intermingled in this
country, the act of the accused was both reprehensible and dangerous, and that it was
necessary both to punish him, and to deter others from similar acts.
However, the Court of Judicature at Lahore took a different view and acquitted
Rajpal on 4 May 1927. The Judge, Justice Kanwar Dalip Singh, stated that the
question whether a malicious satire on the personal life of religious teacher fell
within the purview of Section 153A of the IPC could not be determined by the
ignorance or fanaticism of a particular community. He remarked,

‘It seems to me that that section was intended to prevent persons from making attacks
on a particular community as it exists at the present time and was not meant to stop
polemics against deceased religious leaders however scurrilous and in bad taste such
attacks might be.’30

The Judge argued that if the fact that Muslims resent attacks on their Prophet was
to be the measure of whether Section 153A applied or not, then a historical work
in which the life of the Prophet was considered and judgement passed on his
character by a serious historian might come within the definition of Section
153A.31 The consequent acquittal of Rajpal was taken up as an insult by the
Muslim Outlook (edited by Dilawar Shah Bukhari), which published a leading

28
File No. 132 & K.W., Part 1, Home (Poll.), 1927.
29
Magistrate H.L. Phailbus, Serial No. 3, File No. 132/27, GoI, Home (Poll.), 33–36.
30
File No. 132, Part II, GoI, Home (Poll.), 1927.
31
Justice Dalip Singh in the judgment of the same Case No. 286 of 1927 at the Court of Judicature,
Lahore, File No. 132, Part II, GoI, Home (Poll.), 1927.
Raj 153

article on 14 June 1927, entitled ‘Resign’ attacking the integrity and impartiality
of Justice Dalip Singh. The High Court in response instituted proceedings against
the editor and the proprietor, Nur-ul-Haq, of the paper for contempt of court and
sentenced them to six months imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1000, respectively.
This aggravated Muslim resentment and the agitation was directed against the
Punjab High Court demanding immediate dismissal of Dalip Singh. Speeches
made in the mosques of Lahore assumed strong anti-Hindu and anti-High Court
character. For example, Muhammad Amin, speaking at such a meeting organised
by the Khilafat Committee in the Badshahi Mosque stated that ‘in the Punjab the
Hindus were encouraged to write scurrilous pamphlets because the Chief Justice
was a Hindu’. In another meeting held outside the Delhi Gate, Lahore, by the
Khilafat Committee, Muhammmad Daud Ghaznavi of Amritsar stated that the
honour of the Prophet was not safe in the hands of the High Court. In Gujranwala,
Maulvi Ismail called it ‘the Arya High Court of Lahore’. Posters were issued by
the Qadian Ahmadiyan Committe and the Punjab Khilafat Commitee exhorting
Muslims to observe a ‘High Court Day’ on 22 July. The Zamindar reported a mass
meeting held at Ludhiana on that day, under the president ship of Habib-ul
Rahman who stated,

The High Court whose chief judge is the ex-secretary of the Hindu Sabha, whose senior
puisne judge before his elevation to the Punjab High Court acted as Rajpal’s defence
counsel (in the Rangila Rasul case) without a fee, and whose third puisne judge has
acquitted Rajpal cannot be respected. The Muslim community of the Punjab has no
faith in the present High Court which is a Hindu Samajist High Court.32

The judicial exoneration of Rajpal caused great resentment amongst sections of

Muslims, as demonstrated in the public gathering at the Jama Masjid in July 1927,
from where Maulana Mohamed Ali, the ‘ambassador of Hindu–Muslim’ unity
from the days of the Non-Cooperation days thundered a warning, ‘all worldly
relations between Muslims on the one hand and Khilafat Committee, Mahatma
Gandhi, and even the government on the other hand (shall stand) terminated when
the life and soul of Islam is reviled’.33 Further, the incited gathering presided over
by the Maulana passed a resolution:

The vast gathering of Muslim declares to the government with one voice that it should
immediately shut 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 Musalmans 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.34

This statement was antithetical to the idea of nationalism defined by the Indian
National Congress as inclusionary, accommodative, consensual and popular

32
Agitation in the Punjab and the North West Frontier Province in connection with the Rangila Rasul
case. File No. 132/III/1927. Home (Political).
33
Indian Quarterly Register 2, no. 1 (January–June 1927): 19, National Archives of India, Delhi.
34
Hindustan Times, 2 July 1927.
154 History and Sociology of South Asia 9(2)

anti-colonial struggle. Maulana Mohamed Ali’s letter to the Viceroy (dated 5 July
1927) pleading with him to put a stop to the deliberate vilifications of prophets
and saints35 reflected exclusionary communitarian developments in Punjabi
politics. The pamphlet also alarmed Mahatma Gandhi as he complained in a long
article on Hindu–Muslim unity in Young India: ‘A friend has sent me a pamphlet
called Rangila Rasul, written in Urdu…. I have asked myself what the motive
possibly could be in writing or printing such a book except to inflame passions….
The harm it can do is obvious.’36
The resentment of sections of Muslims against the judgment, was further
intensified with the publication of another offensive article entitled ‘Sair-i-Dozakh’
or ‘A Trip to Hell’ in the May issue of the Risala Vartman magazine of Amritsar
in 1927. The publication of this article, wherein the Prophet was depicted as
being in hell suffering extreme torture along with his,37 greatly incensed Muslim
indignation already inflamed by the acquittal of Rajpal in the Rangila Rasul case.
A Qadiani poster at Amritsar signed by the head of the Ahmadiyas drew attention
to certain portions of this article which further excited the Muslims.38 The article
was brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner who, after telephonic
conversations with the Punjab government, took steps to proscribe the journal
and issue a search warrant leading to the arrest of Gian Chand Pathak, the printer
and publisher of the journal, and Devi Sharan Sharma, the author of the article.
In a telegram to the Viceroy, the Anjuman Ahl-i-Hadis, Punjab, claimed that
the Muslims of Lahore, were ‘extremely alarmed and upset to learn that the
sanctity of their religion was not safe in India’.39 It expressed the dire necessity
of a suitable and immediate legislation which would prohibit the compilation and
publication of such libellous and satirical writings. The governor of Punjab in his
appraisal of the situation to the Viceroy explained that the view taken by Justice
Dalip Singh of the scope of Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code was not wrong
in law but it would greatly increase the difficulties of government in dealing with
the existing grave tension if scurrilous libels could be freely disseminated against
the founders of religion or important religious personages.40
The British government, therefore, had two alternatives before them, in such a
situation. The first was to take the earliest opportunity of bringing before the High
Court, a similar attack on the founder of a religion; and the second was to amend
the law so as to make it clear that scandalous attack of this nature constituted

35
Hindustan Times, 1 September 1927.
36
Mahatma Gandhi, ‘Hindu-Muslim Unity’, Young India, 19 June 1924.
37
Letter to His Majesty’s Under Secretary of State for India from A.B. Broadway, Judge of the Vartman
case, No. 114/27, 11 August 1927, Serial No. 16, File No. 132/27, GoI, Home (Poll.), 1927.
38
Indian Daily Mail, Bombay, 10 August 1927, File No. 10/72/1927, GoI, Home (Poll.), 1927.
39
Telegram from Secretary, Anjuman Ahl-i-Hadis, Punjab, to The Viceroy and Governor General of
India, Simla and the Governor of the Punjab, Simla, dated, the 27 May 1927, Lahore, File No.132/27,
Serial Nos 1–39, Home (Poll.), 1927.
40
Letter from the Government of Punjab to the Viceroy and Governor General of India, No.3358-P.B.,
dated Simla the 9 June 1927, Serial No. 3, File No.132/27, Home (Poll.), 1927.
Raj 155

a criminal offence.41 The governor proposed to try the first alternative before
moving the government of India to amend the law. Hence, when the attention of the
authorities concerned was drawn to the above-mentioned article in the Amritsar
magazine, the Punjab government immediately sanctioned the prosecution of
the editor, publisher and printer of the magazine, and the author of the article,
consequently sentencing the author to one year imprisonment and Rs 500 fine and
the editor to six months imprisonment and Rs 250 fine.42 The government hoped
that these proceedings would in due course afford an opportunity for the High
Court to review Justice Dalip Singh’s judgment in the Rangila Rasul case as its
fears were renewed when a telegram was sent from the Dar-ul-ulum, Deoband, to
the viceroy at Simla, which read:

At a Moslem Mass Meeting at Idgah, Deoband under Presidentship Molvi Aziz ur

rahman Mufti Darululum Resolved Decision Punjab High Court in Rangila Rasul case
shattering Muslim hearts and wounding their religious sentiments will encourage
wanton Samajists in their course of unwarranted vilification and vituperation which
cannot but widen most dreadful gulf of hatred already separating various communities
professing different faiths … Allahabad High Court recently sentenced author of
Wachatra Jiwan under very Section 153. May we hope in view of tremendously
increasing volume of resentment and discontentment in the minds of millions Muslims
Your Excellency’s Government would interpret Section 153 to Punjab High Court in
same sense as done by Allahabad High Court.43

Communal ill feeling flared up again when a Muslim fanatic of Lahore,

Ilam Din, murdered Mahashay Rajpal on 6 April 1929 by Ilam Din, a fanatic.
Consequent tension prevailed as the relatives and friends of Rajpal negotiated
with the government over the funeral procession and the route taken for it. The
government feared that ‘to allow this to be taken through the walled city would
entail grave risk of a breach of the peace’.44 According to government estimates
the actual procession when taken three days later through a negotiable route,
numbered about four to five thousand people.
The murderer was sentenced and hanged in October 1929 and buried in the
jail graveyard.45 A Muslim mass meeting of more or less 25,000 people was held
on 1 November wherein various speakers insisted that the sacred remains of the
late Mian Ilam Din—one of Islam’s great shahids (martyr)—be allowed to be
disinterred from the Mianwali Jail compound, and allowed to be buried, according
to the shahid’s will in Lahore.46 The governor received a deputation of leading

41
Ibid.
42
Indian Daily Mail, Bombay, 10 August 1927. File No. 10/72/1927, GoI, Home (Poll.), 1927.
43
Enclosure No. 8, Telegraph from Secretary to the Viceroy, Simla, received on 14 June 1927, File No.
132/III/1927, GoI, Home (Poll.), 1927.
44
Confidential letter from J.G. Beazley, Officiating Chief Secretary to Government, Punjab to The
Secretary to the Government of India, Home Department, dated 20 April 1929, File No. 167, Home
(Poll.), 1929.
45
Muslim Outlook, File No. 167, Home (Poll.), 31 October 1929, NAI, Delhi.
46
Muslim Outlook, File No.167, Home (Poll.), 1 November 1929, NAI, Delhi.
156 History and Sociology of South Asia 9(2)

Muslims of Lahore, led by Muhammad Shafi and included Muhammad Iqbal,

the Muslim members of the Lahore municipal committee, the representatives of
the Provincial Muslim League, and the office holders of the local Anjumans,47 to
press their case about the burial of Ilam Din. The Punjab government agreed to
deliver the body of Ilam Din on the condition that the body would be taken by the
route prescribed by it. That the murder of Mahashay Rajpal was a culmination of
the increasingly excitable Muslim campaign against the pamphlet and the disgust
the campaign spewed over the perceived partial act of the judiciary is evident
from the way Ilam Din was eulogised by considerable sections of Muslims. After
his conviction and hanging, Ilam Din acquired the esteemed title of ghazi, or holy
warrior, a title which was respectfully affixed by the Muslim extremists to the
name of any Muslim, who murdered a Hindu or a Sikh in defence of Islam.

The Leadership
The leadership in the agitation expressing Muslim opinion, in this case, came
from two different sources: the Khilafatists and the Qadiani Ahmadis. With the
decline of the Khilafat Movement and the withdrawal of the Non-cooperation
Movement, the reactionary ideologies had come to the forefront. Since pan-
Islamic questions were now only of peripheral appeal to the masses, communal
antagonism began to occupy the ranks of the Khilafat. Dr Saifuddin Kitchlew, as
the head of the Amristar Khilafat party, began to advocate Muslim economic
independence even though he still remained a member of the Congress. By
February 1925, he began a tanzim tour of northern Punjab and was reported to be
‘on the point of breaking with the Congress and joining the ordinary Muslim
progressive party in the Punjab’.48 The Khilafat leaders had already encouraged
the habit of looking at political questions from the religious point of view.49 In the
Rangila Rasul agitation, the Khilafat party was interested in keeping the agitation
alive even when it was steadily losing support during the last days of August 1927
owing to the introduction of a Bill in the Legislative Assembly50 to penalise insults
to religion, which had greatly satisfied Muslim moderate opinion. Meetings were
held in Lahore and other centres demanding release of prisoners arrested during
the agitation and stressing on the economic boycott of Hindus. In Lahore and
Batala, there was considerable propaganda among Hindus and Muslims to carry
knives and lathis, few even being armed with lathis at the meetings.51 The
economic boycott of the Hindus was especially spreading in Lahore, Lyallpur and
northern districts of Punjab. In fact, communal feeling in Lahore had hardened as

47
Communiqué, File No. 167, Home (Poll.), 1929.
48
David Page, Prelude to Partition: The Indian Muslims and the Imperial System of Control, 1920–
1932 (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1982), 95–106.
49
Bipan Chandra, Mridula Mukherjee, Aditya Mukherjee, Sucheta Mahajan and K.N. Panikkar,
India’s Struggle for Independence (Delhi: Penguin, 1989), 421.
50
In another case regarding agitation over a pamphlet entitled, Risala Vartman.
51
Fortnightly report for the week ending 31 August 1927, F. No. 32/27, Home (Poll.), August 1927.
Raj 157

a result of the economic boycott enacted by the extremist Muslims. A systematic

and well-organised campaign wherein Muslim shopkeepers restricted their
clientele to Muslims and vice versa resulted in the opening of over sixty new
Muslim shops and had hit the small Hindu shopkeeper hard.52 Counter activity on
the part of the Hindus had resulted in the opening of some 20 new Hindu shops
dealing in goods previously sold only by Muslims. The Qadiani Ahmadis too
played a significant though tangential role in creating a hostile environment
culminating in 1927 Lahore.53 A Qadiani poster in Urdu entitled ‘Will those
professors of the Prophet’s love not wake up even now’, signed by Mirza Mahmud
Ahmad, was placarded in Peshawar on behalf of the local Anjuman-i-Ahmadia on
the 4 June 1927.54 It referred to the recent attack made on the Prophet of Islam in
the Risala Vartman, Amritsar and cited lengthy extracts from it. Similar posters
were also seen in Kohat and steps were taken by the government to proscribe the
poster, which was obviously intended to inflame communal feeling. The Qadianis
appeared to be anxious to get the government to stop any further publications such
as the Rangila Rasul. In a letter dated 27 August 1927, written by M. Mahmud
Sadiq, foreign secretary to His Holiness the Khalifatul Mesiah, and addressed to
Edward Fredrick Lindley Wood (Lord Irwin), viceroy and governor-general of
India, the Ahmadiya community officially sent a draft copy of a proposed
memorial ‘about amendment in the law to safeguard the honour of prophets,
avatars and founders of all religions’.55 Further correspondence sent directly from
Mirza Bashir-ud-din Mahmud Ahmad, the then spiritual head (Khalifatul Masih II)
of the Ahmadiya community, on 31 August 1927 was emphatic that the words
‘prophet’, ‘avatar’, ‘founder of religion’ should be clearly mentioned in the
proposed section that there may remain no loophole for misinterpretation.56
It is worth recalling that the Ahmadiya movement was a religious reform
movement within Islam founded in 1889 by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835–1908)
in Qadian, Punjab. Mirza, claiming to have received visions and messages from
God, refuted the doctrines of other religious leaders both within and outside Islam.
His public claim to be the Promised Messiah and suggestion that contemporary
Islam was an amalgamation of various interpolations and deviations from the real
teachings of Prophet Muhammad, had subjected him to debates with the ulama,
including Nazir Husain the distinguished leader of the Ahl-i-Hadith movement.57
By the end of the nineteenth century, Ghulam Ahmad had developed a theological
doctrine in direct contradiction to many current theological positions of the ulama

52
Fortnightly report for the fortnight ending 15 September 1927, F. No. 32/27, Home (Poll.),
September 1927.
53
See Spencer Lavan, The Ahmadiya Movement: A History and Perspective (Delhi: Manohar Book
Service, 1974).
54
Fortnightly report on the internal situation in the NWFP for the first half of June 1927, No. 32, Home
(Poll.), June 1927.
55
Lavan, The Ahmadiyah Movement, 136.
56
Ibid., 137.
57
See Kenneth W. Jones, Socio-religious Reform Movements in British India (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press), 116–17.
158 History and Sociology of South Asia 9(2)

of the time. His claim to messiah status, his interpretations of the word jihad,58
and numerous other theological issues had accorded him a position anomalous to
a majority of the Muslim community.
Yet, in Rangila Rasul agitation as well as that against the Sair-i-Dozakh
pamphlet, the Qadiani Ahmadis emerged as the champions of Islam. The reason
could be traced back to its claim for representing ‘true Islam’ vis-à-vis prevalent
theological norms and, therefore, aggressive defence of it. The element of ‘self-
defence’ is enshrined in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s exposition on the meaning of
‘jihad’: ‘Do not be misled by the notion that in the beginning the Muslims were
commanded to take up the sword. That sword was not taken up for the spread
of the faith, but in self-defence against the enemies of Islam and for the purpose
of establishing peace and security.’59 While Ghulam Ahmad’s theological stance
purported a non-militant form of Islam through a denunciation of the ‘use of
the sword’ for the spread of Islam, it did allow for an aggressive form of self-
defence in the face of an onslaught. In a zealous reformist–revivalist environ
with new modes of communication, particularly the printing press, having been
established in British India in the nineteenth century, this onslaught came in the
form of polemical tracts targeted at one’s religion. Religious reformists from three
dominant religions in colonial Punjab, the Hindus, Muslims and the Sikhs, along
with the Christian missionaries created a discursive space in which the superior
claims of each religion were contested. This included the dramatic polemical
debates between Ghulam Ahmad and the founder of the Arya Samaj, Dayanand
Saraswati, who had devoted an entire chapter in criticism of Islam in his Satyarth
Prakash (Light of Truth) apart from critical essays on Christianity, Sikhism and
Sanatan Dharma.
In 1892, when Lekh Ram, prominent member of the Arya Samaj condemned
Islam in his treatise on jihad, Ahmad responded with numerous attacks against
different elements of the Arya Samaj ideology. His legacy of defending Islam
against spurious insults continued after his death in 1908 and was particularly
seen in the poster campaign organised by the Qadiani Ahmadiyas in Lahore and
Amritsar after the acquittal of Mahashay Rajpal. Also, even after two decades
from the death of the founder of the Ahmadiya community, the latter had still
not been able to find a nestling ground among the Muslims in British India. The
desire to be acknowledged as the ‘true’ champions of Islam led the Ahmadis
to acquire an aggressive, militant stance not only in terms of its polemical
debates with the ulama, Hindu revivalists and Christian missionaries, but also
in adopting conversion and proselytism as their main goals through which they
were successfully able to win converts from outside of the subcontinent. The
agitation against Rangila Rasul led by them along with the Khiafatists in Lahore,
Amritsar, Ludhiana, Gujranwala and Peshawar, through propaganda in mosques,
public speeches and newspapers, such as the Muslim Opinion, seemed to blur the

58
For Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s interpretation of ‘jihad’, see ‘Ahmadiyya Movement’, read by Mirza
Bashir-ud-din Mahmood Ahmad on 23 September 1924 at the convention of Living Religions of the
Empire, London. It was later published by Nazarat Nashro Ishaat, Qadian, in 1967.
59
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, ‘Sitarah Qaisariyyah’, Ruhani Khaza’in 15, (1899): 120–21.
Raj 159

distinctions between them as they were temporarily seen as upholding the cause
of Islam.
Even though theological unity had always eluded Muslims, an attack on the
Prophet had brought them on a common platform. While Muhammad Iqbal, the
poet and philosopher who had won a seat to the provincial legislative council
from Lahore in 1926 in a second round of elections to the reformed councils,
may have personally disagreed with the methods of Ataullah Shah Bukhari and
Khwajah Abdur Rahman Ghazi who had been arrested for mobilising opinion
against Rajpal, he told a congregation at the Badshahi mosque that Muslims had
to seal their internal divisions to stop other communities from maligning the
Holy Prophet.60 Observing that the vilification of the Prophet by non-Muslims
guaranteed Muslim solidarity, he joined the Muslim delegation which met the
Punjab governor to demand a judicial review or, failing that, an amendment in
the law declaring it illegal to publish anything which hurt religious sensibilities.

Retrospectively
Vague policies of the colonial government regarding prevention of communal
writings and ambiguity on the interpretation of Section 153A of the Indian Penal
Code had led to the promotion of the use of historical narratives as a means of
injuring religious opponents and to a further confusion in the judgement of cases
connected to this. While Rajpal was acquitted by Justice Dalip Singh with the
explanation that Rangila Rasul would not ‘necessarily promote feelings of enmity
and hatred between different classes of His Majesty’s subjects’61 as laid down in
the section, the editor of Vartman and the author of its controversial article, were
convicted on the grounds that ‘the writing of a scurrilous and foul attack on such
a religious leader would prima facie fall under the said section’.62
Further, it was only after the controversy generated by Rangila Rasul and Risala
Vartman, and the immense discontent felt among sections of Muslims, that the
government decided to amend the law Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code. A
new bill was, thus, drafted retrospectively which made it an offence ‘intentionally
to insult or attempt to insult the religion, or outrage or attempt to outrage the
religious feelings of any class’.63 A select committee was made to examine all
aspects of the measure and suggest modifications both in wording and procedure.
The committee preceded ‘intention’ with ‘deliberate and malicious’, changed
‘religious feelings’ to ‘religious beliefs’, and limited the offence to verbal and
written attacks ‘by visible representations’ instead of the earlier vague clause, by
‘signs’. Further, the Indian government had to sanction prosecutions, and offenses

60
Inqilab, 13 July 1927, cited in Muhammad Rafiq Afzal (comp.), Guftar-i-Iqbal (Lahore: Research
Society of Pakistan, 1969), 41–46.
61
Justice Dalip Singh, Case No. 286 of 1927, 4 May 1927, File No. 132, Home (Poll.), GoI.
62
Letter to His Majesty’s Under Secretary of State for India from A.B. Broadway, Judge of the Vartman
case No. 114/27, 11 August 1927, Serial No. 16, File No. 132/27, Home (Poll.), GoI.
63
Bill and discussion in File no. 132, GoI, Home (Poll.), 1927.
160 History and Sociology of South Asia 9(2)

would be tried at the Sessions or at the Presidency Magistrates level.64 Introduction

of a case at a relatively high level of the judiciary was considered necessary so
that prolonged appeals such as had occurred earlier could be prevented.
The bill was given a relatively easy passage as some stalwarts like Lala Lajpat
Rai, supported the bill on the grounds that communal writings had gotten entirely
out of hand.65 He had written in The People of Lahore, 29 May 1927, on the
acquittal of Rajpal:

Technically, the decision of the learned judge is correct. The judgment is a triumph for
freedom of religious propaganda. But I have no doubt in my mind that morally the
publication was a mistake… But general moralizing apart, this is pre-eminently a time
when the followers of different religions in India should avoid all provocative
propaganda. Of all religious propaganda, disrespectful criticism of the founders of
religious systems is the most offensive and objectionable.66

The notion of the partiality of the British government towards the Muslims had
already seeped into certain sections of the Hindu community. For instance, the
defence lawyer in the Vartman case urged that as the Muslims had not been
proceeded against by the government, the accused drew two conclusions. Firstly,
that scurrilous writings of this nature were not regarded as offences; secondly, that
the penal provisions regarding such writings were meant for Hindus alone, and
therefore, as private persons could not take action under Section 153A, they were
driven, in desperation to resort in this manner.67
In the Legislative Assembly held in Simla on 5 September 1927, the bill
remained a subject of intense discussion. While certain Hindu members termed
the bill an undue concession to Muslims, certain Muslim members feared that
it did not go far enough to stop attacks against the Prophet and saw the shuddhi
movement as responsible for the rise in extreme forms of conflict.
Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava, MLA of the Ambala division, attributed
the dissension between sections of Hindus and Muslims to the attitude of the
government in dealing with the trouble. Questions had already been raised on
the conduct of the government in respect of publications such as the Uniswin
Saddi ka Maharishi68 and Sair Din Va Duniya,69 pamphlets offensive to the Hindu
sentiment, in the Punjab Council by various members to which the government
had responded that since the agitation in respect of those publications was not such
as justified them in launching prosecutions against the authors of those books,
those books were neither proscribed nor their authors punished. In this context,
he asserted that the present situation would not have arisen if the government had
64
Ibid.
65
Legislative Assembly Debate, vol. 4, no. 56, File no. 132/27, GoI, Home (Poll.).
66
Produced in the Legislative Assembly Debate 4, no. 56, File no. 132/27, GoI, Home (Poll.).
67
Letter to His Majesty’s Under Secretary of State for India from A.B. Broadway, Judge of the
Vartmancase, No. 114/27, 11 August 1927, Serial No. 16, File No. 132/27, GoI, Home (Poll.).
68
Published in Punjab by a member of the Qadian community and offering insult to Swami Dayanand
Saraswati, the founder of the Arya Samaj.
69
A Delhi publication with scurrilous content same as above.
Raj 161

stiffened its attitude from the start towards the authors of those books, ‘I maintain,
Sir, that Rangila Rasul, which has been written as a reply to the book Uniswin
Saddi ka Maharishi, would never have appeared in print if the Government had
taken care to see the first book of which it was the result, was proscribed and
the author punished.’70 Accurately assessing the situation, he remarked that the
real reason for the publication of such controversial writings was not because
the Hindus and the Muslims had suddenly become ultra-religious but because of
the introduction of separate electorates in the reforms. That the Hindus and the
Muslims had not got enough political rights to enable them to think of anything
else, ‘In fact, Sir, if the government really wanted to tackle the question and to
settle the Hindu–Muslim dispute, I for one believe that it would not be difficult
for Government so as to arrange matters as to bring about a condition of amity
and goodwill between the Hindus and Muslims.’71 Discussion of religious insults
reopened the omnipresent issue of press controls. Although the Punjab government
supported the suggested addition to the Code, it questioned whether prosecution
and slightly amended laws would check communal attacks.72 Only a tightening of
registration procedures and a return to security demands would force the publicists
to quit their attacks or to moderate the tone of their journalism.73 However, as
Barrier notes, the debate ended shortly thereafter without action; not because
communal tension had lessened but because the Indian government’s focus was
diverted from the danger of Hindu–Muslim violence to that of the challenge posed
by the Congress and the revolutionists.74 The shift of priorities and the reason
behind the shift was plain. The Moral and Material Progress Report for 1927–28
noted, until 8 November 1927, the ‘main interest of the public and of politicians
centered on the Hindu–Muhammadan trouble’.75 On that day, Viceroy Lord Irwin
announced the formation and composition of the Indian Statutory Commission.
The government would rather divert its attention to confronting the nationalists
and secure its imperial domain than formulate policies to stamp out communalism.
It could instead use communalism to counter and weaken the growing national
movement and the welding of the Indian people into a nation.76
The publication of Rangila Rasul and other inflammatory literature in the 1920s
sharpened communal tensions as the role of print in defining a world of newly
re-imagined communitarian consciousness became significant. It undermined
an inclusive and accommodative mainstream nationalist narrative and further
polarised extreme public opinions. In the context of representational politics
played out by the colonial state, through separate electorates, this added fuel to

70
Legislative Assembly Debate 4, no. 56, File No. 132/27, Home (Poll.), GoI.
71
Ibid.
72
N.G. Barrier, Banned: Controversial Literature and Political Control in British India, 1907–1947
(Delhi: Manohar Publications, 1976), 102.
73
Punjab Government to Government of India, 6 August 1927, GIPOL 1928, 74. Cf. Barrier,
Banned, 102.
74
Barrier, Banned, 103.
75
India in 1927–8, p. 55. Cf. Ibid, p. 103.
76
Chandra et al., India’s Struggle for Independence, 408.
162 History and Sociology of South Asia 9(2)

fire. The vague rather ‘retrospect’ policies of the colonial government betrayed
its conciliatory nature in that the government often acted only when a complaint
was lodged and interpreted Section 193A of the IPC related to communal ill will
according to expediency. This made the establishment of harmony among the
various religious communities in a heated political environment a far-fetched idea.