Imagine a film on the Salt March implying that MK Gandhi’s motivation for the movement was his wife’s dismay over salt prices. Maharaj, the debut film of Aamir Khan’s son Junaid, does exactly that with Gujarati journalist Karsandas Mulji’s reformist intentions—it reduces them to a quest for revenge.
Maharaj, currently streaming on Netflix after the Gujarat High Court stayed its theatrical release, is a period drama whose source material is the historic Maharaj Libel Case of 1862. While the film is centred around Karsandas’s fight against an immoral Vaishnav priest known for sexually exploiting his female devotees in the garb of religious rituals, its main critique lies in a fundamental change in the conflict.
When his fiancée commits suicide after Jadunath Maharaj (Jaideep Ahlawat) sexually assaults her, Karsandas storms into his haveli and threatens to write damning articles against him in his newspaper. In reality, Karsandas had been married long before the Maharaj Libel Case and was driven purely by his ideological convictions.
Even if we ignore the filmmakers taking such creative liberties, Maharaj leaves out significant historical incidents that would have easily heightened the drama.
Shaivaite Brahmins vs Vaishnavite priests
Karsandas launched his weekly Satyaprakash in 1855 in Bombay. At the time, a conflict arose between Vaishnav priests and Shaivite Brahmins. The Shaivite Brahmins, devotees of Shiva, arranged a chhapan bhog prasad (an offering of 56 delicacies) for their deity. Vaishnavs—devotees of Vishnu—contributed generously and partook in the prasad with the Brahmins.
This led to concern among Vaishnav priests, who viewed it as an encroachment on their authority by the Brahmins. They raised a scriptural issue, citing that offerings made to Shiva (Shiv Nirmalya) are forbidden for further consumption. According to them, Brahmins had violated the scriptures by consuming the prasad offered to Shiva. They decreed that the Vaishnavites should neither utilise the services of Shaivaite Brahmins nor donate to them until they apologised and atoned.
In his book, Uttam Kapol Karsandas Mulji Charitra, Rao Saheb Mahipatram Rupram Nilkanth states that Karsandas actively engaged with the issue, openly challenging the hegemony of the Vaishnava priests.
This incident marked him a prominent leader among the reformists. The priests, though, saw Karsandas as a threat because he was a fellow Vaishnav. (Uttam Kapol p. 24)
Also read: ‘Maharaj’ story felt inherently dramatic: Junaid Khan on ‘unconventional’ acting debut
Essay competition and court conundrum
In January 1857, Karsandas initiated an essay competition in Satyaprakash. The topic centred on the relationship between priests and their disciples—particularly the female disciples—seeking submissions on what an ideal relationship between the two should be according to the scriptures. The winning entry was subsequently published as a book, sparking widespread debate. (Uttam Kapol pp. 23-24)
In 1858, Vaishnav priest Jivanlal Maharaj filed a civil suit against Motiram Dayal. Maharaj sought an exemption from appearing in court owing to his religious status, which the Bombay High Court refused.
This prompted an out-of-court settlement initiated by Maharaj. However, the case remained a topic of discussion in newspapers, particularly in Satyaprakash. Karsandas criticised the ways of Maharaj and other practices within the Pushtimarg sect while analysing and commenting on the arguments presented and the court’s judgment. (Uttam Kapol p. 23)
Also read: ‘Dr Nilkanthrai’s Braille’—this Gujarati surgeon made Devanagari blind-friendly
More articles, another lawsuit
In her 1997 paper, ‘Women in the Maharaj libel case: A re-examination’, scholar Amrita Shodhan writes that the angered priests enlisted the help of the Parsi paper Chabuk, known for yellow journalism. However, editor Navrajaji Dorabji’s articles abusing the reformers crossed a line, leading to Lakhmidas Khimji filing a defamation lawsuit against him.
The Vaishnav priests opted to stay out of the controversy.
Feeling cornered, Dorabji summoned the priests as witnesses in the case. To avoid appearing in court, Maharaj took a drastic action and closed the doors of his temple. While this prevented the priests from being served the summons, it also left many Vaishnavs hungry, accustomed as they were to eating only after temple visits.
The priests also coerced their followers into signing an agreement. It prohibited Vaishnava devotees from taking any action against them, prescribed excommunication for anyone who did, and aimed to raise Rs 60,000 to petition the British government for permanent court exemptions for the Vaishnava priests.
Karsandas vehemently denounced the agreement, calling it a ‘Gulamikhat’—a document of slavery. He published numerous handbills and articles criticising the agreement, significantly weakening the priests’ influence.
There was no stopping Karsandas. Makrand Mehta & Achyut Yajnik write in their book, Karsandas Mulji: Jeevan Nondh, that the priests offered Karsandas Rs 10,000 in an attempt to halt his attacks, but his integrity could not be bought. Meanwhile, community leaders hesitated to excommunicate Karsandas due to the fear of worsening the situation. (Uttam Kapol pp. 26, 30)
Also read: How Buddhists lost out to Brahmins in Nalanda. Even before the Turks came
Enter Jadunath Maharaj, the plaintiff
To restore the waning influence of the Vaishnava priests in Bombay, Surat’s Jadunath Maharaj, a young priest with a reformist-friendly image, arrived in the city in 1860. He gained admiration by presiding over an event at a girls’ school, earning praise from many of Bombay’s reformers. Multi even praised him in Satyaprakash. (Uttam Kapol p. 39)
However, Narmadashankar Dave, popularly known as Narmad, a prominent Gujarati poet, writer, journalist, and reformer from Surat, disrupted Jadunath’s plans. He had been writing against Vaishnavite priests’ immoral practices for a long time and was aware of Jadunath’s controversial past in Surat.
He issued an open challenge to the priest for a debate centred on whether widow remarriage was sanctioned by scriptures. Jadunath readily accepted but during the debate, cleverly shifted focus to the divine nature of scriptures. (Mari Hakikat, Kavi Narmadashankar Lalshankar, Ed: Ramesh M. Shukla, 1994, Narmad Yugavarta Trust, Surat, p. 58)
Karsandas and others, who expected Jadunath to be in favour of widow remarriage, believed that Narmad had fallen into Jadunath’s trap. The Vaishnavite priest, however, did not support the cause and proceeded to accuse the reformists of being atheists. The debate tarnished Jadunath’s reformist-friendly reputation in Bombay and set the stage for the Maharaj Libel Case.
Narmad’s writings were later cited by the defence lawyer, and he even appeared as a witness in the case. (Mari Hakikat, appendix-8, pp. 167-168) Including the colourful character of Narmad in the film would have undoubtedly heightened its dramatic effect.
Also read: How Bhavnagar’s Maharani Nandkuvarba started a Gujarati war weekly, won awards & accolades
Bhatia conspiracy case
In 1860, Karsandas published an article in Satyaprakash titled ‘Hinduono asal dharma ane haalna pakhandi mato’ (The true religion of the Hindus and the present heterodox opinions). The article criticised some aspects of the Pushtimarg sect and the immoral practices of its priests. Jadunath seized the opportunity and filed a Rs 50,000 libel suit in the Bombay High Court, nearly six months after the article’s publication.
The outcome of the case relied heavily on witnesses from the Bhatia community, many of whom were staunch followers of the priests. The Bhatias convened a meeting in September 1861 and decided that no community member would testify against Jadunath. Any dissenting voice would be punished.
In response, Karsandas filed a case against nine community leaders for conspiring to prevent witnesses from giving evidence. During one of the initial hearings, Karsandas was attacked by a fanatic crowd outside the court. He sought protection from the magistrate and was provided with it by Police Commissioner Charles Forjett. (Uttam Kapol p. 47)
The case, known as the Bhatia Conspiracy Case, concluded swiftly in favour of Karsandas even before the Maharaj Libel Case proceedings began. (Uttam Kapol pp. 46-52)
These events hardly seem like dry history. They offer rich material for a masala film like Maharaj, but Bollywood’s love for the revenge drama ultimately had its way.
Urvish Kothari is a senior columnist and writer based in Ahmedabad. He tweets @urvish2020. Views are personal.
(Edited by Prasanna Bachchhav)