OUP India Issues Apology Over Unverified Claims on Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Made in 2003 Book

The Oxford University Press (OUP) India issued an apology to Udayanraje Bhosale, the 13th descendant of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, for certain unverified statements made about the Maratha King in the book "Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India." The apology was issued following the order of the Bombay High Court’s Kolhapur bench. The book was published over two decades ago. In its press release that was posted in a newspaper, OUP India admitted that certain statements made about Shivaji Maharaj on pages 31, 33, 34, and 93 of the book "Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India," were not verified before being published.

The book was written by American author James Laine. It had triggered a huge controversy after more than 150 activists from the Sambhaji Brigade raided the renowned Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (BORI) on Law College Road in Pune in January 2004. They alleged that it helped the writer who made objectionable remarks about Shivaji Maharaj in the book.

Also Read: Maharashtra: Teachers’ Salary Standoff Ends, Education Officials to Sign Pay Bills Within Two Days

The notice stated that the publisher regrets publishing those statements and tendered an apology to Chhatrapati Udayanraje Bhosale and to the public for any distress and anguish caused. The apology was issued on behalf of Sayeed Manzar Khan, OUP's former Managing Director, the notice said.

A complaint was filed by Bhosale, and based on that, the court initiated criminal defamation proceedings on April 2, 2005, under Section 500 (defamation) of the IPC against OUP India’s Sayeed Manzar Khan and three others. They moved the high court, which transferred the case to its Kolhapur bench. Justice Shivkumar Dige heard the petition on December 17 last year. Counsel appearing for Khan and the other petitioners informed the court that their clients were willing to issue a nationwide public notice apologising to respondent No. 1, Bhosale. Accepting this assurance, the bench granted the four petitioners 15 days to fulfil their undertaking and set aside the magistrate’s order initiating proceedings against them.