The Calcutta Quran Petition

by Sita Ram Goel

This book compiles the documents of the Calcutta Quran Petition and provides extensive commentary on them. The stated goal of this book is to promote a public discussion of Islam as a religion, particularly its claim that every bit of the Quran and the Hadis has a divine source. This claim is used at present to prevent a close examination of what the book contains and what message Islam has for mankind at large. This is the Third Revised and Enlarged Edition.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, Religion, Islam

325 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1986

About the author

Sita Ram Goel (16 October 1921 – 3 December 2003) was an Indian religious and political activist, writer and publisher in the late twentieth century. He had Marxist leanings during the 1940s, but later became an outspoken anti-communist and also wrote extensively on the damage to Indian culture and heritage wrought by expansionist Islam and missionary activities of Christianity. In his later career he emerged as a commentator on Indian politics, and adhered to Hindu nationalism.

Reviews

[Ishani · Rating 5 out of 5]

First and foremost, this book is a must read for everyone.

Now, to start with, even bengalees from Calcutta might not have ever heard of this incident in the first place : The Calcutta Quran Petition. The topic itself is intriguing enough for people to pick this book up and I do hope that people do.

None of us common people can have the luxury of going through each of the extensive studies & translations done. So on these grounds, this book does a pretty great job in putting forward a comparative study from all sources Indo-Western. It kind of shatters the general concept we usually have though.

Downside of the book is, the Arabic history which the author narrates extensively. Since we are not at all aware of the aboriginal tribes and the local tradition and conditions prevalent then, it becomes very hard to understand the events; all the more when the context of the court case gets over quite early and the author, by page 77, successfully makes his case in a concise way citing all justifications and logic as much as is needed by common folk. So the middle part of the book kind of drags a lot and weighs on you. But it could also have been a necessity so as to highlight everything which are there in the history, in the facts and in the present.

Coming to the 2nd section of the book; this part can be called a glance through because it contains the copies of the writ petitions, discussion, court verdict, review application and so on in actual legal texts which are only for reference purposes.

Having said all that, the book should be read with utmost responsibility as well as with an understanding of where to draw the line.

Again and again I keep on saying, a half truth is more dangerous than a lie. History is naked and impartial to all - the more out in the open the better.

[Sajith Kumar · Rating 3 out of 5]

India was conceived as a secular republic right from independence. This envisaged a system of government that does not interfere in religious affairs of its citizens. People were free to follow the religion that pleased them and were guaranteed the freedom to propagate it. But practice of this exalted principle of governance often differed widely from theory as soon as elections began to take place. The ruling party found it expedient to appease religious minorities, especially Muslims, and receive votes in return as consolidated vote banks. This shameless cozying up reached the lowest depth in the 1980s. In a case that later became famous as Shah Bano, the Supreme Court granted alimony to an aged Muslim woman who was divorced by her husband. The Muslim fundamentalists erupted in violent protests across the nation demanding that the court verdict ran counter to their religious law that made divorce a right of the husband without any burden of providing financial support to his erstwhile wife. Bending under pressure from the ultra-religious, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi brought in a constitutional amendment that nullified the court verdict and specifically permitted Muslim men to divorce their wives at will, without any monetary provisions. This did lasting damage to Indian secularism. Hindu forces originated in retaliation and took strong roots following this incident. Other aspects of Muslim jurisprudence were also disputed at this time. Chandmal Chopra of Calcutta filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court on Mar 29, 1985, stating that publication of the Quran attracts sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) because it ‘incites violence, disturbs public tranquility, promotes on grounds of religion, feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious communities and insults other religions or religious beliefs of other communities in India’. This book expounds the events that followed a critical evaluation of the Muslim holy book in view of the allegations made. Sita Ram Goel (1921 – 2003) was an Indian political activist, writer, historian and publisher. He had Marxist leanings in his early life but later became an outspoken anti-communist and also wrote extensively on the damage to Indian culture and heritage wrought by expansionist Islam. He was a staunch follower of Hindu nationalism.

The petition placed before the court 85 ayats (verses of the Quran) which command Muslims to practice violent, genocidal behavior towards non-Muslims. The book contains detailed descriptions of each of them. Judge Padma Khastgir allowed the petition and directed to issue notices to the state and union governments. The case was later transferred to Judge Bimal Chandra Basak who pronounced the verdict. The petition prayed for a direction from the court to the state government to confiscate all extant copies of the Quran under the relevant provisions of the IPC. The petition ruffled the feathers of the establishment. Weak-kneed central and state governments tried to scuttle the case at first. The communist-led state government’s sleuths trailed the petitioners to find something incriminating. He was later arrested, just for filing a plea in a court of law on an issue in which he believed justice was being denied. Muslim mobs went on the rampage across many parts of the nation. Justice Basak finally made an anti-climactic judgment which rejected the petition outright, Justice Basak started by accepting the Muslim claim that the Quran was the word of God. By that logic, if the ayats sounded obnoxious, they must have been torn out of their original context. Without examining the merits of the case, he dismissed the plea.

The Quran was a source of litigation on other occasions too. In another case in Delhi in 1986, the Metropolitan Magistrate judged that the 24 ayats which are said to cause communal riots are harmful and teach hatred and are likely to create differences between Muslims and other communities. Here we see two courts taking diametrically opposite positions on the same issue. While one court preferred to stay away from any evaluation of a book on the reason that it was revealed directly by God, the other persuaded to do just the same irrespective of the threats and intimidations directed against him. Goel argues that the coincidence between the prophet’s convenience on the one hand and Allah’s commands on the other makes it obvious that Allah of the Quran is none other than the prophet himself (p.32). Eighteen points are listed out and narrated in support of this claim (p.20-32).

The book provides an exhaustive view of the importance Quran assigns to waging war against the infidels (jihad). A full chapter is devoted to enumerate the battles fought by the prophet (p.77-136). Killing infidels in battle is an act that returns immense merit to the believers. Even if one gets killed in such a skirmish, his afterlife becomes very rewarding. Such persons go directly to paradise without waiting till the Day of Judgment. There are different grades of believers in heaven. An ordinary believer is entitled to paradise, but a mujahid (one who took part in jihad) is hundred times more deserving. A ghazi (one who killed infidels in jihads) is still higher in merit. A shahid (one who got killed in jihad) gets instant paradise. The incentive scheme is clearly tilted towards extracting maximum valour from Muslim soldiers in their fight against infidels.

The book contains many quotes from the Quran and other sacred Islamic books. Goel expertly uses them to analyse the real status of non-Muslims in a country governed according to Sharia law. Imam Abu Hanifa, who lived in the eighth century CE, systematized Muslim law. He is highly regarded by Indian Muslims, almost all of them belonging to his Hanafi School. The ‘Hidayah’ is the most important treatise of this school and our book quotes from this the relevant portions pertaining to recommended treatment of outsiders in an Islamic society. The law books refer to such people as zimmis who are denied all rights otherwise granted to Muslim citizens. They are grudgingly conceded the right to life and property upon payment of a crippling poll tax. When Muslims conquer an infidel country, the inhabitants, together with their wives and children are all plunder and the property of the state, as it is lawful to reduce all infidels to slavery. Idolaters should be immediately killed, but kitabis (people of the book – Jews and Christians) can buy their life by payment of jizyah. They are not allowed to build any new place of worship. Zimmis are also required to look different in attire from Muslims. They should not be allowed to ride on horses or use armour. They must be made to wear a woolen cord or belt round their waists or outside of their garments. Zimmis should put some distinctive sign on their houses so that ‘beggars who come to their door may not pray for them’!

There is a long line of scholars, especially belonging to the Left, who deliberately play down the threat posed by Islamic fundamentalism. They argue that these are one-off events which have no place in the modern world. This is a pious lie. We have seen what the Islamic State had done to non-Muslims in the territories they conquered and ruled for a short time. Modern times or not, they faithfully put in action all the Quranic injunctions to the letter, by killing off idolatrous Yazidi men and making their women sex slaves. Goel of course did not know this as he died many years back, but his warnings are so prescient as to make us wonder whether he anticipated the ISIS takeover. The author argues that though the mujahids lived in many different centuries who belonged to different races and spoke different languages, yet their actions followed the same pattern. It looks as if the Muslim historians have only filled in the blanks in a prescribed pro forma. The dramatis personae of the drama continued to change, but the script remained loyal to what the Quran taught. The key to all this behavior is held by the Quran which is the only thing which all jihadis and their historians share in common. This is an ominous pointer to India. Jihad cannot be regarded as something which happened only in the past. It is an ever present threat to India as the Quranic verses would provide the basis and motivation for a jihad wherever and whenever the infidels provide an opportunity. Pious Muslims in every place and at all times are taught to see, or seek, or provoke situations in which solutions prescribed by the Quran can be practiced (p.209).

This book is not recommended for faint-hearted Muslims as it seeks to present a lesser known facet of their religion. They may better avoid this book. It has quoted extensively from Islamic texts, which make the reading cumbersome on many occasions. A long reproduction from Tuhfat ul-Mujahideen on jihad has a single paragraph that spans across nine pages of the book! The author declares that it is high time for Hindu scholarship to come forward and make a serious study of the Quran with the help of Islamic theology and history. It is time for them to have a close look at the character of Allah which is the seed from which everything in Islam has sprouted. The results will be very rewarding. Goel has included references from medieval Muslim historians such as al-Utbi, Hasan Nizami, Abdullah Wassaf, Amir Khusrau and Muhammad Qasim Ferishta. We do not find a trace of pity or sorrow or sympathy in these historians while they expound stories of slaughter, pillage and the plight of zimmi men, women and children.

The book is highly recommended.

[E.T. · Rating 5 out of 5]

A book on one of the most absurd cases filed in independent India.

[Piyush Asthana · Rating 5 out of 5]

nice book and an eye opener for hindu muslim devide

[Vineet Singh · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is about the writ petition filed before Calcutta High Court by Shri Chandmal Chopra and Sital Singh requesting to direct the Government of W.B. for the reason that it promotes disharmony, feeling of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious communities; incite people to commit violence and disturb public tranquility and outrage or insult other religions and the religious feelings of other communities in India, which render the book liable to be forfeited to the Government in terms of Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code. The book also reveals coward mentality of judiciary, bureaucracy and legislature while dealing with issues related to Mohammadans. in this case also, instead of dealing the issue on legal terms, the High Court decided the matter on belief and assumptions. Although, the petitioner in support of his application had submitted irrefutable grounds and also submitted specific Aayas of Koran which promote disharmony and ill will among different religious community. The book also contains brief Islamic history during the time of Mohammad, history of Islamic jihad in India, details of concept and meaning jihad, doctrine of Islamic State.
The author also highlights how Hindus have been fooled with falsified history in the name of National Integration Council and says that Hindus will never be able to tackle the ‘Muslim Minority’ unless they understand the source of its behaviour pattern. But hindus have so far failed to study the Quran with any seriousness whatsoever. The author urges Hindu Scholarship to come forward and make a serious study of the Quran with the help of Islamic theology and history.
Ending with Machiavelli’s observation – “All well-armed prophets have conquered and the unarmed failed”.

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 5 out of 5]

The story begins in 1985, in Kolkata, when Chandmal Chopra—a businessman and Hindu activist—filed a petition before the Calcutta High Court seeking a ban on the Qur’an. His argument? That certain verses in the Islamic scripture incited violence and hatred against non-Muslims, and that therefore, under Indian law (specifically Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, which prohibits the promotion of enmity between communities), the text should be proscribed. It was a shocking, almost unthinkable move—to use the very legal instruments of secular India against a foundational religious text. And of course, it exploded like a political grenade.

Sita Ram Goel, already known for his firebrand writings on Hindu identity and secular hypocrisy, saw in this episode a microcosm of what he considered the asymmetrical power dynamics of Indian secularism. His role in The Calcutta Quran Petition is that of an intellectual combatant and chronicler. He compiles the documents — the petition, the legal reasoning, the press reactions, the governmental responses — and surrounds them with his own commentary, which turns the whole book into a polemical text masquerading as a dossier. It’s not journalism; it’s political theatre in prose.

To be fair, Goel doesn’t pretend to be objective. His voice throughout the book is iron-willed, deliberate, and deeply ideological. He presents the case not as a mere legal curiosity but as a moral and civilizational test — one that, in his view, India failed. When the case was summarily dismissed by the court and the government came down heavily against the petitioners, Goel saw it not as a defeat of extremism (as most of India did) but as proof of what he called “minority appeasement” and the moral cowardice of the Indian elite.

This framing, of course, is what makes the book so explosive — and so enduringly relevant. Goel positions himself and Chopra as truth-tellers silenced by a politically correct establishment. His commentary moves from legal analysis to historical argument, tracing what he sees as a pattern of Islamic aggression in Indian history, and then to philosophical critique — a claim that “secularism” in India had become a weapon used selectively against Hindus while shielding minority sensibilities. Whether you agree or disagree, you can’t ignore the intellectual precision with which he builds this argument.

What’s fascinating — and uncomfortable — about reading The Calcutta Quran Petition is that it reveals how law, religion, and emotion intertwine in the Indian psyche. The petition itself, though legally untenable, forced into the open a question most would rather avoid: can a secular state apply its hate-speech laws equally to all religions, or are some texts beyond question? Goel’s point — framed provocatively but not without logic — was that if Hindu texts could be critiqued, parodied, or even banned for alleged offensiveness (as had happened in several instances before), why should other religions enjoy immunity? It’s the age-old argument for parity dressed in the rhetoric of justice.

At one level, Goel’s book can be seen as a cry of frustration against what he perceives as double standards in India’s intellectual and political discourse. But at another level, it’s also a warning — a Cassandra-like wail — about what happens when a state tries to manage faith through law instead of through freedom. His insistence that “all scripture must be open to scrutiny” resonates beyond its polemical surface; it’s a genuinely philosophical question. Can faith survive critique? Can truth coexist with law? Can tolerance coexist with taboo?

Yet Goel’s tone is never purely Socratic — it’s charged, urgent, and often abrasive. He doesn’t just critique Islam; he indicts what he sees as the cowardice of Hindu leadership and the self-loathing of the Indian intelligentsia. Reading him, one often feels the collision of two temperaments: the scholar and the street-fighter. His footnotes are as sharp as his polemics — full of quotations, statistics, and historical references marshaled not to open dialogue but to score decisive blows. He writes not to persuade gently but to force the reader to confront discomfort.

What’s remarkable is that Goel, despite his intensity, is never lazy in argumentation. The book is meticulously documented. He reproduces the entire petition, lists every verse cited, references every legal clause, and includes correspondence with authorities. It’s both a polemical essay and a bureaucratic archive — and that mix gives it a strange power. You’re not just reading an opinion; you’re witnessing a case file turned into a moral drama.

Comparatively, The Calcutta Quran Petition occupies the same controversial shelf as Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses — though from a completely opposite angle. While Rushdie, through fiction, challenged the sanctity of scripture from within Islam, Goel and Chopra challenged it from without, through the apparatus of secular law. Both acts were seen as provocations, both provoked outrage, and both illuminated the paradox of modern pluralism — that in a society committed to free expression, certain subjects remain untouchable.

Goel’s work, unlike Rushdie’s, isn’t literary — it’s raw political philosophy. But both share a strange kinship in their understanding that modernity and sacredness are in permanent tension. The Indian state’s reaction — quick dismissal, censorship, moral outrage — in both cases reveals that India’s secularism is more about balance than principle. Goel’s fury, when read today, feels like a dark mirror held up to that reality.

It’s also worth noting that Goel’s editorial framing of the petition isn’t merely anti-Islamic; it’s anti-hypocrisy. He repeatedly insists that he’s not calling for censorship — in fact, he argues the exact opposite. He wants no text banned. His deeper provocation is: if you truly believe in secularism and freedom of expression, then you cannot apply the law selectively. Either everything is open to critique, or nothing is. This is where his logic takes an almost Voltairean turn — though his tone is much more volcanic than Enlightenment cool.

The historical sections of the book — where Goel digresses into accounts of Islamic invasions, temple destruction, and cultural conflict — can be read as his attempt to contextualize the petition within a millennium-long civilizational trauma. Here, however, the book moves from legal reasoning to moral narrative, and it’s where his most passionate readers find strength and his critics find cause for alarm. He’s not writing a neutral history; he’s writing from the wound of collective memory. And that’s both his greatest rhetorical power and his greatest danger — because such writing, when received without nuance, can be weaponized by those seeking conflict rather than understanding.

To modern readers, The Calcutta Quran Petition feels eerily prophetic. The same debates about freedom of speech, blasphemy, and religious offence that roiled India in the 1980s continue today — in fact, they’ve intensified. Goel’s central question — can a democracy handle the sacred with honesty? — remains unanswered. The book, therefore, continues to have a strange half-life: quoted in online debates, banned from libraries, whispered about in academic circles, and yet still read in photocopied form in ideological enclaves.

As a piece of writing, it’s both fascinating and flawed. Goel’s intellectual courage is undeniable — he dared to say what few others would even whisper — but his empathy often goes missing. His righteous anger hardens into rigidity. His belief in the truth of his cause leaves little room for ambiguity, for the messy humanity that dwells between belief and critique. That’s where the work of someone like Ashis Nandy, who explored similar civilizational questions through compassion and psychology, feels more balanced. Nandy would have asked not just what the Qur’an says, but why believers hear it as they do. Goel, on the other hand, is interested in winning the argument, not understanding the faith.

Yet — and this is the paradox — his confrontation forced Indian intellectual life to acknowledge a blind spot. Before Goel, very few dared to question the selective pieties of secular discourse. After Goel, even those who despised his tone could no longer ignore the question of equal scrutiny. In that sense, The Calcutta Quran Petition performs the role of the gadfly: irritating, necessary, impossible to ignore.

Read alongside How I Became a Hindu, this book feels like its political sequel — the externalization of an inner awakening. If the earlier book is about personal re-rooting, this one is about institutional confrontation. Goel moves from the realm of the soul to the realm of the state. It’s the same voice, but angrier, louder, and more public. The spiritual convert becomes the activist chronicler. The philosopher becomes the dissident.

By the final sections, the book reads almost like a courtroom in eternity — with Goel arguing not before judges but before history itself. He knows he will lose the case, but he wants the record to exist. And that’s precisely what the book achieves — it becomes a document of dissent, not for its legality but for its audacity.

The Calcutta Quran Petition is not an easy book to read, nor should it be. It’s incendiary, exhausting, and morally demanding. But to dismiss it outright would be to miss an essential thread of India’s intellectual evolution — the restless, conflicted attempt to define what secularism, freedom, and faith really mean in a civilization that has always contained them all.

In the end, Goel’s voice lingers like the echo of an argument that refuses to die. Whether you find him liberating or dangerous, you cannot unread him. And perhaps that’s the truest mark of significance — he leaves you thinking long after you’ve disagreed.

[Nitish · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book deals with what I honestly think is one of the most absurd cases filed in independent India. The petition argued that certain verses of the Quran were against public policy and peace, and even against other religions, and that they allegedly created hatred among people.

What I genuinely appreciated was the amount of research the author has put into the book. The author looks at the issue from multiple angles while analysing specific verses, ayats, and—most importantly—the Quran as a whole. It is clear that the book is not casually written; there is real effort to engage with the text and the arguments around it.

That said, I did not agree with the author at many points. In several places, I felt the author was taking a very hard-line position. Some interpretations felt stretched, and I personally did not find all the conclusions convincing.

My honest suggestion to anyone who wants to read this book is this: read the Quran first, or at least keep it with you while reading the book. Many times, you will need to go back to the Quran, understand the verse on your own, and only then see how the author has interpreted it. Doing this is important, because otherwise it is easy to accept the author’s reading without questioning it.

Even after setting aside the parts where I disagreed, I still feel this was an important read for me. It helped clear many doubts and misunderstandings I had, and it pushed me to think more seriously and independently about Islam, and the Quran.

[Amartya Raghav]

This book provides an insightful look into a significant moment in India’s legal and religious history, centered around a controversial petition challenging parts of the Quran. I was drawn to it due to my interest in legal history and religious debates. The writing is clear and effective, making complex legal and theological arguments accessible.
The arguments presented in the petition were compelling, and the book also captures the court’s thorough response in dismissing the case while addressing broader issues of communal harmony. It offered me new perspectives on the intersections of religion, law, and society. Overall, it is a thought-provoking read for those interested in religious texts, legal challenges, and social dynamics in India.

[Ajumma · Rating 5 out of 5]

Whole of the subject matter has been laid out elaborately with regard to origin, history and present day behaviour of followers of the said religion vis-a-via their authoritative book. Make no mistake, truth however bitter has been dealt with fair and squarely by the author. For a time-constrained reader with little interest in legal proceedings, 6. Jihad in India’s History and 10. A Close Look at the Allah of Quran under Section 1 would suffice. Reference to luminaries Jadunath Sarkar and K. S. Lal’s books on the matter are insightful and are worthy of further reference to interested readers.

[Pramod Pant · Rating 4 out of 5]

A wonderfully well argued point of view against historical Islamism !

Shri Sita Ram Goel is a person who’s argued his ideas very well . The only problem with him as a historian is that he identifies with Hinduism too closely to justify his credentials as a historian. But that goes for so many historians, including ideologues , their ideas , and their own influences .

[naveen gupta · Rating 5 out of 5]

a super book which every hindu must read and they will understand the psychology of muslim brothers. why they are not peace. why they keep on fighting if not with others than among themselves, why that hatred towards other religion.