SURAT, July 29: They could have had it from the horse's mouth, just that it is long, long dead. But that has not deterred a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) councillor from here and a local doctor from fighting over the gender of Shivaji's horse. The onus is now on the court of law to determine whether the great Maratha rode a horse or a mare.

It all started last year at a general board meeting of the Surat Municipal Corporation. BJP councillor Hasmukh Jogani, in his point of order, asked if Shivaji rode a horse or a mare and that if he did ride a mare (as has been accepted historically), why did his statue at Sahara Darwaza depict him astride a horse.

That was enough for all hell to break loose. Marathi councillors went on the offensive, ready to take Jogani to task. And two days later, on January 2, 1997, a city doctor, Eknath Jhandubhai Patil, ``hurt'' and ``enraged'' at Jogani's ``audacity'', filed a criminal case (No 6/97) in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Fifth Court.

Though Jogani apologised later, it wasn't enough to soothe hurt sentiments. For, as Marathi BJP councillor Muralidhar C Patil explains, the matter goes beyond that. ``For him (Jogani) it might have been a mere question, but for us, it was tantamount to libel. Usne Shivaji ka anaadar kiya, Shivaji ko down karne ke liye (He insulted Shivaji to pull him down),'' he fumes. ``Had I got hold of him that day I'd have broken his neck.''

Jogani, for his part, maintains the issue is being blown out of proportion. ``There is nothing to it really,'' he says. ``Some people just need an issue to survive politically. The controversy has been generated to appease the Marathi community herer''.

That as the case may be, none of the parties is willing to compromise. While Patil insists Jogani should apologise in public, just as he ``insulted'' Shivaji in public, the BJP leader will have none of it. ``We have a very strong case. Jogani will not plead guilty, definitely not,'' says his lawyer, Hasmukh Lalwala.

Patil is equally determined to battle it out in court. He has filed the case against Jogani under IPC Sections 295 (A) (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class, by insulting its religion or religious beliefs; involving punishment of up to three years in prison, or fine, or both).

Copyright © 1997 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.