Questions regarding a chess metaphor in a book

Hello Everybody, 

I'm currently translating a book in which there's a chess metaphor that doesn't seem to match what I've read about the rules. I have zero knowledge towards chess, and it's kinda important that I understand this thoroughly, so I thought I'd ask around here. Thank you in advance for any help, and apologies in advance for the questions might sound quite dumb 

Background of the story:

Maneck and Avinash are two friends who used to play chess together. As the political situation in the country worsened, many people were arrested, and Avinash, who was a student activist, has disappeared mysteriously. 

Here's the quote:

"His (Maneck's) only regret was not being able to say goodbye to Avinash, whose room remained locked and silent. Probably still hiding at his parents’ – it would be foolhardy to return while the Emergency regime governed the campus and people continued to disappear.

Maneck remembered the early days with him, when their friendship was new. Everything I do is chess, Avinash had once said. Now he was under a serious check. Had he castled in time, protected by three pawns and a rook?" (A Fine Balance, Rohinton Mistry, pp.316)

My questions are:

1. From what I understood, you are not allowed to castle when in check. Could it be that the author made a mistake, or that "castle" has meanings other than moving the king and the rook? I've heard  that this rule did not exist at first and was added later, does anybody know around when this rule was made? If it helps, the book was first published in 1995. 

2. It didn't seem to me that castling involves moving three pawns together with a rook (but then again I don't know anything about chess), and I'm quite sure this is not a reference to other characters in the story. So why did the author mention them? I looked up the German version of this book, and the German translator has translated "rook" as "bishop", which baffled me furthermore. I'll put the sentence below just in case there's someone german speaking around

" Hatte er rechtzeitig seinen Turm gezogen, geschützt durch drei Bauern und einen Läufer?"

Thanks a  lot!

Yiqi

I think it is fine.  had he castled he would be protected by three pawns and a rook.  Instead he hadn't castled and finds himself in check.  Metaphor for life is there in that taking time to protect yourself from an adverse situation is good while procrastination leaves you vulnerable.

Don't see anything in #1 that would indicate an intention to communicate, "instead he hadn't castled". Perhaps the intention was to communicate, "Had he castled in time, he would have been protected by three pawns and a rook." However, that meaning would require the addition of "he would have been" and the change from a question to a statement. Don't know if either of those modifications would be justified by the original. The reference to protection by three pawns and a rook does not seem to me to be completely unreasonable. After White castles, the usual situation is that the king is on g1, the rook is on f1, and there are pawns on f2, g2, and h2. Example:

It certainly looks like the king is protected by the rook and three pawns, but I do not think that serious chess players think of it that way. The usual interpretation seems to me to be that the castled king is protected by the knight and three pawns while the rook has been released for activity elsewhere. All this makes me suspect that the author was only a casual chess player who may have made mistakes. Consequently, my guess would be that the word, "check", was mistakenly used instead of "attack", so that the original intention was to communicate:

"Now he was under a serious attack. Had he castled in time, protected by three pawns and a rook?"

I suppose that, for some sorts of attack, the rook might be thought of as part of the protection of the castled king. By the way, I do not know the age of the modern castling rule, but I think that it goes back at least as far as the 18th century. I suppose that it might be that some light would be shed on the matter by some Indian variation of chess. If I remember correctly, more than one version has been played there.

I know you're not supposed to do that, but I'd really love to replace "under a serious check" to "under heavy pressure" being that it makes more sense. The term "being under pressure" is ever so common in chess lingo. 

No one says that, you know? "Under a check". The regular term is "in check".

It does indeed not make sense to castle whilst being in check. That would disqualify the player, which probably wouldn't be so good for poor Maneck

Thank you guys for the explanations and suggestions!

I have altered the translation a little bit and added a footnote saying that the author might have made a small mistake and gave a short explanation of this rule. I've learned a lot new things about chess working on this book. Thank you all again for your help and keep on having fun playing chess! 

I think the idea is that there are two possibilities: The narrotor believes that the guy might be in serious trouble (check). But there is still the hope that he is just hiding (castling). 

The German translation doesn't make any sense to me.

What's the name of that book?

Hi, the book is called "A Fine Balance" by Rohinton Mistry. The sentence appeared around the middle of chapter 6, "Day at the Circus, Night in the Slum".

The German translation made sense to me apart for the fact that "rook" was translated as "bishop". My guess is that the translator just made a mistake.