4 arrested for killing RSS worker

Bengaluru, Jul 9: Alarmed over surging COVID-19 cases, the Karnataka government has decided to divide this tech city into containment zones to curb the spread of the pandemic, a state minister said on Thursday.

"The city will be divided into red, orange and yellow zones in commensurate with the number of Covid cases in them for containing the virus spread on war footing," Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister J.C. Madhuswamy told reporters here.

Cabinet ministers representing assembly segments in the city will be in-charge of the zones to ensure the cases are curbed with strict enforcement of lockdown guidelines, especially wearing mask and maintaining social distancing by the people in the confinement areas.

"Chief Minister B.S. Yediyurappa has convened a meeting of ministers, MLAs, MPs and corporators of all the 198 civic wards across the city on Friday to discuss and draw an action plan to contain the pandemic," said Madhuswamy.

With 1,148 positive cases, the city''s Covid tally rose to 12,509 and active to 10,103, while 2,228 were discharged, including 418 on Wednesday, while 177 succumbed to the infection since March 9, with 23 in the last 24 hours.

"The Chief Minister ordered deploying more ambulances in the containment areas where cases have been spiking daily to rush Covid patients to the nearest hospital for immediate treatment," said Madhuswamy.

The city civic corporation -- Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) --has increased the containment zones to 3,181 due to more cases spiking, with southern and western suburbs accounting for most infections.

"The containment zones are concentrated more in the city''s southern and western suburbs. Active cases doubled over the last 8 days and shot up to a whopping 12,509 from 4,555 on June 30," an official said.

Refuting graft charges by opposition Congress leader Siddaramaiah in the purchase of medical equipment for treatment of Covid patients, Madhuswamy said the state government had not spent more than Rs 600 crore so far.

"We are running a government. Not a private office. We will give account. He (Siddaramaiah) is welcome to check the accounts and verify the documents," asserted the minister.

In a related development, the cabinet also approved an ordinance to increase the state contingency fund to Rs 500 crore from Rs 80 crore for the Covid-19 induced economic relief measures announced by the chief minister in June.

Bengaluru, Jun 22: Senior Congress leader BK Hariprasad and BJP’s MTB Nagaraj, one of the defectors who helped the saffron party come to power in Karnataka, were unanimously elected to the Legislative Council along with five others on Monday. 

All seven were declared as “duly elected” by Legislative Assembly Secretary MK Vishalakshi, the returning officer for the biennial election to the Legislative Council. 

Hariprasad and Naseer Ahmed of the Congress, Nagaraj, R Shankar, Prathap Simha Nayak and Sunil Vallyapur of the BJP and Govinda Raju of the JD(S) are now MLCs. 

While Ahmed was an incumbent who will get another term, the six others will replace Jayamma, MC Venugopal, NS Bore Raju, HM Revanna and TA Sharavana and DU Mallikarjuna whose term ends June 30. 

While an election was scheduled June 29, it was not necessary as only seven candidates were in the fray for the seven seats on Monday, which was the last date for withdrawal of nominations. The nominations of A Yadavanahalli PC Krishnegowda and Mandikkal Nagaraja were rejected. 

With their rejection as MLCs, Nagaraj and Shankar - who jumped ship to the BJP last year - will now look to become ministers in Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa’s Cabinet. Both Nagaraj and Shankar were ministers when they resigned and defected from the Congress-JD(S) coalition. While Nagaraj lost the December 2019 bypolls, Shankar did not contest. 

Nagaraj, Shankar and Vallyapure were Yediyurappa’s picks for the Council, whereas Nayak is said to have been backed by BJP state president Nalin Kumar Kateel. 

There were many aspirants in the Congress for the Council berths, but Hariprasad and Ahmed were picked, given their experience. Hariprasad is widely believed to counter Siddaramaiah, who leads the party in the Assembly. 

Raju of the JD(S) runs a poultry business in Kolar and the choice of a fresh face is seen as the party leadership steering clear of any trouble as there were many asking for the ticket. 

Shivaji is a great icon in Maharashtra. Different sections of society have given him very high status, though for diverse reasons. Folklores about him abound in the state. His statues, popular songs on him are very prevalent. These folk songs (Powadas) praise his multifarious actions. So it was no surprise that when Jayabhagwan Goyal, released his book, ‘Aaj ka Shivaji: Narendra Modi’, at religious-cultural meet organized by Delhi BJP, there was a strong resentment in Maharashtra. Various leaders from Maharashtra were furious. The Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Raut challenged the Shivaji’s descendent, Sambhaji Raje who is in BJP and is member of Rajya Sabha, to resign on the issue. Sambhaji Raje in turn stated that "We respect Narendra Modi, who was elected as the prime minister of the country for the second time. But neither (Narendra) Modi nor anybody else in the world can be compared with Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj,"

Not to be left behind Jitendra Awhad of NCP felt Modi-BJP are insulting the pride of Maharashtra. It is not the first time that controversy is erupting around the Maharashtra warrior of medieval period. Earlier we had seen Sambhaji Brigrade demanding the ban on James Laine book, Shivaji: ‘A Hindu King in an Islamic Kingdom’, for its objectionable content. Bhandarkar Institute in Pune, which had helped James Laine in his research, was also vandalized. At another level there was a talk that Babasaheb Purandare, a Brahmin, who has written some popular material on Shivaji will be made as the Chairman of the committee for statue of Shivaji. Maratha Mahasangh and Shiv Dharm officials objected to a Brahmin heading the committee for a statue for the Maratha warrior. The caste angel in Shivaji’s case is coming to the fore from quite some time.

While there is no dearth of controversies around Shivaji, it is also true that each political tendency has created Shivaji’s image from their political point of view. Who was the real Shivaji, is the question. One can see two clear streams of projection in this matter. On one hand there is an attempt to present Shivaji as the anti Muslim King, a king who was respecting Cows and Brahmins (Go Brahman pratipalak). This view was brought forward from the times of Lokmanya Tilak and picked up by Hindu nationalists, who have been looking for icons in history to suit their political agenda. Nathram Godse, while criticizing Gandhi says that Gandhi’s nationalism was dwarf in front of the one of Shivaji or Rana Pratap.

In tune with this the Hindu nationalists are promoting both these as icons of Hindu nationalism and giving anti-Muslim slant to the whole discourse. This discourse also hides in this the Brahmanical agenda of Hindu nationalism as Cows and Brahmins are presented as the central object of veneration by Shivaji. This image of Shivaji fits well into the current agenda of Hindu nationalists, being spearheaded by RSS Combine.

It is because of this that for seeking votes in Mumbai Narendra Modi on the eve of 2014 elections stated that Shivaji attacked Surat to plunder the treasury of Aurangzeb. This also presents Shivaji-Aurangzeb, Shivaji-Afzal Khan interactions as battle between Hindus and Muslims. The truth is that Surat was plundered for its wealth as it was a rich port city and Bal Samant’s book on the topic gives in depth description of the same. It is noteworthy that Shivaji began his real career of conquest in 1656 when he conquered Javli from the Maratha Chief Chandra Rao More. He took over the treasures of this kingdom. That it was not a Hindu Muslim battle becomes clear when we know that in confrontation with Aurangzeb it was Mirza Raja Jaisingh who was negotiating and engaging with Shivaji on behalf of Aurangzeb. And Shivaji had Muslim officers like Kazi Haider as confidential secretary and many Muslim Generals in his army.

Darya Sarang was chief of armor division, Daulat Khan was in-charge of his naval division; Ibrahim Khan was another general of significance in his army.  This mixed up administration just shows that the kings were not having Hindu or Muslim administration depending on their religion. In the confrontation between Shivaji and Afzal Khan, Rustam-e-Jaman was Shivaji’s side and Afzal Khan had Krisnaji Bhaskar Kulkarni on his side.

As far as Shivaji’s popularity is concerned it was due to his being a King with welfare of his subjects in his mind. He lightened the burden of taxation on the average peasants, and reduced the domination of landlords over the serfs. This picture of Shivaji is well documents in the booklets by Com. Govind Pansare (Who was Shivaji) and Jayant Gadkari (Shivaji: Ek Lok Kalyankari Raja- Shivaji: King doing People’s Welfare). He did not belong to the warrior caste so Brahmins had refused to coronate him, for which purpose Gaga Bhatt a Brahmin from Kashi was brought in with heavy fees. Teesta Setalvad’s hand book on History for teachers underlined this fact.

Today while BJP-Brahmanical forces want to present Shivaji as worshipper of Brahmins and cows, the non upper caste have seen through the game. As such it was Jotirao Phule who brought forward the caste angel of Shivaji as he wrote Powada (Poem) in his honor and today dalit Bahujan are not toeing Hindu Nationalist projection on the issue.

The likes of Jayabhagwan Goyal of BJP as such are trying to give two messages through such attempts. One hand they want to paint Shivaji in anti Muslim and Brahmanical color, they also want to give the subtle message of similarity of this presentation of Shivaji with what Modi is doing. Non BJP forces have seen this game and want to present the other picture of Shivaji, which was highlighted by the likes of Jotirao Phule and which today many of those standing for rights of dalit-Bahujan are trying to articulate. The criticism of the said, book, since withdrawn is on these twin aspects. One about the picture of Shivaji who was concerned about welfare of the farmers, and two his respect for people of all religions.