5 Mangalureans killed, 7 injured as truck rams into jeep on Uppala highway

Bengaluru, Apr 20: Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa on Monday held a meeting with State Home Minister Basavaraj Bommai and police officers over the Padarayanapura incident that occurred on Sunday.

A ruckus erupted in Padarayanapura on Sunday allegedly over shifting of suspected COVID-19 persons to quarantine facility by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) officials.

"I met the Chief Minsiter and briefed him. CM has told us to act strictly. I have told the same to my officials. We won't tolerate such acts by anyone. We have arrested 59 people and five FIRs have been registered. I'm going to Padarayanapura now. Will make sure others are quarantined," said Bommai earlier today after meeting the Chief Minister.

Meanwhile, reacting on the incident, former Karnataka Chief Minister and Janata Dal-Secular leader HD Kumaraswamy said that the people responsible must be dealt with proper action.

"These kinds of incidents are not acceptable, its an act of shame. Doesn't matter which community one belongs to, each and every one must follow the guidelines and law. Whoever is indulged in such act must be punished," he said.
In a series of tweet Kumaraswamy said that it was not at all needed to attack the police check post and this act is unacceptable.

The incident occurred in the late evening on Sunday at Padarayanapura which is recognized as a 'Red Zone' when BBMP officials went to bring 15 secondary contacts of corona positive patients.

However, some people and youth created ruckus and broke the barricades and removed police post which was stalled in the area.
Soon after receiving the information, Bengaluru South Deputy Commissioner of Police reached the spot and brought the situation under control.
"Lockdown continues, please remain indoors.

Tomorrow will be as it was till today. We Understand your situation and appreciate your cooperation," tweeted Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City, Bhaskar Rao.

In Karnataka, 390 people have been diagnosed with Covid-19, of which 16 people have succumbed to the infection, as per the Union Health Ministry.

Bengaluru, Jul 25: The Karnataka government on Saturday announced a waiver of crematorium fees for those who succumb to the COVID-19 infection in Bengaluru and said the city civic body would bear the cost.

It said that from now on, families of the COVID deceased need not pay any fees fixed by the city civic body- Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP)- across 12 electric crematoriums in the city.

"There were reports in the media about difficulties faced in performing the last rites of those who died due to COVID-19 infections. Aimed at resolving those difficulties, certain decisions have been taken," Revenue Minister R Ashoka said.

He told reporters here that BBMP had fixed Rs 250 as the cremation fee, Rs 100 for the ash collection pot and Rs 900 for the bier (bamboo stretcher on which the body is carried), all of which have been waived for COVID deaths.

"So it will be a waiver of Rs 1,250 per cremation. The BBMP will bear this cost," he added.

Ashoka also announced Rs 500 per body incentive for the personnel who conduct the last rites of COVID victims.

"This is in recognition of their services at a time when family members of the deceased are not ready to touch the body and not ready to take the body in some cases," he said.

Noting that the government has identified 23 acres of land at five places around Bengaluru for burial or cremation of COVID victims, Ashoka locals in all these areas are protesting against it.

Appealing to the people for cooperation during these difficult times, he said the government's intention was to ensure respectful burial or cremation for the deceased.

"Obstructing it is not right, it is not Indian tradition," he said.

Pointing out that it takes almost a day's time for a COVID victim's body to be handed over for burial or cremation, he said "scientifically, according to experts and doctors, the virus will not remain alive for more than three hours.

...Also, bodies are either burnt or buried eight feet below. So there will not be any problem for those living in nearby areas and it will not spread infection. Cooperate with humanity," he said.

"These lands identified are for all religions and communities and once the pandemic subsides, can be used for other deaths as well," he said.

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.