Bomb blast threat, pro-Pak slogan video: Young Hindutva activist from Udupi arrested

Bengaluru, Jan 8: The second instalment of flood relief funds from the Centre, announced on Monday, has left BS Yediyurappa less than cheerful, with the chief minister insisting that it is barely adequate. The CM on Tuesday said he will urge the Union government to release more.

On Monday, the Centre announced it will release Rs 669.8 crore in addition to the Rs 1,200 crore it had released earlier towards flood relief and rehabilitation. The total sum is a small fraction of the loss, which the government pegged at a staggering Rs 38,000 crore.

“The Centre has released assistance in two instalments so far, but it is inadequate given the magnitude of the damage. I will request for more funds and I am confident the Centre will oblige,” Yediyurappa told reporters.

When Prime Minister Narendra Modi had visited the state last week, Yediyurappa had urged him — even openly at a function — to release funds. This followed several pleas over the past four months, which barely drew a response from the Centre. Now, the CM himself suggests it’s barely a drop in the ocean.

The opposition has been criticizing both Yediyurappa and the Centre for their handling of the situation and on Tuesday, leader of the opposition Siddaramaiah of the Congress criticised the CM for “misguiding people” on the sum released by the Centre.

Siddaramaiah tweeted, “Reports from State govt officials say only Rs 669 cr of addl funds are released in 2nd instalment as opposed to the claim of Rs 1,870 cr by Karnataka BJP leaders. At a time when manufacturing industries are closing, BJP’s fake news factory is running at full potential ".

In another tweet, he said, “Moved by the plea of chief minister, Yediyurappa, Prime Minister Narendra Modi released an additional Rs 669.8 crore, taking the total amount to Rs 1,869.8 crore. BJP leaders, who are devotees of the god of lies, attempts to depict the total relief amount as 1200+1869.85 = Rs 3,069 cr is ridiculous.”

A high-level committee chaired by Union home minister Amit Shah had sanctioned the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) funds on Monday. While the Press Information Bureau claimed Rs 1,869 crore was approved on Monday, state government officials clarified that the figure included the Rs 1,200 crore released in October.

Meanwhile, sources say the two instalments is all the assistance the state can expect from the Centre towards flood relief. Sources say the Rs 1,870 crore is roughly 60% of the funding — Rs 3,000 cr— which was supposed to be allocated for Karnataka, based on an inter-ministerial team’s assessment of losses in the state.

“Compared to other states for the same period, Karnataka has received the highest amount in flood relief. We cannot expect more,” said a revenue department official, who said the government will not approach the Centre for a special package.

However, revenue minister R Ashoka said the state will pitch for the entire Rs 3,000 crore. “The state government will pursue the matter with the Centre until it releases the entire Rs 3,000 crore. The state government will cover the remainder of the Rs 38,000 crore loss. We will not go back on our word,” Ashoka said. Incidentally, the state has spent about Rs 6,000 crore on relief and rehabilitation so far.

Mangaluru, Jan 13: At least one lakh people from across the twin districts of Dakshina Kannada and Udupi are likely to attend the protest meet against CAA-NRC on January 15 at Adyar Kannur in Mangaluru.

Massive preparations are going on at the Shaha Garden in Adyar where the event is expected to start at 2:30 p.m.

Organisers have urged the people to make the event successful one by maintain peace and not giving an opportunity for trouble mongers to disrupt the event.

Addressing a press meet here today, K S Mohammad Masood, president of the Muslim Central Committee of DK and Udupi, said that senior activists and priests from different religions also will take part in the event.

The guest list includes acclaimed thinker and activist Harsh Mander, former IAS officer Kannan Gopinathan, retired Supreme Court judge Venkate Gopala Gowda.

Mangaluru Bishop Peter Paul Saldanha, Jnanaprakash Swamiji of Mysuru, Mangaluru Khazi Thwaka Ahmed Musliyar, Udupi Khazi Bekal Musliyar, Ullal Khazi Fazal Koyamma Thangal, JIH leader Mohammed Kunhi and PFI leader Mohammad Shaqib also will among dozens of guests.

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.