Buffer zone likely to be created between MRPL and Jokatte to prevent pollution

Bengaluru, Jun 5: Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa on Thursday said government employees and owners of tractors and other vehicles must return the BPL ration cards immediately, failing which stringent legal action would be initiated against them.

The CM issued directions in this regard to officials as he conducted a review meeting of the Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs department today. Proper supply of ration must be ensured to eligible beneficiaries and action has to be taken to prevent misuse of the facility by those not eligible, Yediyurappa was quoted as saying by his office in a release.

Nearly 63,000 ration cards were cancelled before the COVID-19 outbreak, he noted and directed officials to initiate a campaign to cancel all illegal ration cards. "this campaign would help in curtailing the financial burden on the State's reserves," he added.

In the backdrop of coronavirus pandemic, both the Central and State governments have distributed sufficient quantities of ration, and about 95 percent ration cardholders have availed the benefit, the release said. Under the Chief Ministers Anila Bhagya Scheme, 98,079 beneficiaries have been given 3 gas cylinders free of cost, it said.

Bengaluru, Apr 18: Hours after announcing that two-wheelers will be allowed to ply and that IT/BT companies can resume operations with 33 per cent strength, Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa on Saturday took a u-turn and rolled them back, citing “public opinion” as the reason. 

Earlier in the day, Yediyurappa announced that, after April 20, there will not be any restriction on the movement of two-wheelers in areas that are not COVID-19 containment zones. Yediyurappa also said that a third of IT/BT employees will be allowed to go to the office after April 20. 

“In the backdrop of public opinion and after discussions with senior officials, it has been decided that the prohibition on two-wheelers will continue throughout the lockdown period,” a statement from the Chief Minister’s Office said. “And in the IT/BT sector, only essential services will be allowed and the work-from-home policy will continue.” 

According to sources, the u-turn came following opposition from Yediyurappa’s Cabinet colleagues. “If I was in the meeting, I’d not have allowed it,” a minister said. Only Home Minister Basavaraj Bommai and Revenue Minister R Ashoka were in the meeting Yediyurappa held earlier in the day. The Opposition also stemmed from the fact that there was no need to make decisions on the lockdown when the Cabinet was scheduled to meet on April 20, sources said. 

The incoordination was apparent on Friday when Deputy Chief Minister CN Ashwath Narayan, the IT/BT minister, said 50 per cent of employees in the sector will be permitted to work while Yediyurappa said this would depend on the number of cases reported in the coming days. 

Other announcements made by Yediyurappa remain unchanged.

“Places, where COVID-19 cases are reported, will be identified as containment zones. In such containment zones, an incident commander will be appointed and given magisterial power. Teams comprising the police and health department officials will oversee the lockdown,” Yediyurappa said. “Lockdown will be much more stringent in these areas and no one will be allowed to step out. Essential supplies will be delivered home.”

According to Bommai, there were 32 containment zones in Bengaluru and ‘hotspots’ have been identified in eight districts.

With an eye on restarting economic activities, the government will allow construction work and industries. “In urban areas, construction work will be allowed to start wherever construction workers have the facility to stay on site,” Yediyurappa said. “The manufacturing sector in rural areas and industrial units located in the special economic zones (SEZ) and townships in urban areas will be allowed to function,” he said.

Stating that inter-state travel will be prohibited, Yediyurappa said the districts of Bengaluru Urban, Bengaluru Rural and Ramnagara will be considered as one only for the movement of industrial workers.

Asked about liquor sale, Yediyurappa said a decision will be taken after May 3. The government has already prohibited liquor sale till April 20 midnight.

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.