RSS mulls strengthening its presence in UAE, other Gulf countries

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.

Dammam, May 29: A woman hailing from Mangaluru, who was waiting for repatriation amidst coronavirus lockdown in Saudi Arabia, passed away yesterday after a brief illness.

The deceased has been identified as Lateefa (55), wife of Abdul Azeez, a resident of Angaragundi near Baikampady on the outskirts of the city.

She had flown to Saudi Arabia in November 2019 along with her husband to spend some time with their NRI son in Dammam. They were supposed to return in April this year.

After the sudden cancellation of regular flights due to lockdown, they were waiting for the repatriation flights from Dammam to Mangaluru or Bengaluru.

Meanwhile, Lateefa’s health condition worsened and she was hospitalised. She passed away on Thursday without responding to any treatment. Last rites are expected to take place in Dammam.

Global oil markets remained under intense pressure on Tuesday, with Brent crude dropping below $20 per barrel for the first time in 18 years while other major benchmarks across the world tumbled. 

Brent, the international crude marker, slipped to $18.10, indicating that markets see no immediate let-up to the collapse in oil demand that sent some US oil benchmarks plunging under $0 for the first time on Monday, leaving producers paying for buyers to take their oil away while available storage is scarce.

Coronavirus has sent the oil sector into a state of crisis, with lockdowns implemented by authorities to smother the outbreak slashing demand for crude by as much as a third.

Contracts for the US benchmark West Texas Intermediate for delivery next month tumbled as low as minus $40 a barrel on Monday. Analysts at Citi warned that “if global storage worsens more quickly, Brent could chase WTI down to the bottom”.

The collapse in the May WTI contract was partly a technical product of the fact that it expires on Tuesday, meaning trading volumes were low and making the contract for June delivery more noteworthy, analysts said. That contract held above $20 a barrel on Monday but slid as much as 42 per cent on Tuesday to trade at lows of $11.79, suggesting the blowout in the May contract was more than a blip and that the entire global oil market faced challenges.

Goldman Sachs analysts said the June contact was likely to face downward pressure in the coming weeks, pointing to the “still unresolved market surplus”.

“As storage becomes saturated, price volatility will remain exceptionally high in coming weeks,” they said. “But with ultimately a finite amount of storage left to fill, production will soon need to fall sizeably to bring the market into balance, finally setting the stage for higher prices once demand gradually recovers.”

Warren Patterson, head of commodities strategy at ING, said it was likely that “storage this time next month will be even more of an issue, given the surplus environment”.

“And so in the absence of a meaningful demand recovery, negative prices could return for June,” he added.

European equities traded lower, partly dragged down by weaker energy stocks. The continent-wide Stoxx 600 was down 1.9 per cent, with its oil and gas sub-index dropping 3.3 per cent. In London the FTSE shed 1.7 per cent, while Frankfurt’s Dax slid 2.3 per cent. 

Equities were also broadly lower in Asia, with futures tipping US stocks to fall 1 per cent when trading in New York begins later.

On Wall Street overnight, the S&P 500 closed down 1.8 per cent, partly because of weakness in energy shares, but also due to increased pessimism over the time it will take for countries to emerge from lockdowns.

In fixed income, the yield on the 10-year US Treasury fell 0.03 percentage points to 0.585 per cent as investors retreated to the safety of the debt.