Qamarul Islam to attend Dubai KCF’s Ishq-e-Rasool on Jan 8

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.

Bengaluru, Jul 17: The Karnataka State Board of AUQAF has ordered that management committees at Muslim Khabarastans, shall not refuse burial to Muslims died due to COVID-19.

"...in exercise the powers conferred under Waqf Act 1995, it is hereby ordered that management Committees/Muthawallies/Administrators responsible for the management of Muslim Khabarastans in the state of Karnataka irrespective of registered or unregistered in the Waqf, shall not refuse the burial of Muslims died due to COVID-19 pandemic," read an order from the Karnataka State Board of AUQAF on Thursday.

"They shall co-operate with all the Nodal Officers designated for this purpose regarding the decent burial. Non co-operation or refusal on the part of the management will be construed as an insult committed to the deceased. Any violation of the above order will attract the punitive provision of Indian Penal Code and removal from the management as per the provisions of the Waqf Act 1995," the order read.

It further said that the Waqf Officers, District Wakf Advisory Committees of the state, shall ensure the adherence of this order, and circulate the same to all the Khabarastan managements, registered or unregistered in the state.

"No further deliberation in this regard is solicited except compliance of the order in letter and spirit. Any dereliction in this regard will be viewed seriously," it read.

Giving a background on the issue of burial of COVID-19 deceased, the order read, "It is observed that, number of deaths are being occurred in various Districts of Karnataka, due to COVID-19 pandemic and it is reported that, some of the management committees of Khabarastan, are not cooperating to bury the dead bodies of COVID-19."

"A decent burial is a right of the dead person" as per the law of the land and the Islamic jurisprudence. It is needless to emphasize the importance of burial of Muslim dead bodies in Shariah. The dead body of a Muslim is treated with the utmost respect by the Ummah, joining in the funeral (Tadfeen), participating in the Namaz-e-Janaza and the burial are considered as Farz-e-Kifaya in Muslim law. According to the tradition of Islam, the person who participates in the funeral is entitled to Mountain sized reward (Sawaab)," the order read.

As per the order, the board, in its earlier circular had also cautioned the management of Waqf institutions and Khabarastan which were reluctant to allow the decent burial in the Khabarastan would be punished under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and the punitive provisions of the Waqf Act 1995 as well.

"The District Magistrates and the Superintendent of Police in the districts have been requested to prosecute the erring management committees who are responsible for non co-operation in this regard. Hence, the following order," it added.

Bidar, Apr 2: Karnataka Health Minister B Sriramulu on Thursday confirmed that 11 people out of 27 in Bidar, who had participated in Tablighi Jamaat at Delhi's Nizamuddin Markat have been tested positive for COVID-19.

Speaking to news agency, Karnataka Health Minister said, "We are monitoring 362 people who had attended Nizamuddin Markaz in Delhi. Out of 27 people from Bidar who had attended, 11 have tested positive for COVID-19, while results of 16 others are awaited. Total positive cases in the state are 121."
Meanwhile, Tablighi Jamaat's Maulana Saad has stated that he will fully support the government in its fight against the coronavirus.

This comes soon after an FIR was registered against him in connection with the religious gathering organised in Markaz Nizamuddin area of the national capital.

A huge religious gathering was held at the Markaz building in Nizamuddin between March 13-15, the event came into the spotlight after multiple coronavirus cases were confirmed amongst those who attended the event held in mid-March.

An FIR has been registered against Tablighi Jamaat head Maulana Saad and others under the Epidemic Disease Act 1897 in Delhi.
A total of 2,361 people were brought out from the Markaz in a joint operation by authorities which lasted for over 36 hours, following which the South Delhi Municipal Corporation had carried out a sanitisation of the premises and nearby area.