MBBS student hangs himself in hostel room; parents blame ragging

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, Jan 9: Some BJP workers created a ruckus on Wednesday at a college here while seeking support for the amended Citizenship Act by raising slogans like 'Go back to Pakistan' outside the campus on Wednesday, as girl students opposed a pro-CAA banner on the wall of their institution.

A video of the incident went viral on social media.

A group of BJP workers, supporters of local party leader M M Govindaraj, had put up a poster "India Supports CAA" on the wall of Jyothi Nivas College near Koramangala.

This was opposed by girl students, who said they would not allow any such poster to be put up on the college property.

The BJP workers then tried to shout down the students.

"You are not concerned about citizenship, you are concerned about yourself. You should be concerned about India first. You are not an Indian then," a BJP worker is heard screaming at the girls in the video.

They also questioned the students if they had valid reasons to oppose the Citizenship Amendment Act and sought to know whether they wanted an argument or a debate.

The BJP workers purportedly told the girls that they were only the students of the college and not the owner.

"What's your problem madam with the CAA? Are you the owner of the college?" they asked.

Amid the heated argument, the BJP workers resorted to sloganeering like 'We want CAA' and "Go back to Pakistan', as seen in another video shot by the students.

BTM Layout Congress MLA Ramalinga Reddy visited the college on Thursday after learning about the incident and spoke to its management.

Later, he told reporters that the campus should not be allowed for any political activities.

"Any signature campaign whether in favor or against it (CAA) should be done outside the campus," Reddy said.

He cautioned the pro-CAA protesters he will not let any violent incidents like the one at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi happen at the city college.

Reddy's daughter Sowmya Reddy, who is the Jayanagar MLA, tweeted, "A few videos & photos of outside #JyotiNivascollege are being circulated on social media."

"MLA Ramalinga Reddy & I have spoken to cops and the Prinicipal about this incident. Spoke to DCP South East Bengaluru and she said that Koramangala cops went there immediately & they are picketing even now," she added.

Bengaluru, Jun 8: Karnataka recorded 308 new COVID-19 cases in the past 24 hours, with the majority of patients being domestic returnees, raising the state's tally to 5,760 an official said, here on Monday. "Over 308 new cases were reported from Sunday 5 pm to Monday 5 pm," said the health official.

Like everyday Maharashtra returnees accounted for 96 per cent (267 cases) of the 277 new cases. Majority infections in Karnataka nowadays are returnees, mostly from the state's northern neighbour.

A few returnees also came from Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. There was one international returnee, a 23-year-old man from Dakshina Kannada, who came from the UAE. Only 24 new infections were contacts of earlier cases.

On Monday, cases spiked in Kalaburagi, Yadgir, Bidar, Udupi, Bengaluru Urban, Ballari and Gadag.

Among the new cases, Kalaburagi contributed (99), followed by Yadgir (66), Bidar (48), Udupi (45), Bengaluru Urban (18), Ballari (8), Gadag (6), Shivamogga and Dharwad (4 each), Hassan and Dakshina Kannada (3 each), Bagalkote (2) and Koppal and Ramnagar (1 each). Four patients are suffering from Influenza-Like Illness (ILI).

Meanwhile, record 387 patients got discharged in the past 24 hours. On Monday, three persons - A 67-year-old man, a 48-year-old woman and another 65-year-old woman, all from Bengaluru Urban, succumbed to coronavirus.

Of all the cases, 3,175 are active, 2,519 discharged, 64 dead and 14 in the ICU.

In the past 24 hours, Karnataka tested 8,779 people. Of this, 8,231 reports returned negative. A number of tests were lower than other days. In total, 3.93 lac samples have been tested so far, of which 3.8 lac have returned negative.

Currently, Udupi is leading the state's COVID-19 burden with 628 active cases, followed by Kalaburagi (539), Yadgir (488), Raichur (276) and Bengaluru Urban (176) among others.

Bengaluru Urban has accounted for 18 deaths, followed by Kalaburagi (7), Bidar, Vijayapura, Davangere and Dakshina Kannada (6 each) and Chikkaballapur (3 each), among others.