Hadiya’s father prevents women’s panel chief from meeting her

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.

We, the undersigned express our solidarity with Dr Zafarul Islam Khan, renowned scholar, journalist and presently Chairman of the Delhi Minorities Commission.

We strongly condemn the continued media trial and targeting of Dr Zafarul Islam Khan for his Facebook post thanking Kuwait for expressing solidarity with Indian Muslims. In his Facebook post, he mentioned the appalling deterioration of human rights of Indian Muslims who have been targeted by Hindutva bigots. A few politicians with ulterior motives and news channel anchors known for spreading bigotry and Islamophobia have mischievously sought to misinterpret his statement and ridiculously label him as anti-Hindu and anti-India.

He has only reiterated what many citizens of India, public figures, international institutions, various European governments, the United States of America and United Nations human rights mechanisms have repeatedly underlined their concern at the increasing human rights abuse and violations of religious minorities in India.

Dr Zafarul Islam Khan is a man of integrity. He is a scholar who is known to stand up for constitutional freedoms and values.

His work as the Chairman of Delhi Minorities Commission has been warmly applauded by human rights activists and NGOs across different faiths. His timely interventions on problems of minorities in Delhi have made him a respectable figure among not only Muslims but Sikh, Christians, Jains and Parsis. He is a humanist in the truest sense of the word.

The hateful propaganda against Dr Khan is one more illustration as how certain Indians fail to differentiate between Hinduism, a religion and Hindutva which is a supremacist political ideology.

Dr Zafarul Islam Khan is a leading Indian intellectual whose niche area is Islamic studies and Arab world. He enjoys great respect in the Arab and Muslim world for his understanding and knowledge. He is an alumni of the esteemed Jamia Al-Azhar and Manchester University.

Dr Khan is known for taking bold public positions. He was the first Muslim scholar in the world who denounced ISIL, which later became IS or ISIS. He issued a statement opposing the barbaric crimes of ISIL (IS or ISIS) and Boko Haram against minorities. He takes strong stands against extremism of all sorts. That makes him a prominent critic of RSS.

Dr Khan is a scholar ambassador and earned international prestige for the India. Any attack and targeting of him, is actually an insult to Indian constitution and ethos.

We demand the appropriate authorities of the Government of India take strong legal action against those who are distorting Dr Khan’s Facebook post, and spreading vicious false propaganda against him.

Signed by:

Swami Agnivesh

Mohammad Adeeb
Arun Kumar (Prof)

Zafar Jung

Kamal Faruqui

Annie Namala

Kavita Krishnan

Subhash Gatade

Jawed Naqvi

Indu Pratap Singh

Avinash Kumar

Iftikhar Gilani

Anil Chamadia

Xavier Dias

Denzil Fernandes (Dr)

Irfan Engineer

Faisal Khan

John Dayal (Dr)

Mujtaba Farooque

Ravi Nair

Abubakr Sabbaq (Adv)

Gopal Menon

Bilal Khan

Ashok Choudhury

Jaffer Latief Najar

Mujahid Nafis

Aseem Sundan

Poojan Sahil

Ankur Otto

Mariya Salim

Tanweer Alam

Juned Khan

E M Abdul Rahiman

Aditi Dutta

Devika Prasad

Ameeque Jamei

Suhaib Ansari

Gurminder Singh

A C Michael

Neelima Sharma

Aftab Alam (Dr)

Dhruva Narayan

Syed Saif Ur Rahman

Tanweer Fazal (Dr)

Thouseef Madikeri (Dr)

N.D. Jayaprakash

Salahuddin Ansari

Satyajeet Nambiar

Suhail KK

Abu Sufiyan

Sujata Madhok

Tariq Khan

Violin Mathew Benjamin

Shamsul Islam (Prof)

Sreedhar Ramamurthi

Mohd. Shahid (Prof)

Anand Vivek Taneja (Dr)

Kush Kumar Singh (Dr)

Mangla Verma

Vipul Kumar

Waquar Hasan

Braham Prakash

Abdul Rashid Agwan

Fawaz Shaheen

Guman Singh

Mohammed Hafeez Ulla

Kp Sasi

Mushfique Raza Khan

Partha S Banerjee

Gautam Majumdar

S.Q. Masood

Aiman J Khan

M. K. Faizy

Tasleem Rehmani (Dr)

Mohammed Shafi

Lenin Raghuvanshi (Dr)

Malik Motasim Khan

Kripal Singh Mandloi

Labeed Shafi

Qamar Intakhab

Raees Ahmed Siddiqui

Laeeq Ahmed Khan

Anthony Arulraj

Sadiq Zafar

Biju Gopidasan

George Pulikuthiyil

Mohd Abdullah

Mohd Sorab Hussain

Mukunda Kattel

Sandeep Pendse

Paul Newman

Ovais Sultan Khan

Mangaluru, Apr 3: The Dakshina Kannada district administration’s decision to ban use of private vehicles, excluding permitted categories, from Friday for effective implementation of lockdown, began showing results since morning itself.

Mangaluru City Traffic Police and Dakshina Kannada district police erected several pickets at vantage places on arterial roads to check those moving without a valid reason. Several two-wheelers were seized during the checking while a few car drivers were let off with a strict warning.

Assistant Commissioner of Police (Traffic), M Manjunatha Shetty, who was supervising a picket at Hampankatta, said that movement of private vehicles has drastically reduced in the city.