Innocent Muslim families in trouble after SDPI retaliators kill ABVP activist

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, Jun 16: A woman employee at the Vikasa Soudha, next to Vidhana Soudha, the State Secretariat, was tested positive for COVID-19 on Tuesday.

Hence the authorities sealed the Food Department offices, which was in the ground floor of the building.

Employees of Vidhana Soudha and Vikasa Soudha were shocked after learning that one of their colleagues tested positive for the dreaded killer coronavirus.

Mangaluru/Udupi, Jul 26: Karnataka’s twin coastal districts of Dakshina Kannada and Udupi have recorded 369 new coronavirus positive cases and 10 more deaths related to the covid-19 in past 24 hours. 

Dakshina Kannada

With 199 new covid-19 cases, DK’s covid toll mounted to 4,811. The district also recorded eight new covid-related deaths. The death toll mounted to 123. 

Among the 199 new cases are 31 primary contacts, 73 with influenza-like illness (ILI), and 10 with severe acute respiratory illness (SARI). As many as 83 cases are under investigation. Two of the patients have international travel history.

Eight deaths:

A 71-year-old man from Mangaluru, who was admitted to a private hospital on July 19, passed away on July 23. He was diagnosed with ARDS/multiorgan dysfunction, chronic renal disease, diabetes, and hypertension. His throat swabs tested positive for covid-19. 

A 70-year-old man from Mangaluru, who was admitted to a private hospital on July 20, passed away on July 24. He had developed sepsis, chronic kidney disease, lower respiratory tract infection, and other ailments. 

A 55-year-old man from Puttur was admitted to a private hospital on July 23, and passed away a day later. He was diagnosed with septic shock with acute kidney injury with severe metaboic acidosis. 

A 56-year-old man from Mangaluru who was admitted to a private hospital on July 20 passed away on July 24. He was suffering from acute respiratory distress syndrome, multi-organ dysfunction syndrome and ischemic heart disease.

A 72-year-old man from Mangaluru who was admitted to a private hospital on July 18 passed away on July 24. He was suffering from refractory hypoxemia/refractory ARDS, septic shock, secondary bacterial infection, renal failure, acute coronary event, and other ailments. 

A 45-year-old woman from Mangaluru who was admitted to a private hospital on July 24 passed away the same day. She had been diagnosed with metastatic carcinoma of right lung and pneumonia. 

A 55-year-old man from Mangaluru who was admitted to a private hospital on July 21 and passed away on July 24. As per the district bulletin, he was suffering from refractory hypoxemia/refractory ARDS, septic shock, secondary bacterial infection, renal failure, acute coronary event, and other ailments.

A 70-year-old man from Mangaluru suffering from severe pneumonia with ARDS, multiorgan dysfunction, sepsis, chronic kidney disease and hypothyroidism was admitted to a private hospital on July 24 and passed away the same day.

Though the above patients contracted coronavirus, the exact cause of their deaths is being investigated by a team of experts and their report is awaited.

Udupi

The district recorded 170 new covid-19 cases and the total confirmed cases mounted to 3,388. Among the new cases, 86 are in Udupi, 31 in Kundapur, and 52 in Karkala. They include 106 male and 63 women. As many as 2,133 patients have been discharged so far, and 1,241 cases are currently active. 

The district also recorded two covid-19 related deaths – a woman and a man. One is a 63-year-old resident of Byndoor and the other is from Udupi's Indiranagar area. Both had been admitted to the ICU of a private hospital. 

Byndoor resident passed away on the night of Saturday July 26, the Udupi resident died on Sunday. The last rites of both the deceased were conducted as per protocol.