I have embraced Islam. It’s my decision… For my happiness: TV actress Dipika Kakar

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, Feb 26: Karnataka Police and intelligence have been asked to be on alert in the wake of communal violence in Delhi and take preemptive measures, state Home Minister Basavaraj Bommai said here on Wednesday.

"We have been keeping a close watch on the developments after the Delhi incident. I have instructed my officers to be on alert and take precautionary actions rather than actions after the incidents," Bommai told media.

"The day before yesterday we had a high-level meeting...we are having a close watch," he added.

Violence erupted in Delhi on Sunday evening after groups protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and those supporting it indulged in stone pelting at each other.

The confrontation soon turned communal and the violence spread to other areas of northeast Delhi including Chand Bagh, Mustafabad, Brijpuri, Shiv Vihar and Noor Ilahi on Monday and Tuesday in which at least 20 persons, including a police head constable, have died and over 200 have been injured.

Abu Dhabi, Feb 17: NMC Health Plc, a hospital operator targeted by short-seller Muddy Waters, said founder Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty resigned amid investor concern he faced a margin call and misrepresented his stake.

The board asked for Co-Chairman Shetty’s resignation and it takes effect immediately, according to a person with knowledge of the situation. NMC has lost four board members since Friday, including Vice Chairman Khaleefa Butti, whose holdings are also being probed. The stock, the worst performer on the FTSE-100 Index this year, fell as much as 9.2 percent Monday morning and then rebounded.

“The resignation of senior board members should be viewed positively,” said Abdulla Nahlawi, an analyst at Rasmala Investment Bank in Dubai. “The credibility of the current board has been jeopardized with the unfolding of the recent events.”

NMC shares lost almost half their value the first week of February on speculation the company’s main investors faced a margin call, in which banks seize shares pledged as collateral. NMC said Friday that First Abu Dhabi Bank and Al Salam Bank Bahrain obtained 20 million shares in the company from BRS International Holding, an investment vehicle of NMC’s top shareholders. The banks sold more than 8 million of those shares as “enforcement of security,” NMC said.

NMC operates the largest medical network in the United Arab Emirates and in 2012 became the first Abu Dhabi company to list in London. The shares started teetering in mid-December when Muddy Waters alleged that NMC manipulated its balance sheet and inflated the prices of companies it acquired.

Shetty, 77, was born in India and founded NMC in the 1970s after moving to Abu Dhabi. His spokesman said a legal review of the situation is ongoing and declined further comment.

Chief Investment Officer Hani Buttikhi and board member Abdulrahman Basaddiq also stepped down because they were appointees of Shetty and Butti, NMC said, adding that they had no knowledge of the share transfers.

Questions remain over the role of Shetty’s family at the company. His wife and son-in-law both hold roles in senior management.

Almost 10 per cent of NMC’s freely traded shares are shorted, according to Markit Securities data. In mid-December about a third of them were.

Last week GKSD Investment, an investment company backed by hospital investors, said it’s studying a possible offer for NMC. Under U.K. takeover rules, it has until March 9 to make a bid.

NMC has said Muddy Waters’s claims are false and the company hired former FBI Director Louis Freeh to conduct an independent review. The review is due to be completed before the company issues its financial results in March, the person said.

NMC said Mark Tompkins will continue as the company’s sole chairman.