Mourners pay last respects to Ananth Kumar; last rites on Tuesday

Bengaluru, Jun 5: An FIR has been filed against former journalist and human rights activist Aakar Anil Patel in Bengaluru here over his comments on social media under charges pertaining to provocation with intent to cause riots.

The FIR was registered under Section 117 (abetting commission of an offence by the public or by more than ten persons), 153 (wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot), and 505-1-B (intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at the JC Nagar police station.

According to the FIR filed on June 2, Patel had tweeted that protests like the ones in the US over George Floyd's death are needed in India by the marginalised communities.

Patel, former chief of Amnesty International India, had on May 31 posted from his Twitter account, which is not verified.

On May 25, Floyd died in police custody in Minneapolis, Minnesota, following which protests against police brutality and racism erupted in various cities in the United States. The protests were later replaced by incidents of violence across the country.

India also has witnessed several cases of mob lynchings and custodial deaths in recent years. In most cases victims belong to down trodden communities such as Muslims and Dalits.

Responding to the development, Amnesty International India has said that FIR against Patel is another example of how the right to dissent is being "increasingly" criminalised.

"The Bengaluru police must stop abusing its authority and put an end to the intimidation and harassment of Aakar Patel for exercising his constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression. People of this country have the right to agree or disagree with those in power, and to express these opinions in peaceful protests - without fear or unlawful interference," Amnesty International India Executive Director Avinash Kumar said.

He said that peacefully protesting against the government is not a crime and added that not agreeing with the policies of those in power does not make you a traitor.

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 18: A 26-year-old Kannada singer committed suicide over alleged dowry harassment on Monday. Sushmitha, a playback singer who got married to Sharath Kumar about one-and-a-half years ago, hung herself from the ceiling at her parent's home in Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru on Monday.

The singer sent a Whatsapp to her brother and mother before hanging herself early morning on Monday. She accused her husband and his relatives of dowry harassment in her death note.

According to Bengaluru Police, the singer has accused her husband, his sister and his aunt of harassing her for dowry in her death note. On Monday morning, Sushmitha's brother alerted the police after he found her dead body hanging from the ceiling. She used her dupatta to hang herself.

Sushmitha had lent her voice for Kannada songs in films like Haalu Thuppa and Srisamanya.

Police informed that Sushmitha sent a Whatsapp message to her brother, Sachin, at around 1 am on Sunday and explained that her husband Sharath and her relatives have been harassing her since the time she got married. Sachin read the message at around 5:30am and rushed to her room where he found her hanging from the ceiling.

In the text message, Sushmitha wrote that her husband, Sharath, his sister, Geetha, and his aunt, Vydehi, harassed her and they were the reason behind her ending her life. She also stated that she did not want to end her life in their house and hence came to her parents’ house.

The Annapoorneshwari Nagar police have registered a case of dowry death, charging her husband and his sister and aunt based on complaint filed by Sushmitha’s mother Meenakshi. The three accused are on run after hearing about her death and police said that efforts are on to trace them.

Sushmitha's husband Sharath Kumar is a manager in a car showroom and a resident of KS Nagar in Bengaluru.