Pro-CAA arsonists burn down BSF Jawan’s house, call him ‘Pakistani’

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, Jul 1: Karnataka Primary and Secondary Education Minister S Suresh Kumar on Wednesday played down reports about confusion regarding valuation of Second Pre- University and the Secondary School Leaving Certificate exam papers.

"Creating confusion has become a habit. There was confusion before the exam, during the exam and now confusion about the valuation of the exam papers," Kumar told reporters in Ramanagara when asked about the confusion over the valuation of answer sheets.

He had gone there to inspect a few centres where the SSLC or the 10th standard exams are underway.

The minister reminded people not to speak about the abilities of the students with contempt.

"Our students have toiled hard and are enthusiastically appearing for the examination. They are eligible for the marks they will score. So we should not speak about our children with disrespect," Kumar said.

The Education Minister said he had spoken to many leaders including former chief ministers Siddaramaiah and H D Kumaraswamy on conducting the examinations.

"Kumaraswamy had insisted on postponing the examination. I personally spoke to him and apprised him about the steps taken by us. I told him that we will work with more sincerity to ensure the safety of the children," Kumar said.

The SSLC exam was scheduled to take place from March 27 but due to the coronavirus-induced lockdown, it was postponed.

While the CBSE and a few other states either decided to give marks based on the students' performance in the previous examinations such as quarterly and half-yearly exams or gave general promotion to the students, Karnataka went ahead to hold the exam.

According to Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board officials, around 8.5 lakh students have enrolled this year for the SSLC examination.

The exams are being held at 2,879 exam centres across the state.

Prior to the SSLC examination, the last exam of the Second PUC was also conducted on June 18, which was also put on hold due to the lockdown.

Bengaluru, Feb 6: Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa inducted 10 BJP MLAs to his Cabinet here on Thursday. They are among the 17 Congress-JD(S) MLAs who defected last year.

The much-delayed expansion came almost two-months after the MLAs won the bypolls held in December. During the period, the defectors camp exerted pressure on Yediyurappa to expand the Cabinet and include all the MLAs who contested the bypolls.

The new ministers sworn in are S T Somashekar, Ramesh Jarkiholi, Byrati Basavaraj, K Gopalaiah, B C Patil, Dr K Sudhakar, Shivaram Hebbar, Anand Singh, Narayana Gowda and Shrimanth Patil.

One of the 11 MLAs from the defectors camp, Mahesh Kumathalli was not inducted as he hailed from the same constituency as Deputy Chief Minister Laxman Savadi. Three others, MTB Nagaraj, H Vishwanath and R Shankar are likely to be inducted in June.

Governor Vajubhai Bala administered oaths to the new ministers at Raj Bhavan, where hundreds of supporters came to witness the event. Authorities had also beefed up security arrangements outside Raj Bhavan for the ceremony.

Earlier, Yediyurappa was to induct 10 newly-elected MLAs and three old-timer BJP MLAs. But on Wednesday evening, the BJP's central leadership stepped in to decide that only 10 newly-elected MLAs should be inducted after disgruntlement surfaced among BJP MLAs over former minister C P Yogeeshwar's induction.

Several MLAs led by chief minister's political secretary MP Renukacharya had raised a hue and cry over allotting berths to those who lost Assembly polls. A group of 13 to 15 MLAs had also demanded adequate representation to Kalyana Karnataka region, alleging that the new Cabinet had excess representation from few districts of Karnataka, such as Bengaluru Urban and Belagavi.