Cong-JD(S) alliance is a mission to save Gandhi and Gowda families: BJP

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.

New Delhi: The Ministry of Home Affairs of Government of India today clarified to the Lok Sabha in a written reply that the so called “Love Jihad” is not defined under the extant laws and no such cases have been reported by any central agency.

It was ministry’s formal response to questions about whether the central government is aware of the observation of Kerala High Court that there is no case of Love Jihad in Kerala.

“The term ‘Love Jihad’ is not defined under the extant laws. No such case of ‘Love Jihad’ has been reported by any of the central agencies. However, two cases from Kerala involving interfaith marriages have been investigated by the NIA,” said the reply.

Communal and anti-Muslim political outfits backed by a section of media often use the term “Love Jihad” to accuse Muslims of marrying Hindu and Christian girls and then forcing them to change religion. Dr Hadiya’s conversion was also termed ‘love jihad’ by the BJP and media. The Supreme Court finally ruled that it wasn’t.

In January 2020, an influential Catholic Church in Kerala had said that “love jihad is a reality” and alleged that scores of women from Christian community from the southern state were being lured into the trap of Islamic State and used in terror activities.

The Viswa Hindu Parishad (VHP) had welcomed the Church statement and called for a united fight against ‘Love Jihad’ in Kerala Society.

The response comes weeks after the MHA, responding to an RTI query, said it has "no information" concerning the 'Tukde Tukde Gang' -- a term that has been used a number of times by PM Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah to attack opponents.

The RTI application was filed by activist Saket Gokhle on December 26 last year. In his RTI application, Saket Gokhle said Home Minister "Amit Shah addressed a public event in New Delhi, and in his address said, 'The Tukde Tukde Gang of Delhi needs to be taught a lesson and punished'." Gokhle's RTI asked for details of the 'Tukde Tukde Gang'.

The home ministry, in its reply to Saket Gokhle's RTI application, said, "Ministry of Home Affairs has no information concerning tukde-tukde gang."

Bengaluru, Jul 8: In a setback to the State government, the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday stayed the initial ban and the subsequent restrictions imposed on schools against conducting online classes from pre-primary to Class X.

Prima facie the ban and embargo imposed on online education violate Articles 21 and 21A of the Constitutionon the fundamental right to education, the Court said.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Nataraj Rangaswamy passed the interim order staying the operation of Government Orders issued on June 15 and June 27 respectively.

The Bench passed the interim order on the petitions filed by parents of children and several educational institutions questioning the legality of the ban and the restrictions imposed.

However, the Bench made it clear that this order should not be construed that the schools have right to make online education compulsory and can charge fee for offering online education. Also, the schools should not deprive students, who cannot opt for online education, the lost education when the schools reopen on regular basis.