High Court adjourns Mohammed Nalapad's bail petition to March 9

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.

Davangere, Jan 15: Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa on January 14 threatened to resign when the seer of 'Panchamasali Guru Peetha' warned that the community will leave him, if a BJP MLA from the community is not made the minister during the upcoming cabinet expansion.

The chief minister, who is awaiting the BJP high command's nod to expand his cabinet, amid intense lobbying by the aspirants, wanted the seer Vachanananda swamiji and the 'Panchamasali' community to understand his "situation." Yediyurappa pointed out that he has come to power because of the Congress-JD(S) legislators who rebelled against the then coalition government.

The incident took place when Vachanananda swamiji, while addressing an event at Harihara, near here, said "chief minister, you are a good person, Murugesh Nirani (BJP MLA)has helped you a lot, he has stood by you..if you leave his hands this time, the united Panchamasali community will leave your hands." As the swamiji was making this statement, Yediyurappa, who was seated next to him, rose and threatened to leave the stage.

"If you speak like this I will go away...what are you speaking...kindly pardon me, I will leave, you should not speak like this, if you speak like this I can't work..you can give me suggestions, you cannot threaten me," he said, as the swamiji tried to convince Yediyurappa and asked him to take his seat.

As Yediyurappa acceded to his request, the seer said he was not threatening him but was putting forward the rights of the community. The chief minister, who was visibly upset, was seen talking to Home minister Basavaraj Bommai next to him, who even tried to convince the seer not to continue with the topic. Nirani, a MLA from Bilgi who was Industries minister in the previous Yediyurappa government, was seated on the stage when the incident occurred.

Later addressing the event, Yediyurappa said he was not "selfish" and was even ready to resign.

"Vachanananda swamiji has spoken, through you I request him to understand my situation also. If 17 legislators (Congress-JDS), few even as ministers, had not resigned and stayed away, Yediyurappa could not have occupied this Chief Minister position.

You (swamiji) need not make people raise their hands on any demand, if you tell me, I'm ready to listen to you," he said.

Stating that he was ready to take suggestions from the swamiji on all issues, including on how to run the administration for the next 3 years, Yediyurappa said "I'm ready to bow my head and listen to it, if you don't want I'm even ready to resign and go home, I'm not someone who wants to stick to the chair."

Further noting that if he says that the financial condition of the state is not good it will become headline in papers tomorrow, he said he will have to wait till March for the situation to improve.

"I dont have selfishness, I'm aware that if the Panchamasali-Lingayat community had not stood by me, I could have not sat on this chair (CM)... but kindly understand my situation also," he added.

Yediyurappa is expected to expand his ministry later this month after discussing with BJP national president Amit Shah during his visit to the state on January 18.

As the chief minister has already made it clear that 11 of the disqualified JDS-Congress MLAs who got re-elected in the bypolls on BJP tickets will be made ministers, lobbying has been on within the party for the remaining ministerial berths.

Currently there are 18 Ministers, including the chief minister in the cabinet that has a sanctioned strength of 34.

The cabinet expansion will not be an easy task for the chief minister as he will have to strike a balance by accommodating the victorious disqualified legislators as promised and also make place for the old guard, upset at being "neglected" in the first round of the induction exercise.

He also has to give adequate representation to various castes and regions in his cabinet and also deal with allocation of key portfolios.

Lucknow, Feb 4: Even as anti-NRC protests continue to rage across the country, the Lucknow University has queered the pitch by demanding citizenship proof from RTI applicants.

The Lucknow University (LU) refused to provide the information sought by the people who filed the Right to Information (RTI) unless they furnished the proof that they were Indian citizens.

Alok Chantia, one of the RTI applicants who was refused information by the varsity, said that he had lodged a complaint with the vice-chancellor of the varsity but even then he could not get the desired information.

"It is shocking how the university has twisted the RTI law as per its whims and fancy. It does not have any authority to do so," said the RTI applicant.

Chantia, also a faculty member at a degree college here, had sought details of appointment of teachers for self-financed courses and their pay scale.

"It is possible that some applicants who may not be familiar with the provisions of the RTI, may have furnished proof of their citizenship to the varsity to get the information but that cannot become a rule," he pointed out.

When contacted, university officials admitted that such a practice had been going on in the varsity for the past few years.

"This practice started during the tenure of the former vice-chancellor S.P. Singh and still continues," said a senior varsity official.