I-T raids continue at D K Shivakumar’s properties; over 40 locations searched

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 6: As COVID-19 cases continue to surge in Karnataka, more than 20 police stations were sealed in Bengaluru after many policemen tested positive for novel coronavirus.

"Since the last few weeks, the number of COVID-19 cases in the police department has increased as many of the policemen have tested positive, so that's the reason why the police have taken a decision to close police stations," Bengaluru Commissioner of police Bhaskar Rao said.

He added, "However, people can lodge their complaints and other issues can be solved in help desks launched outside premises of the police station. Most of the areas where positive cases found in the police station are been sealed down for the safety of the people and sanitised them."

However, some of the police stations would be functional from outside the premises.

Commercial Street, Cottonpete, Chickepete, KG Halli traffic police station are among the few stations closed due to scare of the coronavirus spread after some policemen tested positive in particular stations.

Rao further said that the traffic police, civil police along with home guards have been given safety gloves, face masks, and sanitizers along with face covers by the department of police.

According to the Union Health Ministry, 23,474 COVID-19 cases have been reported in the state, as of Monday.

 Mangaluru, July 18: The coastal districts of Dakshina Kannada and Udupi recorded a total of 346 covid positive cases in last 24 hours. Dakshina Kannada recorded 4 new deaths.

While DK recorded 237 positive cases, neighbouring Udupi saw 109 people testing positive. It may be recalled that DK and Udupi had reported a combined record spurt of 347 Covid-19 cases for a single day on Thursday. 

Dakshina Kannada 

As many as 26,368 samples have been sent for tests so far. Among them 23,096 have turned out negative, and 3,311 people have received positive report. Currently there are 1,848 active cases while 1,387 persons have recovered. 109 patients were discharged from Wenlock as well as private hospitals today. Including today’s four deaths, 75 people have succumbed to covid. Among them 12 are from other districts.

The patients whose deaths were reported today are a 74-year-old female from Puttur who was also suffering from heart disease and asthma, a 67-year-old male who was suffering from pneumonia and was on ventilator, and two females aged 49 and 61 from Mangaluru who suffered cardiac arrest.

Udupi

With 109 new cases, the total number of covid positive cases reported in the district mounted to 2088. Among new cases 58 belong to Udupi taluk, 40 are from Kundapur and 11 from Karkala. 

A total of 24,382 samples have been collected so far, including 524 on Saturday, out of which 17 are coronavirus suspects and 317 are COVID contacts. Out of them, 21,757 samples have turned out to be negative, including 292 on Saturday, and 537 reports are awaited.

As many as 1,586 patients have been discharged so far including 43 on Saturday, and 492 cases are currently active. Ten deaths have occurred so far. One positive case has been transferred to Dakshina Kannada.