Iftar trip turns tragic: 6 of a family die as car rams into tree; baby thrown out to safety

Mysuru, May 1: Four people who brought a dead man’s body from Mumbai for cremation in his native place in Mandya district in Karnataka have tested positive for Covid-19 virus, and now the administration is trying to find out if the man himself had been an undetected positive.

According to Mandya district deputy commissioner M V Venkatesh, the deceased man was a 53-year-old native of B Kodagalli of Pandavapura taluk, Melkote hobli in Mandya district. He died after suffering a heart attack at the U N Desai government hospital in Mumbai on April 23.

The cremation took place outside the man's native village after the local administration refused to allow it inside the village.

Wanting the final rites performed in his native place, the man’s family got the body embalmed and procured all the medical records and certificates from the hospital and brought it in an ambulance belonging to the Desai government hospital.

When they reached Pandavapura taluk in Karnataka on the evening of April 24, the local administration did not allow the body to enter the village but allowed the relatives to cremate it outside the village.

And since the family had come from Mumbai, the district administration quarantined all seven of the man’s relatives, and their samples were sent for testing on 28 April.

The results showed that the deceased man’s 25-year-old son, daughter-in-law, daughter, and two-year-old grandchild are positive for Covid 19. All of them have been admitted at the Mandya Institute of Medical Sciences although they have no symptoms.

Deputy commissioner Venkatesh said that in the Desai hospital records in Mumbai there was no mention whether or not the man had been tested for Covid-19. “We are writing to Desai hospital to clarify if the deceased person was tested for Covid 19. It is also possible that the family got infected by the man’s son who works in the loan department of ICICI Bank in Mumbai and visits several offices in different areas of Mumbai,” he said.

The man’s ancestral B Kodagalli village now has been sealed off. Though tests done on other members of the family have come back negative, the Mandya administartions plans to repeat their tests.

So far 26 people have tested positive for Covid 19 in Mandya district.

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.

Mangaluru, Jun 2: Karnataka-Kerala border at Talapady is yet to be opened for traffic despite lifting lockdown. Only those, who have registered on ‘Seva Sindhu’ portal, are given one-time permission to enter the district.

With the relaxation of the lock-down many, especially the labour class, were anticipating free movement. However, both the States have not allowed free movement of vehicles. Hundreds of people from bordering villages of Kerala arrive in Mangaluru for work and likewise many from bordering villages of Mangaluru too work in Kasargod district.

It has become a routine for the labourers of both the States living in border villages to daily assemble at the check post in the morning and return after the authorities refuse free movement.