Kannada is our mother, Tulu is father: Pejawar seer tells people of DK, Udupi

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 28: The patience and presence of mind exhibited by the family members of youth covid-19 victim thwarted the attempt by a few miscreants to create communal disharmony in the coastal city today.

A 31-year-old youth from Idya in Surathkal, who was under treatment for covid-19 at designated Wenlock Hospital in the city, passed away last night. 

Even though there is a Muslim graveyard under the jurisdiction of Idya mosque, it was waterlogged due to heavy rains. 

Hence, the Idya mosque management had obtained permission from Mangaluru’s Bolar mosque management to bury the mortal remains of the youth in Bolar graveyard. 

All necessary arrangements were made at the Bolar graveyard for the burial this morning. Meanwhile, a few residents of Bolar belonging to another community staged a protest against bringing covid-19 victim’s mortal remains to Bolar.

Mohammad Husain, general secretary of Bolar mosque, said that the family members of the departed youth exhibited their presence of mind and urged the Muslims of Bolar to preserve communal harmony.

“The Bolar mosque committee had given green signal for the burial and all arrangements were made. Meanwhile, a few people staged protest and warned us against burying the covid-19 victim’s body. When the aggrieved family members came to know this, they immediately cancelled the plan,” he said. 

“The aggrieved family requested us to uphold communal amity and co-existence. They decided to bury the body in Idya itself. Then the protesters also returned,” he said.

Burial in Bolar after DC’s intervention

When the mortal remains were being taken towards Surathkal in the ambulance, the Deputy Commissioner of Dakshina Kannada ordered the authorities concerned to take a U-turn and bring back mortal remains to Bolar.  

The DC said it was wrong to take the mortal remains to another place after making all necessary armaments in Bolar graveyard. In order to pacify the porters it was decided to dig another grave on the other side of the graveyard, sources said.

Mumbai, June 9: A 45-year-old doctor posted in the 108 ambulance service at Malad railway station in Mumbai died of COVID-19 after two hospitals refused admission, in spite of the fact that he was a frontline warrior against coronavirus.

The victim is Dr Shaukat Ali, who was working with the 108 ambulance service for the last four years. A few days ago, he got his blood tests done after his health deteriorated. The result stated typhoid fever following which he started getting treatment at home in Malwani.

Ali's family ran from pillar to post to get him hospitalised in either a private or government hospital, to no avail.

"On Friday, his condition worsened and he started feeling breathless. Despite us calling the 108 ambulance service, no one picked up the call. So after waiting for a while, I and uncle's colleague, Dr Nigam, rushed him to SK Patil hospital in Malad East in an auto. But they refused us stating they were admitting only COVID-19 patients.”

“Then we took him to Desai Hospital, where doctors were initially ready to admit him but later refused stating lack of beds. They said we could take him home as his condition was fine," Zubair Shaikh, Ali's nephew said.

"But his condition worsened. So, I called Dr Nigam and we managed to admit him in Shatabdi hospital. On Sunday, when his results came out stating that he had COVID-19, doctors had already put him on a ventilator, where he passed away in the evening," he added.

Zubair further said, "Had the doctors at Desai Memorial Hospital admitted him, my uncle would have been alive today. It is a matter of great regret that a doctor, who was risking his life during this pandemic, could not get help from his own government hospitals."

Ali's wife and his two children's are in UP, while he was staying with his elder daughter who had recently appeared for HSC exams and preparing for NEET.