Mahamandal smells conspiracy for Billava Mukt Congress'; slams Oscar, CM

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.

Thiruvananthapuram, Apr 10: Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on Friday said that it has been 100 days since the first COVID-19 case was reported and shared the updated figures of positive cases, along with the efforts made by the state government to contain the virus.

"100 Days of #COVID19 | Kerala Story It's been 100 days since the first case was reported. 258 active cases, 97 recovered, Total confirmed: 357 Deaths: 2. 12,710 samples tested Special COVID-19 Hospital, 1,251 Community Kitchens, 28,08,650 Individuals Served, 3,676 Destitutes Rehabilitated," Vijayan tweeted.

India's first case was reported in Kerala in January. The patient was a student, who was studying at Wuhan University in China.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on Friday informed that India's total number of COVID-19 positive cases now stands at 6,412. Out of these, 5,709 are active patients and 504 of them have been cured/discharged and migrated.

With 30 new deaths reported in the last 12 hours, the death toll has reached 199.

Udupi, May 16: Close on the heels of six Covid-19 cases being detected in a little over 24 hours, Udupi recorded its first death of a Covid-19 patient. The victim is a 54-year-old man from Mumbai, who died due to a heart attack on Thursday. His reports came back on Saturday, and confirmed that he had Covid-19. The Udupi district administration has arranged to carry out his last rites as per government designated guidelines for Covid-19 victims.

A medical bulletin issued by the superintendent of Kasturba Hospital, Manipal, stated that the patient was admitted due to a heart-related issue on May 13.

Some members on the team that treated the patient have been quarantined. The hospital’s emergency department will operate as usual, and the outpatient department will operate as usual from 8.30am to 1pm, following government guidelines, the bulletin said. Deputy commissioner G Jagadeesha said that since the patient was from Mumbai, the authorities collected his swab sample for testing, as a precautionary measure.

The man suffered from chest pain, and was initially taken to the taluk hospital at Kundapur from where he was shifted to Kasturba Hospital, due to the seriousness of his condition. The doctors operated on him on May 13, and he suffered a severe heart attack on May 14 and died, the DC said. “Three hospital staff without PPE kits, who attended to the patient, have been quarantined,” the DC said, adding that the operating doctors and nurses had worn PPE kits.

In addition, 5 others who travelled with the person from Mumbai and 57 people with him at the Kundapur isolation centre, have been designated as primary contacts, and 38 others as secondary contacts, and quarantined. The staff at Kundapur taluk hospital too had taken precautions in handling the patient, the DC said. Udupi presently has six active cases, including a 1-year-old child and 5 others, all of whom returned from Dubai on May 12.