Nature punished Kerala through floods for eating beef, claims Karnataka BJP MLA

Bengaluru, Feb 22: Thanks to joint efforts by the Protector of Emigrants in Bengaluru and Indian Embassy in Qatar, a 26-year-old woman from Karnataka who had been kept in confinement in Qatar has been rescued and brought back to India.

Anupama (name changed) from Holenarasipura in Hassan district arrived in Bengaluru on Thursday night. She was allegedly locked up in a house for 14 days, restrained from using a mobile and wasn't fed. There were three other women with her. On the midnight of February 12, they broke the window panes and fled before contacting local police.

Anupama, a diploma graduate in computer science, was jobless and her friend working in Kuwait suggested she try for a job abroad. She contacted an agency based in Chikkamagaluru which offered her a nanny's job in Qatar. After document verification, the agency demanded she pay Rs 2 lakh but she said she didn't have that kind of money.

The agency sent Anupama on a visitor visa but told her if questioned by immigration officials, she must claim she was visiting her sister. They also gave her a return ticket.

As Anupama was travelling abroad for the first time, she said she was ignorant about several things.

On January 12, Anupama left Bengaluru. But as she reached Qatar, all her documents, including passport, were confiscated by the agency. Her return ticket was cancelled and she was sent to a house to work as babysitter-cum-cook for Rs 30,000. She lived with four other maids in the same house, where they were made to work for 16-18 hours a day.

"I used to wake up around 5.30am every day and had to prepare breakfast for the employers by 6.30am. My work would end around 11pm every day. We never even got time to eat," Anupama told media on Friday. Four days into work, Anupama's nose started bleeding. However, the employers cared little and insisted she continue to work. After 18 days, she requested her employers that she be relieved.

The agency sent her to a house where three women were already present and locked her up with them. "They used to give us a glass of raw rice, an onion, tomato and potato to cook for ourselves. While we got rice every day, we had to use the vegetables for three days. We were not supposed to use mobiles or go out. Two people were monitoring us," she recalled.

Anupama and the others decided to approach police but for that they needed to escape. Around 1.30am on February 12, the four women managed to break window panes and jumped out. They ran for more than a kilometre and managed to approach police, who summoned the agency and got the women to speak to their families.

Anupama called her brother-in-law, who approached the Protector of Emigrants office in Koramangala, Bengaluru. Shubham Singh, PoE in Bengaluru, said they took up the issue with the Indian Embassy in Qatar, which immediately got in touch with Qatar police. Anupama said, "We were kept in prison for a couple of days and were sent to the deportation centre later."

Meanwhile, the Indian embassy got the agency to return the women's documents. However, the agents did not pay their salaries. Two of the women were sent to Hyderabad and the third to Kerala. On Friday, Anupama met Singh at his office, where her statement was recorded. "We have started the process of initiating action against the agency in India," he said.

Bengaluru, Apr 29: Janata Dal-Secular leader and former Karnataka chief minister HD Kumaraswamy on Tuesday accused the central government of writing off loans of those who are facing charges of fraud.

In a series of tweets, Kumaraswamy slammed the central government.

"Really? At a time when the whole world is worried about unprecedented economic emergency, writing off Rs 68,000 crore loans of willful big fish defaulters became the best antidote to the economic crisis? And how is 50k cr package to mutual funds going to help the common man?" he tweeted.

In another tweet, Kumaraswamy said that "Billionaire scamsters like Vijay Mallya, Mehul Choksy, Sanjay Junjunwala seem to be very dear to this government".

"Na khaunga, na khane dunga" is yet another jumla unraveled. Billionaire scamsters like Vijay Malya, Mehul Choksy, Sanjay Junjunwala seem to be very dear to this government. The poor are dying by the roadside, farmers are desperate, the middle class is faced with economic doom.

The government has done little to help. But it writes off loans of those who are facing charges of fraud! What patriotism! What nationalism!" he tweeted.

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.