Pratapchandra Sehtty of Congress is new Chairman of Karnataka Legislative Council

Kanpur, Jan 1: In a seemingly bizarre development, the IIT in Kanpur has set up a panel to decide whether the poem "Hum dekhenge lazim hai ki hum bhi dekhenge", penned by Faiz Ahmad Faiz, is anti-Hindu.

The panel has been set up in response to complaints filed by a faculty member who claimed that the students, during a protest, sang this poem which was anti-Hindu.

The poem reads thus -- "Lazim hai ke hum bhi dekhenge. Jab arz-e-Khuda ke kaabe se. Sab bhut uthwaye jayenge, Hum ahl-e-safa mardood-e-harm. Masnad pe bithaye jayenge. Sab taaj uchale jaenge. Sab takht giraye jayenge. Bas naam rahega Allah ka. Hum dekhenge."

It was the last line that has turned into a bone of contention. Translated into English, it means, 'When thrones will vanish, only Allah's name will remain' -- implying the misleading translation by the professor.

The poem had been written by Faiz in reference to military dictator Zia-ul-Haq in 1979 and was against the military rule in Pakistan. Faiz had left leanings and was an atheist. He was known for his revolutionary writings that kept him in jail for several years.

It may be recalled that the IIT-Kanpur students had taken out a peaceful march on the campus on December 17 in support of the students of Jamia Millia Islamia and during the march, the students sang the Faiz poem.

According to IIT Deputy director Manindra Agarwal: "In the video, the students are seen reciting the Faiz poem which can also be perceived as being anti-Hindu.

The IIT faculty member, in his complaint, has alleged that the students made anti-India and communal statements during their demonstration in solidarity with the Jamia students.

The complaint was based on two lines of the poem, which have obviously been misinterpreted -- "When all idols will be removed, only Allah's name will remain."

The faculty member has stated that "organisers and masterminds must be identified and expelled immediately."

Fifteen other students have also signed the complaint filed by the professor against the protesting students.

Meanwhile, IIT students have said that the faculty member who lodged the complaint has been banned on a social networking site for posting communal content.

In an article published on the IIT-Kanpur student media portal, the students clarified what exactly happened on the day of protest and how their chant was given a 'communal and misleading' turn. They stated that they had recited a few lines of the Faiz poem in reference to the police crackdown on the Jamia students.

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, Jan 28: Brace for hefty traffic penalties as the state government is all set to reverse a notification on revised fines which came into effect last September following pushback from road users and opposition parties.

The Karnataka government will implement traffic penalties as stipulated in the amended Motor Vehicles Act, 2019, in a phased manner following a diktat from the Centre. The government did not specify the timeline for it.

“At a recent meeting of transport ministers from various states, the Union government explained why it wanted to implement these huge fines. We found it convincing and will implement it in its original form,” said transport minister Laxman Savadi on Monday.

Savadi said India’s image globally has taken a beating due to the high number of road deaths and the Centre wants to change it at any cost. However, he said the entire set of hefty fines would not be reintroduced all at once.

BJP govt revised rates in Sept

The BJP government last September had revised fines on compoundable offences and those which are fined on the spot by traffic cops by 50%- 80%, barring drunken driving and racing.

As per the revised rates, helmetless riding attracted a penalty of Rs 500 against Rs 1,000 notified by the Centre. Driving without a licence attracted a fine of Rs 1,000 for

two- and three-wheelers and Rs 2,000 for light motor vehicles as against the earlier Rs 5,000 for all types of vehicles.

The central government recently told states and Union Territories they should enforce fines as per the amended Act and they cannot be rolled back. The road transport and highways ministry said fines cannot be reduced below the minimum amount fixed by law, unless the President gives his assent.