A rainy welcome for Miss World Manushi Chhillar in Dakshina Kannada, Udupi

Bengaluru, Jul 17: Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa on Friday said lockdown is not the solution for controlling COVID-19 and made it clear that there was no proposal before the government to extend it in Bengaluru.

Bengaluru urban and rural areas are currently under "complete lockdown" since 8 pm of July 14 and it will be effective till 5 am on July 22.

With the spike in cases, speculations were rife that the current lockdown is likely to be extended for 15 days, as that much time is required to break the chain.

"Lockdown is not the solution to control COVID. There is no proposal before the government to extend the lockdown," Yediyurappa was quoted as saying by his office in a release.

The Chief Minister today chaired a meeting with Ministers who have been made in-charge of eight zones in the city and officials regarding the COVID-19 situation in Bengaluru.

Earlier too, on July 13, the eve of the lockdown, Yediyurappa had said the government did not plan to extend it in Bengaluru urban and rural districts, and had appealed to the people to cooperate by not paying heed to rumours.

However, earlier today city Mayor M Goutham Kumar and commissioner of the civic body Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike B H Anil Kumar had favoured its extension.

They had said that in their personal opinion, a 15 day lockdown would be good, as that much time is required to break the chain.

The Opposition Congress too had asked for a minimum of 15 days lockdown after taking expert opinion.

"Respected Chief Minister, you have imposed lockdown in Bengaluru, but it is difficult to expect results from this lockdown, which has been imposed just for for the sake of it.

Take expert opinion and enforce strict lockdown in Bengaluru at least for 15 days.

If not, even if God comes,it will be difficult to protect Bengaluru," KPCC Working President Eshwar Khandre tweeted.

Speaking to reporters after attending the meeting chaired by the CM, Revenue Minister R Ashoka said lockdown will not be extended and all activities can resume as usual from July 22.

"Lockdown will not be extended. I'm saying this after discussing with the Chief Minister. There is no such thinking before the government.

CM has got report from the experts, it was discussed in the meeting.

By lockdown we can only postpone things, we have taken that breathing time.

If we continue lockdown it will keep on continuing," he said.

The Minister said the process of sealing places, wherever required, would continue.

He said the plan to conduct more tests was discussed at the meeting and all the required zone wise arrangements would be made

"We also discussed about beds and shortage of ventilators and steps will be taken to arrange for them," he said.

As of July 16 evening, cumulatively 51,422 COVID-19 positive cases have been confirmed in the state, which includes 1,032 deaths and 19,729 discharges.

Bengaluru urban district tops the list of positive cases, with a total of 25,288 infections.

Out of 4,169 fresh cases reported on Thursday, a whopping 2,344 were from Bengaluru urban alone

At the meeting, the Chief Minister said all necessary steps should be taken to clear all the difficulties faced by infected patients in getting admitted to hospitals.

The CMO statement quoted Yediyurappa as directing Ministers to hold meetings with private hospitals to ensure that COVID and non COVID patients get treatment.

Warning of strict action against private hospitals if they don't allocate beds for COVID patients,he said volunteers and nodal officers would be appointed to gather information about admission of such patients and availability of beds

The Chief Minister said rapid antigen tests should be conducted on those dying at hospitals or homes and necessary action taken to hand over the bodies or to conduct last rites as per the procedures, depending on the cause of death.

Recruitment was on to appoint doctors to resolve shortage, he said,adding that volunteers have been identified in each ward for micromanagement and ambulances allocated.

Marriage halls and lodges have been selected in all wards for those not having separate quarantine facilities, Yediyurappa said and stressed on increasing testing.

Deploying extra police force at places where there are chances of people gathering in large numbers, ensuring beds availability and ambulances within two hours of a patient testing positive- with decentralized monitoring, giving priority to those symptomatic above 65-years during allocation of beds were among directions given by the Chief Minister.

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.