Rivalry among Mangaluru Salafi groups quenches media’s thirst for ISIS story

Mangaluru, July 8: Dakshina Kannada on Wednesday recorded its highest single-day spike in Covid-19 cases with 183 cases reported in the district, while Udupi reported 31 new cases.

DK also recorded two more fatalities – both patients with co-morbid conditions — taking the total death toll in the district to 28. Udupi has recorded three Covid-19 deaths.

The fresh spike saw total positive cases in DK shoot up to 1,542 and active cases to 819. As many as 12 patients were discharged from hospital on Wednesday. The positivity rate in the district now stands at 0.07 %. Health authorities as on date have received 22,181 samples and 20,153 out of 21,695 samples tested have turned out negative.

MLA’s gunman tests positive

The gunman assigned to former minister U T Khader tested positive on Wednesday and three others who were with him in the escort vehicle have been quarantined, said city police commissioner Vikash Kumar Vikash. A section of police commissioner’s office was shut for sanitisation as per protocol after staff working there were treated as primary contacts. The office per se has not been sealed contrary to ‘reports’ doing rounds in social media, he said.

Deputy commissioner Sindhu B Rupesh said the district reported two deaths — one late on Tuesday and the other during the day. The victims are a 57-year-old man and 32-year-old youth. Two of the 183 cases were secondary contacts, 25 were cases of influenza like illness, four cases of SARI, one a case of inter district travel, two with interstate travel, five with international travel history, 22 random samples and five pre-surgery samples.

Udupi district recorded 31 new cases taking the total positive cases recorded as on date to 1,421. Discharge of 1,189 patients meant that Udupi has 229 active cases.

Meanwhile, Kota Shrinivas Poojari, minister for fisheries on Wednesday inaugurated the Covid-19 lab at district hospital in Udupi. Karkala MLA Sunil Kumar inaugurated ambulance monitoring system to ensure expeditious transfer of infected patients to designated treatment centres.

Mangaluru, Mar 27: A youth from Dakshina Kannada district, who had returned from United Arab Emirates earlier this month has tested positive for the deadly Covid-19 caused by the novel coronavirus. With this the total of Covid-19 in the district has mounted to seven. 

The fresh Covid-19 patient is a 21-year-old youth hailing from Karaya in Belthangady taluk. 

He had left Dubai on March 21 and land at Bengaluru Airport. Then he reached Belthangady through a KSRTC bus the very next morning. 

As he was suffering from fever and cough, he was admitted to Puttur government hospital on March 24. Same day his throat swab sample was sent for coronavirus testing. Today it was declared positive. 

His condition is said to be stable. However, his family members and those who were in touch with him are under observation.

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.