Rs 10.50 cr assets seized from Gujarati 'chaiwala'; identity hidden

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, Mar 12: Days after a video of an elephant being shot in Bandipur National Park went viral on social media, officials said that they have removed a staffer and initiated action against an employee of the Karnataka Forest Department in the matter.

According to officials, the incident took place on March 7.

"We have removed Rahim, temporary staffer, and initiated action against Umesh, a permanent employee of the Karnataka Forest Department, after an internal enquiry," Bandipur field director T Balchandra said.

While Rahim is said to have shot the charging elephant, Umesh reportedly made the video and shared it on social media.

Bengaluru, Jun 15: Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa on Monday said those coming to the state from Chennai and Delhi will have to undergo three days of institutional quarantine followed by 11 days of home isolation.

Up till now a seven-day institutional quarantine was prescribed for those returning from Maharashtra, while there was no mandatory institutional quarantine for asymptomatic people returning to Karnataka from other states.

Those returning from states other than Maharashtra were asked to quarantine themselves at home.

"Those coming from Maharashtra are subjected to seven days of institutional quarantine followed by seven days of home quarantine, while those coming from Chennai and Delhi will have to go for three days of institutional quarantine and eleven days of home quarantine," Yediyurappa said.

Speaking to reporters here, he said the decision has been taken following the increase in the number of coronavirus cases from these states.

"It is because of returnees from other states the cases have increased, not because of the local (intra-state) movement, so we have to control people coming from outside, we have to quarantine them and have to tighten measures.

We are making honest efforts in this regard," he added.

Yediyurappa was speaking to reporters after chairing a meeting with top ministers and officials to discuss about the surge in COVID cases in the state.

"There are no plans for any lockdown, and we will request the Prime Minister for more relaxations," the Chief Minister said in response to a question.

Out of total 7,000 cases in the state 4,386 are returnees from Maharashtra and their contacts are 1,340.

Those who returned from abroad comprise 216.

Returnees from other states constitute- Delhi 87, Tamil Nadu 67, Gujarat 62.

Noting that there are indications that the coronavirus infections are expected to increase in the days to come, Yediyurappa assured people that the government will take all precautionary measures required, and appealed to people to cooperate, follow social distancing, and wear masks.

He said it has been decided to observe the coming Thursday as "mask days" by organising a walk across the state and the main event will be held at Vidhana Soudha, the state secretariat.

"Strict measures will be taken against those not wearing masks and not maintaining social distancing here on.

Initially Rs 200 fine will be imposed, this will be throughout the state," he said.

Further stating that the government has made special efforts to control the spread of COVID, he said a special COVID-19 taskforce has been constituted for Bengaluru and surrounding areas, BBMP (city civic body) commissioner and Deputy Commissioners of neighbouring districts have been asked to pay special attention.

As of June 14 evening, cumulatively 7,000 COVID-19 positive cases have been confirmed in the state, which includes 86 deaths and 3,955 discharges.

Out of 2,956 active cases in the state till last evening, 2,940 patients are in isolation at designated hospitals and are stable, while 16 are in ICU.

Yediyurappa said the state's mortality rate is 1.2 per cent while the national average is 2.8 per cent.

The state's recovery rate is 56.6 per cent and the national average is 51 per cent, he said, adding that 93 per cent of the total cases are asymptomatic while the remaining seven per cent are symptomatic.

In Bengaluru, there are 697 cases and out of them 330 are active. The city has reported 36 deaths.