Sanjiv Bhatt victim of political vindictiveness, say wife and son

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, May 29: Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa and BJP State President Nalin Kumar Kateel will resolve any differences of opinion among party leaders in Karnataka, according to Minister of State for Railways Suresh Angadi

If anybody has any issues, they should get them resolved by talking with Yediyurappa and Kateel. Internal matters, if any, should not be discussed in public, he said.

Angadi told reporters here on Friday that differences of opinion among party leaders have not come to his notice. A section of party leaders assembling for dinner should not be constituted as a meeting of dissidents. BJP has internal democracy and any differences of opinion if exist will be resolved at the party forum.

He added that if MLA Umesh Katti has any issues regarding cabinet berth or regarding assurances given to him by Yediyurappa during the Lok Sabha elections, he should talk with the chief minister.

Everyone in politics has aspirations and it's natural. Those aspiring for the upcoming Rajya Sabha elections should talk with the chief minister or the state president, he said.

Ramesh Katti was former MP and there was nothing wrong in him being aspirant for Rajya Sabha elections, he said.

Angadi said, "Party is supreme. We shall work for the victory of party candidates irrespective of who they were".

A state cabinet meeting was held on Thursday. Many of the MLAs too had been to Bengaluru for constituency-related works. As they had been meeting after a long time, all gathered for dinner, he expressed.

New Delhi, Feb 6: BJP MP Tejaswi Surya said on Wednesday that the majority community has to remain vigilant or Mughal rule will return to the country, as he slammed the anti-CAA protest at Shaheen Bagh.

He was participating in the debate on Motion of Thanks on the President's Address in Lok Sabha.

Referring to the ongoing protest at Shaheen Bagh against the Citizenship Amendment Act, he said, "Unless majority community remains vigilant, the days of Mughal Raj may not be far away."

Surya also praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi for resolving several critical issues which had been pending for several decades.

The CAA, he said, was aimed at resolving the issues emanating from Partition and added, "The new India cannot to built without healing the wounds of the past."

He said that the CAA was about giving citizenship to persecuted minorities in Pakistan, Bangaladesh and Afghanistan and not for taking away anyone's citizenship.

Under the leadership of Modi, Surya said, several issues of the past have seen closure. These include abrogation of Article 370, construction of Ram temple, Bodo problems and abolition of Triple Talaq.

K Sudhakaran (Cong) said that a time when the economy was going through its worst phase and unemployment was high, the President in his speech talked about making India a USD 5 trillion economy by 2024.

On the comments of the government functionaries that fundamentals of the economy are strong, he said the same expression was used by the then US President George Bush, days before the collapse of the America's iconic investment banker Lehman Brothers.

Not only that, Sudhakaran said even before the Great Depression, the then US President used to say that fundamentals of their economy were strong.

Anupriya Patel (Apna Dal) demanded that the government set up All India Judicial Services Commission to ensure representation of the backward community in the judiciary.

Khagen Murmu (BJP) regretted that West Bengal government was not implementing the welfare schemes of the Centre in the state.

Badruddin Ajmal (AIUDF) said that people of all communities have fought for freedom of the country and it would be incorrect to declare everyone opposing the government's policies as 'gaddar' (traitor).

He said that the government should talk to people protesting against the CAA at Shaheen Bagh and other places, and explain the provisions to them.

Shrirang Appa Barne (Shiv Sena) demanded that the ruling party fulfil all promises it had made to the people of the country.

He regretted that although the government promised to double the income of farmers by 2022, farmers were still committing suicide.