Saudi govt intervenes to help stranded Indian expats, vows necessary action

Bengaluru, Jul 21: The total number of Covid-19 cases in Karnataka breached the 70,000 mark on Tuesday as the state reported 3,649 fresh infections, while 61 fatalities took the death toll to 1,464, the health department said.

The day also saw 1,664 patients getting discharged after recovery. Out of 3,649 fresh cases reported on Tuesday, a whopping 1,714 were from Bengaluru urban alone. As of July 21 evening, cumulatively 71,069 Covid-19 cases have been confirmed in Karnataka, which includes 1,464 deaths and 25,459 discharges, the health department said in its bulletin.

It said that out of the 44,140 active cases, 43,557 patients are in isolation at designated hospitals and are stable, while 583 are in Intensive Care Units.

Twenty-two out of 61 deaths reported on Tuesday are from Bengaluru urban, followed by five each from Dakshina Kannada, Mysuru and Dharwad, four each from Kolar and Belagavi, three each from Hassan, Tumakuru and Haveri, Bidar 2, and one each from Chikkaballapura, Chikkamagaluru, Chamarajanagara, Gadag and Vijayapura.

Most of the deceased either had a history of Severe Acute Respiratory Infection (SARI) or Influenza-like illness (ILI). Out of 3,649 cases tested positive on Tuesday, contacts of the large number of the cases are still under tracing.

Among the districts where new cases were reported, Bengaluru urban accounted for 1,714, Ballari 193, Dakshina Kannada 149, Mysuru 135, Yadgir 117, Uttara Kannada 109, Hassan 107, Kolar 103, followed by others.

Bengaluru urban district topped the list of positive cases, with 34,943 infections, followed by Dakshina Kannada 3,829 and Kalaburagi 2,966. Among discharges Bengaluru urban was on top with 7,476 discharges, followed by Kalabuagi 1,834 and Udupi 1,731.

A total of 10,64,734 samples were tested so far, out of which 43,904 were tested on Tuesday alone, the bulletin said. It said that 19,328 of the 43,904 samples tested today were rapid antigen tests.

Bengaluru, Feb 18: Deputy chief minister Laxman Savadi was elected to the legislative council on Monday and although it was a done deal that he would win, a vote from across the aisle spiced up the election.

Counting was conducted soon after ballots were cast and Savadi polled 113 of the 120 votes cast, including the vote of disgruntled JD(S) legislator GT Devegowda. Seven votes were declared invalid. Members of the two opposition parties — Congress and JD(S) — abstained from voting.

The election was necessitated following the resignation of Rizwan Arshad of the Congress. Rizwan resigned after he was elected to the legislative assembly from the Shivajinagar constituency in the assembly bypolls held for 15 seats in December last year.

BR Anil Kumar, who was initially promised the support of both Congress and JD(S) was supposed to contest as an independent candidate. However, as both parties refused to support him at the last minute, he withdrew, paving the way for Savadi’s victory.

The BJP has 117 members in the 225-member assembly, but N Mahesh of the BSP and two independents, H Nagesh and Sharath Bachchegowda, besides GT Devegowda also voted, taking the total electorate to 120 (including the speaker). BJP’s SA Ramadas did not turn up because of health reasons.

“I would like to thank all those who were responsible for my victory. Special thanks to leaders of my party and chief minister BS Yediyurappa, who gave me the opportunity to be the BJP candidate,” said Savadi.

Winning this council election was crucial for Savadi to retain his ministry as he was not an elected member of either of the houses. Rules mandate that a non-member must get elected either to the assembly or council within six months after taking over as minister. February 20 was the deadline for Savadi, who had lost 2018 assembly polls from Athani, to get elected.

Officials in the assembly secretariat said seven votes were invalid because voters had wrongly marked their choices on ballot paper. According to norms, a voter has to mark numerical one, two and three against the names of the candidates in order of preference. Marking only numerical one is allowed. However, six ballots had a tick mark, while a voter had registered a cross mark. Since it was a secret ballot, it was not known who the MLAs were whose votes were invalid.

“The ballot papers bear serial numbers and they are randomly distributed. It is virtually impossible to say who a voter cast his or her vote for,” said assembly secretary MK Vishalakashi, the retuning officer for the bypoll.

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.