Sriram Sene wants action on youth for Facebook post

Bengaluru, May 19: Containment zones in Karnataka will be much smaller in size under the latest lockdown norms. However, rules and loopholes will be tightened and action against violators will be stringent in order to check the spread of the disease.

Revised guidelines issued by the Centre to the state, reveal containment zones are delineated based on mapping of cases and contacts. Intensive action will be carried out in these areas with the aim of breaking the chain of transmission. Therefore, the area of a containment zone should be appropriately defined by the district administration/local urban bodies with technical inputs at local level.

The health department is considering shrinking the size of containment zones from the existing 100 metres to open up more space for economic activities. Medical education minister K Sudhakar, also a member of the Covid taskforce, said additional chief secretary (health department) Javed Akthar will issue a new definition of a containment zone after the Covid-19 taskforce holds its next meeting.

“We are planning to further shrink it and restrict containment zones to an apartment complex, independent house or even a lane where the Covid-19 patient resides,” Sudhakar said. He went on to say bigger containment zones will impede businesses and normal activities in the vicinity, something which the government wants to avoid.

The minister said Karnataka will also do away with colour-coding districts. “With restrictions being relaxed for almost all activities, it does not make sense to pursue with colour codes. It is either containment zone or outside containment zone,” he said.

In rural areas, the minister said containment zones will be identified by the taluk heads. Government sources say it is difficult to restrict activities to certain areas or smaller location in rural areas as farmers and people will have to travel to the outskirts of their villages for their livelihood.

An official said, a containment operation (large outbreak or cluster) is deemed successful when no case is reported in 28 days from the containment zone.

Bengaluru, May 12: Former chief minister and senior Congress leader Siddaramaiah on Tuesday said that the Central and Karnataka government have failed in containing the coronavirus spread despite having enough time for preparations.

"Central and state government failed in properly controlling COVID-19. The first coronavirus case was reported in Kerala on January 30. Lockdown was imposed on March 24. Both Centre and state had enough time for preparations," Siddaramaiah said in a press meet here.

He said that the Central government did not stop the airline services on time.

"Karnataka government might have been able to stop COVID-19 properly. However, both the state and central government are playing politics over the issue and blaming Tablighi Jamaat for the spread, which is a political strategy painted by the RSS," Siddaramaiah said.

"Who gave the licence to Tablighi's international convention? Who gave them permission in Delhi? They didn't control it. Central government is directly responsible for the increasing numbers of COVID-19 cases in India," he added.

Siddaramaiah said that the lockdown was imposed without any preparation, which he said caused huge problems for the migrant workers across the country.

"Now, the government is collecting ticket fare and looting migrant workers. They don't have jobs or food, they don't have money, and they earn every day to survive. How will they pay for the tickets? Why the government is not arranging for free trains?" the Congress leader said.

He said that around Rs 35,000 crore have been credited to PM CARES fund, Rs 3,000 crore of which was credited from Karnataka alone. "Why are they not using that money?" he asked.

Siddaramaiah said that the party is demanding for the Centre to arrange for migrant workers to return to their native places across the country free of cost.

"We asked Chief Minister to call an all party meeting. We gave many suggestions, which this government did not consider. We also took a delegation and gave a memorandum about farmers, daily wage workers, road side vendors, barbers, problems faced by the unorganized sector. But this government didn't consider any of it," he said.

Questioning the Central government's suggestion to States to amend their Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) Acts, Siddaramaiah said that the move is against the federal system of the country and claimed that it harms the interests of small scale farmers.

He said that the BJP-led state government has also decided to postpone the Gram panchayat elections in the state and is trying to nominate their party workers for village panchayat elections.

"The Government must continue with the present members of the Gram panchayat. If BJP tries to nominate their party members to village panchayats, we will take to streets to protest despite the lockdown," Siddaramaiah added.

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.