Unaware of Karnataka BJP’s politics, President of India praises Tipu Sultan

Mangaluru, May 29: Several non-resident Kannadigas from various Gulf countries including Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on Thursday, May 28, interacted with Dakshina Kannada MP Nalin Kumar Kateel through a video conference and urged him to allow the Kannadigas stranded in the Middle East to return by facilitating the operation of repatriation flights.

The development comes amidst reports that lack of preparedness on parts of the local authorities in Karnataka compelling the Centre to delay the operation of flights from Middle East to Mangaluru and Bengaluru airports.

“We have never forgotten you. We will take necessary steps for your safe return to the homeland as soon as possible,” assured Mr Kateel after paying heed to the complaints of non-resident Kannadigas.

The video conference was organised by Ravi Shetty, ex president of Kannada Sangha Qatar.

Praveen Kumar Shetty, president, Karnataka NRI Forum of UAE, Sarvottam Shetty of UAE Karnataka Sangha, Avikshit Rai, Ravi Shetty, former president of Qatar Kannada Sangha, Santosh Shetty of Riyadh Karnataka NRI Forum, Zakariya Jokatte, president of Dammam Karnataka NRI Forum, Mohammad Mansoor, president of Bahrain Indian Overseas Congress, NS Shetty Kuwait, Pradeep Shetty of Kannada Sangha Bahrain, Karunakar Rao, Shashidhar Shetty Oman, Rajesh of Kuwait Kannada Sangha, Ramesh Bhandari, M E Muloor and Sunil Kulkarni among others participated in the video conference.

New Delhi, Jun 20: After Prime Minister Narendra Modi said there are no foreign incursions into India, China has once again claimed that Galwan valley of Ladakh union territory is located on the Chinese side of the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

In an official statement on the step-by-step account of the Galwan face-off where 20 Indian soldiers were killed, China's foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian has said the Galwan valley is located on the Chinese side of the LAC in the west section of the China-India boundary.

"For many years, the Chinese border troops have been patrolling and on duty in this region," Zhao said alleging that since April this year, the Indian border troops have unilaterally and continuously built roads, bridges and other facilities at the LAC in the Galwan Valley.

China has lodged representations and protests on multiple occasions but India has gone even further to cross the LAC and make provocations, Zhao said.

By the early morning of May 6, the Indian border troops, who had crossed the LAC by night and trespassed into China's territory, built fortification and barricades, which impeded the patrol of Chinese border troops, Zhao said adding that they deliberately made provocations in an attempt to unilaterally change the status quo of control and management.

The Chinese border troops, he said, were "forced to take necessary measures to respond to the situation on the ground and strengthen management and control in the border areas."

In order to ease the situation, China and India have stayed in close communication through military and diplomatic channels, he said. "In response to the strong demand of the Chinese side, India agreed to withdraw the personnel who crossed the LAC and demolish the facilities, and so they did.

On June 6, the border troops of both countries held a commander-level meeting and reached consensus on easing the situation. The Indian side, he said, promised that they would not cross the estuary of the Galwan river to patrol and build facilities and the two sides would discuss and decide phased withdrawal of troops through the meetings between commanders on the ground.

"Shockingly, on the evening of June 15, India's front-line troops, in violation of the agreement reached at the commander-level meeting, once again crossed the Line of Actual Control for deliberate provocation when the situation in the Galwan Valley was already easing, and even violently attacked the Chinese officers and soldiers who went there for negotiation, thus triggering fierce physical conflicts and causing casualties."

"The adventurous acts of the Indian army have seriously undermined the stability of the border areas, threatened the lives of Chinese personnel, violated the agreements reached between the two countries on the border issue, and breached the basic norms governing international relations," the spokesperson said.

Beijing, he said, hopes that India will work with China, follow faithfully the important consensus reached between the two leaders, abide by the agreements reached between the two governments, and strengthen communication and coordination on properly managing the current situation through diplomatic and military channels, and jointly uphold peace and stability in the border areas.

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.