Unsatisfied by private airline's apology, Manglauru passenger opts legal battle

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 15: There is no trace of community spread of COVID-19 pandemic in Karnataka due to the strict measures taken by the State Government, Medical Education Minister Dr K Sudhakar said on Friday.

All those tested positive for the virus here have arrived from other states and are currently being treated in quarantine centres, he tweeted.

Over 25 per cent of the COVID-19 positive cases, which were detected in the state, were related to those who had either come from abroad or other states, and only about 7 per cent cases were associated with the influenza-like diseases, his tweet further read.

Bengaluru, Mar 13: India has registered the first confirmed case of death due to novel coronavirus. A 76-year-old man from Karnataka's Kalaburgi who passed away recently has been tested positive for Covid-19.

The doctors had suspected that the man had coronavirus, however, the test had not confirmed it.

In an official notification, a senior health official in Karnataka government Dr Suresh Shastri said that the lab test has confirmed that the deceased man had Covid-19.

"The 76-year-old man from Kalburgi who passed away and was a suspected COVID 19 patient has been confirmed for COVID 19. The necessary contact tracing, isolation and other measures as per protocol are being carried out. Telangana government has also been informed since he went to a private hospital there," Dr Suresh Shastri said.

The same information was also shared by Karnataka health minister B Sriramulu.

A senior Union health ministry official said in New Delhi that the death of the man had visited Saudi Arabia from January 29 to February 29. The official said the man had reached in Hyderabad on February 29 and went to Kalaburagi in Karnataka.

State Joint Director (Communicable Diseases) BG Prakash Kumar said all protocols were followed for disposal of the body.

"The body is disinfected completely and disposed of as per the Government of India guidelines," he added when asked to elaborate on the protocols.

He said the Telangana government has also been informed as the man had gone to a private hospital in Hyderabad earlier.

While announcing the death of the man on Tuesday, the state authorities had said the exact cause his death was being ascertained.

According to the Union health ministry official, "While he was asymptomatic on his return (from Saudi Arabia), he developed symptoms of fever and cough on 6th March. One private doctor visited him at his home and treated him there."

"On 9th March, the symptoms got aggravated and he was shifted to a private hospital in Kalaburagi. In this private hospital, he was provisionally diagnosed as 'mid-zone viral pneumonia' and 'suspected Covid-19'," the official said.

"The sample was collected on March 9... Without waiting for the test results, the attendees insisted and the patient was discharged against medical advice and the attendees took him to a private hospital in Hyderabad," the official said.

The patient was admitted to a private hospital in Hyderabad and treated. He died on Tuesday when he was being brought back to the Gulbarga Institute of Medical Sciences (GIMS) in Kalaburagi.

Apart from the deceased, Karnataka has confirmed five other positive cases of the novel coronavirus. The fifth case, confirmed on Thursday is of a 26-year-old man who recently returned from Greece.

The patient has been admitted and isolated at a hospital and his condition is stable, a department media bulletin said.

The day also saw the education department declaring summer holidays for students from kindergarten to class six and study leave for higher classes in the city as a precautionary measure.