Veerappa Moily hints at 'RSS-lobby' behind Raghuram Rajan's exit

Bengaluru, July 25: A 105-year-old person from Bengaluru’s Basaveshwar Nagar, who was under treatment for covid-19 at a hospital for past five days, breathed his last today. He was a former government account who retired in 1973. He was the oldest known covid-19 patient in the state so far.

Many members of the patient's family are said to be infected and are hospitalised at various facilities. The funeral will be overseen by two uninfected family members.

The patient 74411 died on Saturday morning at around 9 a.m., said Dr Prasanna, Managing Director of Pristine Hospital And Research Centre where the former was admitted.

“The patient was initially doing well when he admitted on July 20. He did not have significant lung changes when he was admitted. However, after three days, his blood pressure started to drop so he was put on oxygen in the ICU. Yesterday morning, with continued deterioration, he was placed on non-invasive ventilator support,” Dr Prasanna said.

“Finally, by last night, his oxygen saturation levels began to plummet abruptly and we had to intubate him for ventilator support. His condition continued to deteriorate, however. The cause of death was respiratory failure and the onset of sepsis,” he added.

Although earmarked for supplies of Remdesivir by the government, the hospital did not receive the drugs. An appeal to Dr K Sudhakar, Minister of Medical Education by the hospital staff resulted in an assurance that the medication would arrive. “However, in the end, we had to source the medication ourselves on Friday,” medical staff said.

Dr Thrilok Chandra, Head, Critical Care Support Unit (CCSU), which oversees the care of critical or vulnerable-aged Covid-19 patients, had said that Patient 74411 had been diagnosed early. “He was identified when the disease was still in the early stages in his body. He only had symptoms of Influenza-Like Illness (ILI), so the symptoms were not severe,” Dr Chandra had said.

“It’s very sad. We were rooting for him to pull through. He had no comorbidities at all. He had been bed-ridden from last year, but he was healthy. His only potential comorbidity was his advanced age,” Dr Prasanna said.

According to government data, 34% of Covid-19 fatalities in India are aged between 60 and 74 years of age. Fourteen per cent are aged above 74.

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: Seven out of ten (72 per cent) workers in Karnataka reported having lost their employment during the COVID-19-induced lockdown, according to findings of a survey by Azim Premji University, in collaboration with ten civil society organisations.

The university said in a statement it conducted "a detailed" phone survey of 5,000 workers across 12 states in the country, to gauge the impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on employment, livelihoods, and access to government relief schemes.

The survey covered self-employed, casual, and regular wage and salaried workers and it released the findings for Karnataka on Thursday.

Seventy-six per cent of urban workers and 66 per cent of rural workers lost their employment, the survey findings said.

For non-agricultural self-employed workers and wage workers, who were still employed, average weekly earnings fell by two-third.

More than four in ten salaried workers (44 per cent) saw either a reduction in their salary or received no salary during the lockdown.

Six out of ten households reported that they did not have enough money to buy even a weeks worth of essential items, according to the survey.

Eight out ten households reported a reduction in food intake, while less than three in ten vulnerable households (27 per cent) in urban Karnataka received any form of cash transfer from the government, it said.

In summary, the disruption in the Karnatakas economy and labour markets is enormous. Livelihoods have been devastated at unprecedented levels during the lockdown.

The recovery from this could be slow and very painful, the statement said.

As a response to the findings of this survey, the team which has conducted the survey suggested a universalisation of the PDS to expand its reach and implementation of expanded rations for at least the next six months.

It suggested cash transfers equal to at least Rs.7000 per month for two months, and proactive steps like expansion of MGNREGA, introduction of urban employment guarantee, and investment in universal basic services, among others.