Will Lingayat MLAs from Congress, JD(S) cross-vote in favour of Yeddyurappa?

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.

Kochi, Feb 29: The Kerala Non-Resident Indians' Commission on Friday passed a resolution to request the Centre and Election Commission (EC) to make appropriate amendments in the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, to ensure voting rights to the non-resident Indians working abroad. According to People’s Representation Act, 1951, None-Resident Indians (NRIs) can vote by proxy.

The Commission is a statutory body constituted for the welfare of Non-Resident Keralites working outside India.

The Centre had introduced a bill for this purpose which was passed by the Lok Sabha in 2018, but the same has since lapsed.

Therefore, the Kerala NRI Commission decided to request the Centre to consider introducing the bill in the next session of Parliament considering the interest of the NRI community at large.

The resolution was moved by commission member and NRI entrepreneur Shamsheer Vayalil, who is also a petitioner in the writ petition, filed regarding this in the Supreme Court.

"The central government may consider introducing the bill in the next session of the Parliament session considering the interest of the NRI community at large," read the resolution which will now be sent to the Ministry of Law and the Election Commission (EC).

Commission chairman Justice PD Rajan said the right to vote for NRIs is a genuine demand.

"This is the time that we step up pressure on the agencies concerned to implement this. Voting from the workplace would be a different experience for them. It would be a decisive step," he said.

This fresh development comes at a time when a petition filed in the Supreme Court on the same topic last week came before a bench headed by Justice Deepak Gupta, which considered the case and said it will be heard in April.

"We are expecting a favourable decision from the Supreme Court. We would also approach the NRI commission in other states and request them to raise the same demand," said Vayalil.

If implemented, millions of NRIs around the world would be able to exercise their franchise in the electoral processes of the nation. According to the estimate of the Ministry of External Affairs, there are about 3.10 crore NRIs.

The Ayodhya police booked a senior journalist on Wednesday for raising questions on Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath's visit to the Ram Janmabhoomi for a religious ceremony amid the lockdown over the novel coronavirus pandemic.

The FIR mentions a tweet by Siddharth Varadarajan, editor of news portal 'The Wire', where he said: "On the day the Tablighi Jamaat event was held, Adityanath insisted a large Ram Navami fair planned for Ayodhya from March 25 to April 2 would proceed as usual and that 'Lord Ram would protect devotees from the coronavirus."

Varadarajan had clarified in another tweet that it was "Acharya Paramhans, Hindutva stalwart and head of the official Ayodhya temple trust, who said Ram would protect devotees from coronavirus, and not Adityanath, though he allowed a public event on 25/3 in defiance of the lockdown and took part himself".

Taking the suo-motu cognizance, Faizabad Kotwali police station incharge Nitish Kumar Shrivastava registered an FIR under sections 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) and 505(2) (statements conducing to public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code for doing "disreputable" comment against the chief minister.

Statement by the Founding Editors of The Wire: pic.twitter.com/frw5oRxw18

— The Wire (@thewire_in) April 1, 2020
Reacting to it, Varadarajan termed the FIR "politically motivated, saying that the offences invoked were not even remotely made out.