Eid Milad: Holiday for schools, colleges advanced to Dec 12 in DK

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.

Udupi, May 18: G Jagadeesh, Deputy Commissioner of Udupi today warned that criminal cases would be filed, if people under quarantine roam around, as they put the lives of others in risk, by coming out.

He said: "There are more than 6,000 people under quarantine in hotels, hostels, schools etc in different parts of the district. They include those who returned from other countries and other states.”

“We have allowed them to return to the district. Now I am receiving complaints that many of them are violating quarantine guidelines and venturing out. This is unacceptable.”

“As it is a risk to the whole society, severe action will be taken against the neglect and apathy of the persons under quarantine,” he said.

Bengaluru, Feb 21: Amulya Leona, a college student, who raised to pro-Pakistan slogans to embarrass organisers of a protest against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) here on Thursday evening, has been charged with sedition.

The student-activist, who was allowed to talk on stage, suddenly raised pro-Pakistan slogans. She was arrested by police after All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief Asaduddin Owaisi snatched her mike.

Deputy Commissioner of Police Ramesh Bannoth confirmed the girl has been charged with sedition, provoking enmity between groups, and intentional insult to provoke breach of peace.

It was just after Mr. Owaisi’s arrival on the stage at Freedom Park here that the 19-year-old student was asked to speak. After preliminary remarks, she suddenly shouted “Pakistan zindabad” thrice, leaving the crowd and organisers stunned.

Some of the organisers rushed to her and tried to take the mike away and stop her from speaking further. Mr. Owaisi too joined in and snatched the mike. Holding on to the mike, the girl then went on to shout “Hindustan zindabad” twice, before a posse of police personnel and organisers whisked her away from the stage

Soon after the student was taken away, a visibly upset Mr. Owaisi told the crowd: “Whatever has been spoken [by the girl] is wrong. Neither my party nor I has any connection with it. As long as we are alive, we will be raising Bharat zindabad slogans. Never had we any relationship with Pakistan nor will we have anything in future,” he announced.

He further stated: “This is condemnable. The organisers should not have invited such people to this place. If I had known that these kind of things would be said here, I would not have come here.”

It is unfortunate that the organisers have invited such people and a wrong message is going out, he said. “Now, BJP has got an opportunity and will blame me,” he added.

Every speaker, who took the podium after the incident, condemned the pro-Pakistan slogans raised by Amulya.

Janata Dal (S) councillor representing Gurappanapalya, Imran Pasha, one of the organisers of the protest under “Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Isayi Federation”, claimed that they had not invited the “activist” and were not aware that she would be speaking from the stage. Mr. Pasha said that such statements were “a deliberate attempt to drive a wedge between Hindus and Muslims”.

Meanwhile, the BJP State unit tweeted, “Truth is that protests against CAA are a joint venture between Pakistan and anti-National forces led by INC India.” In a press release, BJP State unit president Nalin Kumar Kateel termed this as an “anti-national act” and urged the police to take action.