In Gujarat, 95% of those seeking to convert are Hindus; govt tries to prevent

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.

Mumbai, Feb 12: The Income Tax department's Criminal Investigation wing has identified 2,000 Indian citizens who hold properties in Dubai but had failed to declare it in their IT returns.

In its ongoing crackdown on black money, the agency has identified Indian citizens who purchased properties in Dubai but failed to declare and explain the source of funds used to purchase these properties.

In the past few years, people have used shell companies to route illegal money and buy overseas properties to evade income tax.

However, the tax department has now increased its efforts to track down those involved in major tax evasion cases.

The 2,000 persons and companies identified mainly include businessmen, top professionals, and government officials.

The IT department will initiate action against the accused under the Black Money Act.

Citizens who own properties outside the country but fail to declare the source of funds or income used for the purchase could be prosecuted under the Black Money Act.

Under Section FA (Foreign Assets) of the Income Tax Act, an individual has to declare purchase and ownership of properties, assets, companies owned outside the country while filing the income tax returns annually.

In the recent drive against black money, the IT department identified 2,000 Indian nationals who failed to provide information on the same while filing IT returns.

Of the 2,000 citizens owning properties in Dubai, around 600 could not furnish details regarding purchase details.

Those who haven't been able to explain the source of funds used for the purchase of properties could be prosecuted and their properties can be attached by the agency.

Other than the attachment of the property, they can face a monetary penalty up to 300 per cent of the property value and also face imprisonment under the Black Money Act.

The properties owned by Indians in Dubai raised red flags as this pattern of parking money is used by money launderers, smugglers, underworld gangsters and drug traffickers for making payments.

It is worth mentioning that of the 2,000 citizens identified, most are residing in Mumbai, followed by Kerala and Gujarat.

The clause under section FA (foreign Assets) came into effect in the year 2011-12 and it is mandatory for people owning properties outside India to declare it in their IT returns.

Those identified by IT department could also face action under FEMA (Foreign Exchange Management Act) by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 4.

Recently the Enforcement Directorate (ED) launched a crackdown on black money parked overseas by tracking and identifying immovable assets bought overseas by Indian nationals illegally.

The move is being carried out under rules laid down under Section 4 of FEMA (Foregn Exchange Manipulation Act), 1999. Section 4 of FEMA states that no person resident in India shall acquire, hold, own, possess or transfer any foreign exchange, foreign security or any immovable property situated outside India.

On January 17, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) conducted searches at the residence of a former chief engineer of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) in connection with an inquiry related to FEMA.

In the raids, the ED officials recovered documents related to the purchase of a property in Dubai in an allegedly illegal manner.

The ex-BMC chief engineer was posted with some of the most crucial wings of the municipal corporation -- the building proposal department and development plan department.

The agency did not disclose the name of the ex-BMC chief engineer but it has been learnt that he had superannuated around seven years ago from the municipal corporation.

ED, in a statement, said incriminating documents with regard to illegal acquisition of a property held in Dubai was recovered during the search operation.

The former BMC chief engineer has stated that he had purchased the property in Dubai at 'Park Island, Bonaire Marsa, Dubai' for Rs 70 lakh in 2012. The property is held jointly in his name, his spouse and son.

The retired BMC officials could not furnish any documents which would help ascertain the value of the property and also could not provide details on how the payments were made to buy the property in Dubai.

The citizens identified by the IT department recently also adopted a similar route to buy property in Delhi. It remains to be seen how the income tax department plans to penalise them.

Bengaluru, Feb 10: The Rashtriya Swyamsevak Sangh (RSS) on Sunday conducted a route march (Pathsanchalan) in Ramanagara to express solidarity with the anti-Christian forces protesting against a project to install 114-feet tall Jesus Christ statue atop Kapalabetta in Harobele town in Kanakapura taluk in Ramanagara district.

Hindutva ideologue Kalladka Prabhakara Bhat, who had led a rally in Kanakapura last month against the project, also led the Sunday’s route march and addressed a public meeting following the march.

“The district name is Ramanagara, but they have not nurtured the culture of Ram here. They have developed a strong culture of Ravana, which we pledged to dislodge,” Bhat told the gathering.

He said the Sangh Parivar will never allow the statue to come up as he said it would foment religious conversion that is rampant in Harobele.

“The so called Kapalabetta is of stones, which are revered as Lord Muneswara by the Hindus. This hillock must be named as Muneswara Betta,” he added.

Referring to the ongoing protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), Bhat said the law was brought in to protect the Hindu minority in Pakistan and Bangla Desh.

“The Muslims living in India hail Pakistan. But when we ask them to go to Pakistan, they will never go,” he took a jibe at the minority community.

Reacting to the RSS route march, senior Congress functionary DK Shivakunar, who represents Kanakapura assembly seat, said the Sangah Parivar is trying to disturb the communal harmony in the district and they will never succeed in it.

“The BJP is operating through the Sangh Parivar in the Ramanagara district. The party has won as may as 26 Lok Sabha seats in Karnataka, still they are doing all these things to keep their support base. People of Ramanagara will never back them,” said Shivakumar.