Twitter user schools MP Tejasvi Surya over Bengaluru history
"BJP insulting Legacy of Karnataka and Kempe Gowda"
BJP MP Tejasvi Surya was once again in troubled waters on micro-blogging site Twitter as he posted a tweet while replying to a post by another twitter user, where the MP went on to add that until Afzal Khans are ‘romanticised’ Shivaji’s vigil must continue.
He was replying to a tweet posted by user Farah Khan where in the user who had added that the people of the country are refuting the facts that under Mughals the Indian economy boasted a 24.4 percent World GDP share, higher than even China and Europe.
“I lie & d whole world does 2. But u Mr Pai know best. Are u still refuting d fact that under d Mughals d Indian Economy had 24.4 percent world GDP share higher than even China or Europe?The Mughals contributed to d period of Golden Art &Architecture &History hold that true not me” Farah had tweeted while replying to another tweet.
Tejasvi Surya jumped into the debate and added that even educated, liberal and modern Muslims romanticize Mughal rule and added that they describing ‘atrocious’ period as India's golden age proves, beneath the apparent modernism, sophistication & polish lies 16th century bigotry.
“That even 'educated', 'liberal' & 'modern' Muslims romanticise Mughal rule & describe atrocious period as India's golden age proves, beneath the apparent modernism, sophistication & polish lies 16th century bigotry. Till Afzal Khans are romanticised, Shivaji's vigil must continue” Surya wrote in his tweet.
Taking note of Surya’s remarks, another twitter user Rakshit Ponnathpur schooled Tejasvi Surya and provided his insight over the history of Bengaluru. In a series of tweets, Rakshit questioned Suray’s statement and added that Bengaluru was taken away from Kempegowda II by the joint army led by Shivaji’s father and Ranadullah Khan of Bijapur.
Here are the tweets of Rakshit while replying to Tejasvi Surya. He elaborated his insights in eight tweets’ thread that has received mixed reactions by other users. Surya however is yet to reply to Rakshit’s thread.
“The Bengaluru you represent in Parliament was taken away from Kempegowda II by the joint army led by Shivaji's father & Ranadullah Khan of Bijapur. Wodeyars got Bengaluru back 60 years later from Shivaji's brother by paying 3 lakhs to the Mughal king Aurangzeb. Whose vigil again?” Rakshit wrote in his first tweet.
“Kempegowda had to flee Bengaluru to save his life and remain in exile for a while, sign treaties and settle for a small, barren area that was Magadi. Hence, Magadi Kempegowda. The horrors of the invasion are vividly described in Bengalurina Itihasa, a magnum opus on the city.” He further added
“History is complicated. Not simple Hindu Muslim binary which is the only lens you can apply. Marathas, partnered with Nizams, Bijapur & Mughals alternatively and wreaked havoc on many of Karnataka's Hindu rulers and kingdoms. Can you talk about it? Whose history is jaundiced?” he went on to add.
“I wonder why @INCKarnataka & @JanataDal_S haven't exposed the history of Maratha rulers in Karnataka yet. The next time Tejasvi Surya talks of Shivaji, DKS & HDK should ask why Shivaji's father did what he did to our Kempegowda, despite the latter being a devout Hindu.
“This entire charade of showering adulation on Maratha rulers by @BJP4Karnataka is tremendously disrespectful to the state, her self-respect, and her rich legacy and history. They are all celebrated enough in Maharashtra. So leave that job to the people of Maharashtra.
“This thread is not intended to demonise Maratha rulers in any way. It is only intended to expose the over simplification of history. For that, even I have chosen only selected events. So in a way, mine is also an oversimplification. They only did what everyone else did back then-
“Ally with whom they felt they needed to consolidate & expand power. Friends turned foes and became friends again. This was the story of all the kingdoms and empires. Muslim rulers had Hindu commanders and vice versa. Muslim & Hindu kingdoms allied also, fought also.
“In summary, the politics of that time was very complicated. Reducing all of that to Hindu vs Muslim to paint a very flawed and inaccurate picture of the existence of a valiant Hindu unity against Islamic brutality, is very wrong. Shivaji & Shivaji's family allied with many Khans” Rakshit added in his thread while concluding.
That even 'educated', 'liberal' & 'modern' Muslims romanticise Mughal rule & describe atrocious period as India's golden age proves, beneath the apparent modernism, sophistication & polish lies 16th century bigotry
— Tejasvi Surya (@Tejasvi_Surya) May 3, 2020
Till Afzal Khans are romanticised, Shivaji's vigil must continue https://t.co/7PI9DzNgOu
The Bengaluru you represent in Parliament was taken away from Kempegowda II by the joint army led by Shivaji's father & Ranadullah Khan of Bijapur. Wodeyars got Bengaluru back 60 years later from Shivaji's brother by paying 3 lakhs to the Mughal king Aurangzeb. Whose vigil again? https://t.co/gwDha5lL6q
— Rakshith ಪೊನ್ನಾಥಪುರ (@PonnathPuraaNa) May 3, 2020
The Bengaluru you represent in Parliament was taken away from Kempegowda II by the joint army led by Shivaji's father & Ranadullah Khan of Bijapur. Wodeyars got Bengaluru back 60 years later from Shivaji's brother by paying 3 lakhs to the Mughal king Aurangzeb. Whose vigil again? https://t.co/gwDha5lL6q
— Rakshith ಪೊನ್ನಾಥಪುರ (@PonnathPuraaNa) May 3, 2020
History is complicated. Not simple Hindu Muslim binary which is the only lens you can apply. Marathas, partnered with Nizams, Bijapur & Mughals alternatively and wreaked havoc on many of Karnataka's Hindu rulers and kingdoms. Can you talk about it? Whose history is jaundiced?
— Rakshith ಪೊನ್ನಾಥಪುರ (@PonnathPuraaNa) May 3, 2020
I wonder why @INCKarnataka & @JanataDal_S haven't exposed the history of Maratha rulers in Karnataka yet. The next time Tejasvi Surya talks of Shivaji, DKS & HDK should ask why Shivaji's father did what he did to our Kempegowda, despite the latter being a devout Hindu.
— Rakshith ಪೊನ್ನಾಥಪುರ (@PonnathPuraaNa) May 3, 2020
This entire charade of showering adulation on Maratha rulers by @BJP4Karnataka is tremendously disrespectful to the state, her self-respect, and her rich legacy and history. They are all celebrated enough in Maharashtra. So leave that job to the people of Maharashtra.
— Rakshith ಪೊನ್ನಾಥಪುರ (@PonnathPuraaNa) May 3, 2020
This thread is not intended to demonise Maratha rulers in any way. It is only intended to expose the over simplification of history. For that, even I have chosen only selected events. So in a way, mine is also an oversimplification. They only did what everyone else did back then-
— Rakshith ಪೊನ್ನಾಥಪುರ (@PonnathPuraaNa) May 3, 2020
Ally with whom they felt they needed to consolidate & expand power. Friends turned foes and became friends again. This was the story of all the kingdoms and empires. Muslim rulers had Hindu commanders and vice versa. Muslim & Hindu kingdoms allied also, fought also.
— Rakshith ಪೊನ್ನಾಥಪುರ (@PonnathPuraaNa) May 3, 2020
In summary, the politics of that time was very complicated. Reducing all of that to Hindu vs Muslim to paint a very flawed and inaccurate picture of the existence of a valiant Hindu unity against Islamic brutality, is very wrong. Shivaji & Shivaji's family allied with many Khans.
— Rakshith ಪೊನ್ನಾಥಪುರ (@PonnathPuraaNa) May 3, 2020
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Plea on stray dogs mentioned in SC, CJI says he 'will look into it'
New Delhi (PTI): "I will look into it," Chief Justice of India B R Gavai assured on Wednesday when a plea relating to stray dogs was mentioned for urgent hearing in the Supreme Court.
The plea by the Conference for Human Rights (India) was mentioned before a bench of the chief justice and Justice K Vinod Chandran by a lawyer.
Another bench has already passed an order in relation to stray dogs, the CJI pointed out.
On August 11, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan observed that instances of dog bites had given rise to an "extremely grim" situation and ordered the permanent relocation of all strays in Delhi-NCR "at the earliest".
On Wednesday, the lawyer referred to a May 2024 order passed by a bench led by Justice J K Maheshwari relegating petitions relating to the stray dog issue to respective high courts.
The CJI then assured that he will look into it.
The plea by Conference for Human Rights (India) claims the Animal Birth Control (Dog) Rules, 2001 mandating regular sterilisation and immunisation programmes for stray dogs to curtail their growing population are not being complied with.
In its August 11 ruling, the apex court also said dog shelters will have to be augmented over time and directed Delhi authorities to start with creating shelters of around 5,000 canines within six to eight weeks.
Besides, the bench warned of strict action against an individual or organisation in case of any kind of obstruction in the relocation drive that might also prompt the court to initiate contempt proceedings.
