The Jayendra affair – lack of decorum of the media

By S. Gurumurthy (from Thuglak dated 29-12-2004)

“I was completely paralysed and bedridden. I could not walk. It is because of the grace & blessings of the Kanchi Mutt & the Kanchi Acharya that I was fully cured. I am here to tell you the whole thing….”

A lady was making an emotional speech on March 21, 2004. Just eight months ago. This was not a private conversation with a few people. She spoke this way in a public meeting at the Rathnagireeswarar temple in Adyar, organised jointly by the Sankara Medical Trust and Kanchi Sankara Foundation, in the presence of some 250 people, including several prominent citizens.

Moreover, this lady was the Chief Guest for the function. It was the 19th anniversary celebration function. It is the same lady who spoke thus – Anuradha Ramanan, who was already a well-known writer in Tamil Nadu, who became famous overnight throughout the country (perhaps internationally too). We all know the reason for her recent fame.

Since I cannot reproduce what she said in a dignified manner, I am not going to write about it in detail. However, she completely turned the story by appearing on TV channels & writing in publications that Sri Jayendrar subjected her to sexual harassment and she was paralysed because of him.

Further when she was hospitalised because of paralysis she ran away from the hospital fearing about a threat to her life from the Swamigal. When a woman accuses the Swamiji who is in jail, on a murder charge, a few yellow journals and other magazines vied with each other to publish the stories adding their own embellishments.

We all know that Sun TV & Jaya TV have been fighting like cats and dogs. The rivalry between Sun TV & Jaya TV is worse than the political differences and personal enmity between Karunanidhi & Jayalalithaa. However, both Sun TV & Jaya TV are on the same side on the Jayendrar case spreading canards about him. Normally whoever is interviewed on Sun TV will never be interviewed on Jaya TV. However, Anuradha Ramanan had an exclusive chance on both, to describe all her accusations about Jayendrar that she could never write about.

If only the TV Channels & the magazines had raised the question as to why Anuradha Ramanan is suddenly bringing up this issue, they would have come to know that she had praised the Kanchi Shankaracharya sky high and claimed that it is because of Sri Jayendrar’s compassion that she was cured of her disease.

What happens if they had asked the question and discovered the unbelievable nature of her story completely contradicting her accusations? How would they then reap a harvest by writing titillating stories? That is why the publications wrote her story by adding a lot more spice and titillating. The TV channels just picked that up.

Questions like ‘How is it that she is contradicting herself in just 9 months after praising him?’ are possible only if TV Channels & magazines are interested in the truth.

Just a few months ago, the police was rattled by the Jayalakshmi story. The police got out of that mess by the excitement of the Jayendrar story. Now there is no space in publications or time in TV for whatever is the findings of CBI. The magazines, TV Channels, the prosecution and even the CM have declared Jayendrar guilty by using people like Anuradha Ramanan, Swarnamalya and Usha. The responsibility for this lies squarely with the irresponsible, scandalous attitude of the media. Knowing fully well that this how the media would behave, people make bold and scurrilous accusations against famous people.

Anuradha Ramanan accused Jayendrar. Police indirectly accused Swarnamalya. They called her in the presence several reporters and TV cameras, asked her questions degrading the Mutt, & Vijayendrar, and created a sensation about a non-existent scandal.

Swarnamalya denied all charges. Nevertheless, magazines continued to publish various rumours about her. The police have proof the establish anything. That there is not a single honest straightforward publication to write about the injustice meted out to the Mutt, the Sankaracharya and a young girl Swarnamalya.

The case about Srirangam Usha is an even more condemnable accusation. What is surprising is that it is the government that made this accusation. When the second bail application came up for hearing before the high court, senior prosecution counsel KTS Thulsi, “There is a connection between this case and a girl called Usha. Jayendrar has spoken to her before and after the murder” thereby insinuating an illicit relationship and a murder conspiracy. He placed before the court a fantasy that “Usha is in hiding and we are looking for her”.

When such an argument is placed before the court, it will naturally hesitate to grant bail. The law does not look kindly upon bails being granted when people close to the accused are in hiding. This argument could have influenced the decision to reject the bail application. Media of course got a ‘good’ story. Thus, Thulsi killed two birds with one stone.

However, Usha appeared the next day before the police and said, “Where am I in hiding? I live with my brother in Chennai. I am a cancer patient under chemotherapy”. Thus, it became abundantly clear that prosecution’s argument in the high court was baseless. In spite of that, rumours about Usha kept appearing in the yellow press.

So what do we learn from all this? If a woman were to accuse any one – even if it were baseless – the world would believe it to be true. This is important for a woman’s self-defence. However when a woman makes such an accusation openly, it is wrong for the magazines to publish it as if it were true, without proper verification or enquiry. This is also against the code of conduct of the media.

At least now, would the TV Channels & the prospect introspect a bit what is right and not right? This is my question.

If they do not correct themselves, they themselves will be subject slander and insults.

One could ask as to why those affected do not file defamation cases. I will write next week about my experience in filing such a case. You will then know the amount of difficulties in filing a defamation case.