Chennai Online News Service
New Delhi, Oct 26: Shifting the Sankararaman murder case to Pondicherry, the Supreme Court today observed that there was a case for "reasonable apprehension" that the accused will not get justice in Tamil Nadu.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice R C Lahoti and Justice G P Mathur also felt that the Tamil Nadu government was showing "interest in securing the conviction of the seer and halting the religious activities of the Kanchi mutt."
The trial will now be shifted from the Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, to Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, a Union Territory where too Tamil is the language of court proceedings.
The Bench said, "We are of the opinion to transfer the case to Pondicherry as there will be no difficulty in recording the evidence in the same language (Tamil) in which all the witnesses would depose."
The apex court criticised the prosecuting agencies for showing "extra interest" in the case only on the ground that the Sankaracharya, who has been chargesheeted in the case for allegedly entering into conspiracy to murder, is the head of the mutt.
"It leads to an inference that state machinery is not only interested in securing conviction of the petitioner (seer) and other co-accused but also bringing to a complete halt the entire religious and other activities of the various trusts and endowments and the performance of pooja and other rituals in the temples and religious places in accordance with the customs and traditions and thereby create a fear psychosis in the minds of the people," the court observed.
The court said the action of freezing the accounts of the mutt demonstrates as to what extent the state machinery can go while prosecuting the seer in the Sankararaman murder case.
"The freezing of all the accounts (183) of the mutt and its associated trusts and endowments is a clear pointer to the fact that the state machinery anyhow wants to paralyse the entire working of the mutt and the associate trusts and endowments in order to put pressure upon the seer and other co-accused who are in the manner connected with the mutt so that they may not able to defend themselves," it said.
Justice Mathur, writing the 41-page judgement for the Bench, said the materials placed on record satisfies that various hurdles have been created by the state machinery in the case for the accused persons and criticised the prosecuting agencies for targeting the counsel, including senior advocates, who stood for the defence of the acharya.
"From the material placed before us, we are prima facie satisfied that a situation has arisen in the present case wherein the lawyers engaged by the petitioner and other co-accused cannot perform their professional duty in a proper and dignified manner on account of various hurdles created by the state machinery.
"The affidavits and the documents placed on record conclusively establish that a serious attempt has been made by the state machinery to launch criminal prosecution against lawyers, who may be even remotely connected with the defence of the accused," the Bench said.
The court took strong exception to the Tamil Nadu government's attempt to "stifle even publication of any article or expression of dissent in media or press, interviews by journalists or persons who have held high positions in public life and are wholly unconnected with the criminal case." (Agencies)
Published: Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Politics behind Kanchi Seer’s arrest
By Vijay Rana
A divided society, distorted law and the politics of competitive
When the state begins to misuse its powers no body is safe. Today we have seen the arrest and the subsequent humiliation of a Hindu saint; tomorrow another mercurial chief minister might order the arrest a Muslim Imam or a Christian bishop. Those gloating at the arrest of Shankaracharya should remember that the politics of religion is bad for all.
Whether the Kanchi Shankaracharya, Jayendra Saraswati, has a hand in the murder of Shankararaman, the manager of the Varadarajaperumal temple, most of us do not know. Moreover, the manner of arrest and the treatment of the law enforcing agencies, the police and judiciary, arouse many questions that must be sensibly debated and dispassionately discussed in a free and democratic society.
But one of the major obstructions to free debate is that most of us are blinded by sectional and class interests. And such people, our politicians know, could easily be shepherded in the desired direction. It’s no secret that the desire to consolidate anti-Brahmin vote prompted both Karunanidhi and Jayalalitha to take tough action against Shankaracharya.
Though Karunanidhi is now trying to be clever to blame Jayalalitha for the harsh treatment of Shankaracharya. Let’s hope both Brahmin and non-Brahmins of Tamil Nadu are able to see through his cynical manipulation. And that is the biggest problem of Indian democracy. In recent years whether it is Gujarat, Bihar or Tamil Nadu our people have shown an increasing tendency to fall prey to the divisive political calculations of our politicians.
Another worrying aspect of the Shankaracharya affair has been the intellectual polarisation reflected in the media. One hue of column writers expressed satisfaction at the fact that barring Brahmins nobody was bothered by the arrest; those on the other end of spectrum described it a calculated assault on Hinduism. Those who argued against the arrest of the Kanchi Shankaracharya were branded as sympathisers of the Hindu fundamentalists and those who supported the arrest became champions of secularism and pro-Dalit movements. It was either black or white. To some the Shankaracharya was a God and to others a demon. Intellectual extremism is more dangerous than political extremism because intellectuals provide to ammunition of ideas to fire the flames of political extremism.
Thank god the Shankaracharya’s followers have so far behaved with great restraints. One could sense the hurt and consequent tension simmering in Tamil Nadu. You need one stupid man to spark a Brahmin versus non-Brahmin riot in the state.
Of course the manner of Shankaracharya’s arrest has raised many questions that should be discussed dispassionately without being blinded by political loyalties.
The first issue is about hurting the sentiments of a particular community. Shouldn't’t this principle be applied universally to all communities in India? The obvious answer would be, yes.
Shankaracharya is the head of one of the most ancient institutions of the Hindu religion. He is worshipped by millions of devotees. But there were politicians, particularly from parties like the DMK, the CPI, CPI (M) and RJD, who were gleefully smiling at the discomfiture of the Hindu saint. If community leaders indulge in mocking at each other’s difficulties we are entering in an age of competitive hatred.
One the other hand it was really heartening to see some Muslim organisations setting an extraordinary example of social understanding and communal empathy. The All India Organisation of Imams of Mosques (AIOIM) issued a descent and a very dignified statement: "AIOIM notes with consternation and deep regret the actions of the Tamil Nadu government and politicians that have culminated in the arrest of the highly respected Shankaracharya. The entire Muslim society is saddened and shocked with this reprehensible action…The Muslim community hold the seer with great respect, particularly in view of his "constructive" approach in solving Ayodhya problem and hoped the government will not allow inimical groups to subvert impartial inquiry and application of law in his case.”
And that brings us to another comment that we have repeatedly heard about Shankaracharya’s arrest – ‘the law should take its due course’. Unfortunately this has now become the main point of contention. How come the law suddenly woke up in the middle of the night, on the eve of the biggest Hindu festival to arrest one of the most respected Hindu leaders? And how come the state police was literally waked up a sleeping magistrate early in the morning to help them to put the Seer in the jail. And why did the magistrate deny Shankaracharya the opportunity of legal representation, a basic right of any accused?
The prosecution put forward some ludicrous arguments that the old man was conspiring to fly away to Nepal and if allowed to cook his food he would commit suicide by poisoning his own food. The judge, convinced by these arguments, refused bail. If that was ‘the due course of law’, the law was surely treading upon an undue and undeserving course.
No one was in doubt that it all happened on the orders of the all-powerful Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha, known for her legendary vengeance. Remember it was on her orders that her arch-opponent Karunanidhi was once dragged out of his house by the police, again in the middle of the night, and it was on her orders that another state leader Vaiko was put in jail for months under the draconian POTA.
Certainly, the so-called ‘due course of law’ in India varies according to the friendly or unfriendliness of the accused with those in power. For politicians and politically connected people in India ‘the due course of law’ means years of litigation and a guaranteed acquittal. Tantrik Chandraswami is the most recent example of this.
So Shankaracharya must be confident that in the end he will be acquitted. The process already seems to have begun with two of the accused saying that they named Shankaracharya under police torture.
He must also take heart from the examples of the long legion of politicians accused of more serious crimes and still happily going through the ‘due course of law’. Laloo Yadav, who presided over the fodder scam, virtually emptying the state exchequer, is still going strong as per the due course of law. Shibu Soren, now preparing to become the next Chief Minister of Jharkahand, was also accused of committing a murder but the due course of law allowed him to hide for as many days as he wanted and then an obliging judge gave him the bail. Taslimuddin, another central minister who has been terrorising local community for years, confidently boasts that nothing has ever been proved against him in a court of law. And Sadhu Yadav has been enjoying more comforts in jail than Shankaracharya, including the freedom to go in and out of prison as and when he wants.
Also look at the BJP in Gujarat, their rabble-rousing MLAs, seen openly inciting violence during the recent riots, remain totally untroubled by the due course of law, as we all know most of the witnesses have been either threatened to remain silent or bought off.
Subverting the course of justice has itself been a serious crime in all the civilised societies of the world. But democratic India remains a glaring exception where powerful politicians either misuse the process of law to harass its opponents or undermine it to carry on their criminal adventures.
Shankaracharya’s arrest once again proved that our politicians do not mind undermining peace and social harmony to fulfil their political interests.
PS: Despite numerous appeals by Hindu saints, organisations and many political leaders, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, while denying any hand of the federal government in the affair, remained quiet on the affair for almost fourteen days. And then he wrote a letter the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha. He wrote: "An investigation involving a person of his eminence needs to be conducted with extreme care and consideration … I believe that the Government of Tamil Nadu has had to take this extreme step of arresting Swamiji keeping in view the gravity of the allegations against His Holiness in the murder case…Whereas it is extremely important that due processes of law must not be interfered with and that law must be allowed to take its own course…” Indeed, a great balancing act.
Vijay Rana www.historytalking.com
A divided society, distorted law and the politics of competitive
When the state begins to misuse its powers no body is safe. Today we have seen the arrest and the subsequent humiliation of a Hindu saint; tomorrow another mercurial chief minister might order the arrest a Muslim Imam or a Christian bishop. Those gloating at the arrest of Shankaracharya should remember that the politics of religion is bad for all.
Whether the Kanchi Shankaracharya, Jayendra Saraswati, has a hand in the murder of Shankararaman, the manager of the Varadarajaperumal temple, most of us do not know. Moreover, the manner of arrest and the treatment of the law enforcing agencies, the police and judiciary, arouse many questions that must be sensibly debated and dispassionately discussed in a free and democratic society.
But one of the major obstructions to free debate is that most of us are blinded by sectional and class interests. And such people, our politicians know, could easily be shepherded in the desired direction. It’s no secret that the desire to consolidate anti-Brahmin vote prompted both Karunanidhi and Jayalalitha to take tough action against Shankaracharya.
Though Karunanidhi is now trying to be clever to blame Jayalalitha for the harsh treatment of Shankaracharya. Let’s hope both Brahmin and non-Brahmins of Tamil Nadu are able to see through his cynical manipulation. And that is the biggest problem of Indian democracy. In recent years whether it is Gujarat, Bihar or Tamil Nadu our people have shown an increasing tendency to fall prey to the divisive political calculations of our politicians.
Another worrying aspect of the Shankaracharya affair has been the intellectual polarisation reflected in the media. One hue of column writers expressed satisfaction at the fact that barring Brahmins nobody was bothered by the arrest; those on the other end of spectrum described it a calculated assault on Hinduism. Those who argued against the arrest of the Kanchi Shankaracharya were branded as sympathisers of the Hindu fundamentalists and those who supported the arrest became champions of secularism and pro-Dalit movements. It was either black or white. To some the Shankaracharya was a God and to others a demon. Intellectual extremism is more dangerous than political extremism because intellectuals provide to ammunition of ideas to fire the flames of political extremism.
Thank god the Shankaracharya’s followers have so far behaved with great restraints. One could sense the hurt and consequent tension simmering in Tamil Nadu. You need one stupid man to spark a Brahmin versus non-Brahmin riot in the state.
Of course the manner of Shankaracharya’s arrest has raised many questions that should be discussed dispassionately without being blinded by political loyalties.
The first issue is about hurting the sentiments of a particular community. Shouldn't’t this principle be applied universally to all communities in India? The obvious answer would be, yes.
Shankaracharya is the head of one of the most ancient institutions of the Hindu religion. He is worshipped by millions of devotees. But there were politicians, particularly from parties like the DMK, the CPI, CPI (M) and RJD, who were gleefully smiling at the discomfiture of the Hindu saint. If community leaders indulge in mocking at each other’s difficulties we are entering in an age of competitive hatred.
One the other hand it was really heartening to see some Muslim organisations setting an extraordinary example of social understanding and communal empathy. The All India Organisation of Imams of Mosques (AIOIM) issued a descent and a very dignified statement: "AIOIM notes with consternation and deep regret the actions of the Tamil Nadu government and politicians that have culminated in the arrest of the highly respected Shankaracharya. The entire Muslim society is saddened and shocked with this reprehensible action…The Muslim community hold the seer with great respect, particularly in view of his "constructive" approach in solving Ayodhya problem and hoped the government will not allow inimical groups to subvert impartial inquiry and application of law in his case.”
And that brings us to another comment that we have repeatedly heard about Shankaracharya’s arrest – ‘the law should take its due course’. Unfortunately this has now become the main point of contention. How come the law suddenly woke up in the middle of the night, on the eve of the biggest Hindu festival to arrest one of the most respected Hindu leaders? And how come the state police was literally waked up a sleeping magistrate early in the morning to help them to put the Seer in the jail. And why did the magistrate deny Shankaracharya the opportunity of legal representation, a basic right of any accused?
The prosecution put forward some ludicrous arguments that the old man was conspiring to fly away to Nepal and if allowed to cook his food he would commit suicide by poisoning his own food. The judge, convinced by these arguments, refused bail. If that was ‘the due course of law’, the law was surely treading upon an undue and undeserving course.
No one was in doubt that it all happened on the orders of the all-powerful Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha, known for her legendary vengeance. Remember it was on her orders that her arch-opponent Karunanidhi was once dragged out of his house by the police, again in the middle of the night, and it was on her orders that another state leader Vaiko was put in jail for months under the draconian POTA.
Certainly, the so-called ‘due course of law’ in India varies according to the friendly or unfriendliness of the accused with those in power. For politicians and politically connected people in India ‘the due course of law’ means years of litigation and a guaranteed acquittal. Tantrik Chandraswami is the most recent example of this.
So Shankaracharya must be confident that in the end he will be acquitted. The process already seems to have begun with two of the accused saying that they named Shankaracharya under police torture.
He must also take heart from the examples of the long legion of politicians accused of more serious crimes and still happily going through the ‘due course of law’. Laloo Yadav, who presided over the fodder scam, virtually emptying the state exchequer, is still going strong as per the due course of law. Shibu Soren, now preparing to become the next Chief Minister of Jharkahand, was also accused of committing a murder but the due course of law allowed him to hide for as many days as he wanted and then an obliging judge gave him the bail. Taslimuddin, another central minister who has been terrorising local community for years, confidently boasts that nothing has ever been proved against him in a court of law. And Sadhu Yadav has been enjoying more comforts in jail than Shankaracharya, including the freedom to go in and out of prison as and when he wants.
Also look at the BJP in Gujarat, their rabble-rousing MLAs, seen openly inciting violence during the recent riots, remain totally untroubled by the due course of law, as we all know most of the witnesses have been either threatened to remain silent or bought off.
Subverting the course of justice has itself been a serious crime in all the civilised societies of the world. But democratic India remains a glaring exception where powerful politicians either misuse the process of law to harass its opponents or undermine it to carry on their criminal adventures.
Shankaracharya’s arrest once again proved that our politicians do not mind undermining peace and social harmony to fulfil their political interests.
PS: Despite numerous appeals by Hindu saints, organisations and many political leaders, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, while denying any hand of the federal government in the affair, remained quiet on the affair for almost fourteen days. And then he wrote a letter the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha. He wrote: "An investigation involving a person of his eminence needs to be conducted with extreme care and consideration … I believe that the Government of Tamil Nadu has had to take this extreme step of arresting Swamiji keeping in view the gravity of the allegations against His Holiness in the murder case…Whereas it is extremely important that due processes of law must not be interfered with and that law must be allowed to take its own course…” Indeed, a great balancing act.
Vijay Rana www.historytalking.com
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
The 'blinkered' rights
The first phase of the Kanchipeeth Shankaracharya episode lasted a couple of months. It began with the arrest of Jayendra Saraswati in Mehbubnagar in Andhra Pradesh and ended with his bail being granted by Supreme Court. This was followed by the junior pontiff Vijyendra Saraswati being bailed out by a local court.
In the second phase, it seems, journalists and media houses are being targeted. The chief target is S Gurumurthy. Being a devotee of the Kanchikamkoti Peetham, Gurumurthy plunged headlong to save the 2,500-year-old mutt through his columns in The New Indian Express.
Jayalalitha has targeted him and the publishers of The New Indian Express and Tughlak for his writings. She has a history of filing more than 200 defamation cases against various Tamil Nadu publications, including The Hindu. She regards the Press as an adversary and journalists as troublemakers. The Press in Tamil Nadu is not as free as in Mumbai and New Delhi. The Daily Dinamalar which has been publishing news items and features sympathetic to the mutt, too, has been at the receiving end.
Had Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi done this, the Editors Guild of India, journalist organisations and intellectuals of all hues would have launched protests. But the messiahs of Press freedom are mum. Why? After all, is it not clear that after the bail of Jayendra Saraswati, the Tamil Nadu Government had no prima facie case against him? Yet Vijayendra Saraswati was arrested without any additional facts in the Shankararaman murder case. Are Shankaracharyas not entitled to human rights?
Earlier, S Gurumurthy was summoned by the police to clarify certain things. The entire session was taped and part of it mixed with falsehood leaked to the Tamil weekly Nakkeeran alongwith pictures. At this juncture, Jayalalitha decided to arrest him. As luck would have it, the police could not trace him in Chennai as Gurumurthy had an official engagement in Mumbai. From Mumbai, advocate Mahesh Jethmalani faxed a notice to SIT SP Chennai on behalf of his client, inter-alia stating that his client would file a case against SIT. He also told him that his client has professional engagements till February 25 and he will come back to Chennai on February 26. Further, his Chennai lawyer R Shankaranarayanan, in a legal notice sent to SIT SP Premkumar, ASP SP Saktivelu and ADSP Udhay Shankar, said: "Now that you have deliberately leaked information to the media, you cannot have any objection to giving a CD or copy of the recorded video tape to my client.''
Gurumurthy was examined by SIT for writing articles, which, according to SIT, "throw the cue that you are acquainted with the facts and circumstances of this murder case.''
According to Shankaranarayanan, the SIT never took the consent of Gurumurthy for recording his statements and it was illegal. Stating that Gurumurthy was convinced that the statements attributed to him and the three photographs which appeared in Nakkeeran must have been leaked out by SIT, Shankaranarayanan said that while some statements were correct, others weren't.
Shankaranarayanan pointed out that no statement or any record, including photo or video records, shall be used for any purpose other than at any inquiry or trial in respect of the offence under investigation. In his writings, Gurumurthy has raised some uncomfortable questions. Going by her nature, Jayalalitha seems determined to arrest him. Maybe, for tactical reasons, bailable sections of the IPC have been inserted in the arrest warrant, but the whimsical State Government may add other charges to make a strong case under the non-bailable sections.
Those activists who were raising a hue and cry about Press freedom in Nepal haven't condemned the harassment of Daily Dinamalar, questioning veteran journalist Cho Ramaswamy and The New Indian Express managing director Manoj Santhalia. All these journalists and organisations have traditionally been more anti-DMK than anti-Jayalalitha.
The hostility of the Chief Minister towards them is compounding and attaining threatening levels. No human rights organisation has raised its voice against these atrocities of the State Government.
But this can be understood, for most of the so-called human rights organisations are foreign funded. For them, terrorists, separatists and extremists have human rights, not law abiding citizens, least of all the Shankaracharyas.
In the second phase, it seems, journalists and media houses are being targeted. The chief target is S Gurumurthy. Being a devotee of the Kanchikamkoti Peetham, Gurumurthy plunged headlong to save the 2,500-year-old mutt through his columns in The New Indian Express.
Jayalalitha has targeted him and the publishers of The New Indian Express and Tughlak for his writings. She has a history of filing more than 200 defamation cases against various Tamil Nadu publications, including The Hindu. She regards the Press as an adversary and journalists as troublemakers. The Press in Tamil Nadu is not as free as in Mumbai and New Delhi. The Daily Dinamalar which has been publishing news items and features sympathetic to the mutt, too, has been at the receiving end.
Had Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi done this, the Editors Guild of India, journalist organisations and intellectuals of all hues would have launched protests. But the messiahs of Press freedom are mum. Why? After all, is it not clear that after the bail of Jayendra Saraswati, the Tamil Nadu Government had no prima facie case against him? Yet Vijayendra Saraswati was arrested without any additional facts in the Shankararaman murder case. Are Shankaracharyas not entitled to human rights?
Earlier, S Gurumurthy was summoned by the police to clarify certain things. The entire session was taped and part of it mixed with falsehood leaked to the Tamil weekly Nakkeeran alongwith pictures. At this juncture, Jayalalitha decided to arrest him. As luck would have it, the police could not trace him in Chennai as Gurumurthy had an official engagement in Mumbai. From Mumbai, advocate Mahesh Jethmalani faxed a notice to SIT SP Chennai on behalf of his client, inter-alia stating that his client would file a case against SIT. He also told him that his client has professional engagements till February 25 and he will come back to Chennai on February 26. Further, his Chennai lawyer R Shankaranarayanan, in a legal notice sent to SIT SP Premkumar, ASP SP Saktivelu and ADSP Udhay Shankar, said: "Now that you have deliberately leaked information to the media, you cannot have any objection to giving a CD or copy of the recorded video tape to my client.''
Gurumurthy was examined by SIT for writing articles, which, according to SIT, "throw the cue that you are acquainted with the facts and circumstances of this murder case.''
According to Shankaranarayanan, the SIT never took the consent of Gurumurthy for recording his statements and it was illegal. Stating that Gurumurthy was convinced that the statements attributed to him and the three photographs which appeared in Nakkeeran must have been leaked out by SIT, Shankaranarayanan said that while some statements were correct, others weren't.
Shankaranarayanan pointed out that no statement or any record, including photo or video records, shall be used for any purpose other than at any inquiry or trial in respect of the offence under investigation. In his writings, Gurumurthy has raised some uncomfortable questions. Going by her nature, Jayalalitha seems determined to arrest him. Maybe, for tactical reasons, bailable sections of the IPC have been inserted in the arrest warrant, but the whimsical State Government may add other charges to make a strong case under the non-bailable sections.
Those activists who were raising a hue and cry about Press freedom in Nepal haven't condemned the harassment of Daily Dinamalar, questioning veteran journalist Cho Ramaswamy and The New Indian Express managing director Manoj Santhalia. All these journalists and organisations have traditionally been more anti-DMK than anti-Jayalalitha.
The hostility of the Chief Minister towards them is compounding and attaining threatening levels. No human rights organisation has raised its voice against these atrocities of the State Government.
But this can be understood, for most of the so-called human rights organisations are foreign funded. For them, terrorists, separatists and extremists have human rights, not law abiding citizens, least of all the Shankaracharyas.
“Quis costodiet ipsos custodies? (Who will watch the watchers?)
excerpts from http://sankaracharyaarticles.blogspot.com/
Apart from the odd article in the Tamil Press, we were unable to find any detailed coverage of erstwhile Kanchi Mutt manager Sundaresa Iyer’s Habeas Corpus hearing.
Yet, this case has significance for the entire Tamil public, if not the nation, as it touches on fundamental questions of governance and the limits of police power. Any judgments handed down in this case will, directly or indirectly, impact Tamilians’ lives, and the degree of power the Executive branch of the State Government has over them.
If this article from Tamil daily Dinakaran (translated here) is accurate, then the Tamil Nadu Government is staking the claim that anyone accused of participation in a gruesome murder can be preventively detained under the Goonda’s Act, and thence become ineligible for bail for upto a year.
The Prosecution’s argument appears to be that, since gruesome murders (especially those committed in daylight) disturb the public peace, the Goonda’s Act can be applied to anyone merely accused of such a crime.
It is a bit difficult to discern how exactly the public peace was disturbed in this case. The unfortunate victim was murdered way back in September of last year – more than 6 months ago! What public disturbance has occurred in Kanchipuram since then? Were there any riots back in October or November?
Since the Sankaracharya’s arrest, there have been demonstrations in Vellore, Chennai and all across Tamil Nadu. Most of them have occurred under the watchful eyes of intense police security, with hardly any violence, save a skirmish or two. In fact, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu herself was so unimpressed by these events that she declared in the Tamil Nadu assembley on November 18th: “These steps (referring to the Sankaracharya’s arrest) have not led to any law and order problem in Tamil Nadu.” (The Hindu, Nov 18, 2004).
In any case, those public protests, immediately suppressed ruthlessly by police, arose in response to the Sankaracharya’s arrest, an action the Tamil Nadu Government took. What do these - bye and large peaceful - protests have to do with Sri Sundaresa Iyer?
The Government’s contention that Sri Sankarraman’s gruesome murder disturbed the public peace is not only untenable, but, even if granted, wholly irrelevant to Sundaresa Iyer’s petition.
Moreover, the rationale given by the Prosecutor for invoking the Goonda’s Act is itself arbitrary. Is anyone accused of murder to be detained preventively now? After all, what murder isn’t gruesome?
If the Prosecution’s argument is upheld, anyone in Tamil Nadu need only be accused of a murder in order to be thrown in prison by executive order for up to a year, with no opportunity for bail, and no due process of law. In Sundaresa Iyer’s case, no court has ever examined the evidence to say whether even a prima facie case exists against him. Yet, Sri Sundaresa Iyer is locked up in a cell, and cannot even get a bail hearing before a judge because the Goonda’s Act has been slapped on him.
Is society served by such a state of affairs? What would limit the Executive branch from curtailing the liberty of any individual, effectively suo moto? What would stop any dishonest cop from getting anyone he bears a grudge against - or who won’t pay him protection money - charged of such a crime, and thrown into prison as Sundaresa Iyer has? What would protect a sitting Government’s political opponent or even civilian critics of the Executive from the same treatment?
Who, as the Roman poet asked, will watch over the watchers? This broad an interpretation of the Goonda’s Preventive Detention Act is surely an invitation to tyranny. That an individual so accused could file a Habeas Corpus plea before the courts is simply insufficient remedy. Sundaresa Iyer has now spent 95 days in prison. It is simply unacceptable that any accused, presumed innocent until proven guilty, should be deprived of due process in this manner.
It is the Executive’s power that must be curtailed at the outset. Any law, most especially one that allows preventive detention, must be applied judiciously – with restraint. That has simply not been the case here.
Meanwhile, we are appalled by the paltry coverage of this case in the media-at-large. When such grave public issues are involved, the press ought to at the very least show up. Instead, the English Language Media has largely absconded. The issues in this case surely deserve national attention and public debate. Where is The Indian Express or The Hindustan Times? Where, for that matter, is Chennai-based ‘The Hindu’? Here arise fundamental questions about the limits of police power – Where have all the secular humanists run?
George Washington once said: "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
Apart from the odd article in the Tamil Press, we were unable to find any detailed coverage of erstwhile Kanchi Mutt manager Sundaresa Iyer’s Habeas Corpus hearing.
Yet, this case has significance for the entire Tamil public, if not the nation, as it touches on fundamental questions of governance and the limits of police power. Any judgments handed down in this case will, directly or indirectly, impact Tamilians’ lives, and the degree of power the Executive branch of the State Government has over them.
If this article from Tamil daily Dinakaran (translated here) is accurate, then the Tamil Nadu Government is staking the claim that anyone accused of participation in a gruesome murder can be preventively detained under the Goonda’s Act, and thence become ineligible for bail for upto a year.
The Prosecution’s argument appears to be that, since gruesome murders (especially those committed in daylight) disturb the public peace, the Goonda’s Act can be applied to anyone merely accused of such a crime.
It is a bit difficult to discern how exactly the public peace was disturbed in this case. The unfortunate victim was murdered way back in September of last year – more than 6 months ago! What public disturbance has occurred in Kanchipuram since then? Were there any riots back in October or November?
Since the Sankaracharya’s arrest, there have been demonstrations in Vellore, Chennai and all across Tamil Nadu. Most of them have occurred under the watchful eyes of intense police security, with hardly any violence, save a skirmish or two. In fact, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu herself was so unimpressed by these events that she declared in the Tamil Nadu assembley on November 18th: “These steps (referring to the Sankaracharya’s arrest) have not led to any law and order problem in Tamil Nadu.” (The Hindu, Nov 18, 2004).
In any case, those public protests, immediately suppressed ruthlessly by police, arose in response to the Sankaracharya’s arrest, an action the Tamil Nadu Government took. What do these - bye and large peaceful - protests have to do with Sri Sundaresa Iyer?
The Government’s contention that Sri Sankarraman’s gruesome murder disturbed the public peace is not only untenable, but, even if granted, wholly irrelevant to Sundaresa Iyer’s petition.
Moreover, the rationale given by the Prosecutor for invoking the Goonda’s Act is itself arbitrary. Is anyone accused of murder to be detained preventively now? After all, what murder isn’t gruesome?
If the Prosecution’s argument is upheld, anyone in Tamil Nadu need only be accused of a murder in order to be thrown in prison by executive order for up to a year, with no opportunity for bail, and no due process of law. In Sundaresa Iyer’s case, no court has ever examined the evidence to say whether even a prima facie case exists against him. Yet, Sri Sundaresa Iyer is locked up in a cell, and cannot even get a bail hearing before a judge because the Goonda’s Act has been slapped on him.
Is society served by such a state of affairs? What would limit the Executive branch from curtailing the liberty of any individual, effectively suo moto? What would stop any dishonest cop from getting anyone he bears a grudge against - or who won’t pay him protection money - charged of such a crime, and thrown into prison as Sundaresa Iyer has? What would protect a sitting Government’s political opponent or even civilian critics of the Executive from the same treatment?
Who, as the Roman poet asked, will watch over the watchers? This broad an interpretation of the Goonda’s Preventive Detention Act is surely an invitation to tyranny. That an individual so accused could file a Habeas Corpus plea before the courts is simply insufficient remedy. Sundaresa Iyer has now spent 95 days in prison. It is simply unacceptable that any accused, presumed innocent until proven guilty, should be deprived of due process in this manner.
It is the Executive’s power that must be curtailed at the outset. Any law, most especially one that allows preventive detention, must be applied judiciously – with restraint. That has simply not been the case here.
Meanwhile, we are appalled by the paltry coverage of this case in the media-at-large. When such grave public issues are involved, the press ought to at the very least show up. Instead, the English Language Media has largely absconded. The issues in this case surely deserve national attention and public debate. Where is The Indian Express or The Hindustan Times? Where, for that matter, is Chennai-based ‘The Hindu’? Here arise fundamental questions about the limits of police power – Where have all the secular humanists run?
George Washington once said: "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
Monday, March 28, 2005
Kanchi seer returns to mutt, performs puja
Press Trust Of India
Monday, March 28, 2005
Kancheepuram, March 28: Kanchi seer Jayendra Saraswathi on Monday visited the Sankara mutt for the first time since his arrest in connection with the Sankararaman murder case in October.
The seer spent nearly an hour at the mutt during which he performed puja and did meditation in front of the adishtanam (samadhi) of the Mahaswami Chandrasekhara Saraswathi, mutt sources said.
Later, he left for Kalavai.
Since the chargesheet has been filed in the Sankararaman murder case, the bail conditions prohibiting his entry into the mutt no longer exist and he did not violate the bail conditions, police said.
Earlier today, the seer visited the Kamakshi Amman temple here and performed milk abhishekam to the Adhi Sankara and Saraswathi shrines before visiting the nearby Kousikeswarar temple.
The seer had made a public appearance at the deemed university of Chandra Sekarendra Saraswathi Viswamaha Vidhyalaya at Enathur yesterday where a convocation was held.
He reached the university from Kalavai soon after the convocation speeches and citation ceremonies were over, university sources said.
He blessed the gathering and distributed prasadams to students and parents who were present.
The seer also held a meeting with board members of the university and later returned to Kalavai.
Monday, March 28, 2005
Kancheepuram, March 28: Kanchi seer Jayendra Saraswathi on Monday visited the Sankara mutt for the first time since his arrest in connection with the Sankararaman murder case in October.
The seer spent nearly an hour at the mutt during which he performed puja and did meditation in front of the adishtanam (samadhi) of the Mahaswami Chandrasekhara Saraswathi, mutt sources said.
Later, he left for Kalavai.
Since the chargesheet has been filed in the Sankararaman murder case, the bail conditions prohibiting his entry into the mutt no longer exist and he did not violate the bail conditions, police said.
Earlier today, the seer visited the Kamakshi Amman temple here and performed milk abhishekam to the Adhi Sankara and Saraswathi shrines before visiting the nearby Kousikeswarar temple.
The seer had made a public appearance at the deemed university of Chandra Sekarendra Saraswathi Viswamaha Vidhyalaya at Enathur yesterday where a convocation was held.
He reached the university from Kalavai soon after the convocation speeches and citation ceremonies were over, university sources said.
He blessed the gathering and distributed prasadams to students and parents who were present.
The seer also held a meeting with board members of the university and later returned to Kalavai.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Charge of involvement in murder not true: Jr Seer
Wednesday, January 19 2005 19:21 Hrs (IST) - World Time -
Kancheepuram: The Junior Pontiff of Kanchi Mutt Vijayendra Saraswathi today (Jan 19, 2005) said there was not even one per cent truth in the charge of involvement of the Senior Acharya Jayendra Saraswathi and himself in the murder of the temple official Sankararaman.
"This case has not even one per cent of truth. With the help of God, elders and sages, we will come through this present crisis of bad name and bad times," he told reporters after he was remanded to judicial custody till January 24.
"Stand united and strive for the excellence of the Samaj," he said as he was boarding a police van.
He also addressed the people, who had thronged outside the magistrate court, for the first time since he was arrested on January 10.
He said the youth of India and abroad were all praying and striving hard for the well being of mankind. "All will be well soon by God's grace and these bad times will end," he said while referring to the Sankararaman murder case.
Earlier, after completion of one-day police custody, he was produced before the first class judicial magistrate G Uthamaraj.
Vijayendra's counsel, Y Thygarajan requested the magistrate to order for Ayurvedic treatment to the Seer as he was suffering from pain in the neck. The magistrate asked him to file a petition for this purpose.
Earlier, when Vijayendra started speaking to the lawyers and spectators inside the court hall, the magistrate had to call for order.
Kancheepuram: The Junior Pontiff of Kanchi Mutt Vijayendra Saraswathi today (Jan 19, 2005) said there was not even one per cent truth in the charge of involvement of the Senior Acharya Jayendra Saraswathi and himself in the murder of the temple official Sankararaman.
"This case has not even one per cent of truth. With the help of God, elders and sages, we will come through this present crisis of bad name and bad times," he told reporters after he was remanded to judicial custody till January 24.
"Stand united and strive for the excellence of the Samaj," he said as he was boarding a police van.
He also addressed the people, who had thronged outside the magistrate court, for the first time since he was arrested on January 10.
He said the youth of India and abroad were all praying and striving hard for the well being of mankind. "All will be well soon by God's grace and these bad times will end," he said while referring to the Sankararaman murder case.
Earlier, after completion of one-day police custody, he was produced before the first class judicial magistrate G Uthamaraj.
Vijayendra's counsel, Y Thygarajan requested the magistrate to order for Ayurvedic treatment to the Seer as he was suffering from pain in the neck. The magistrate asked him to file a petition for this purpose.
Earlier, when Vijayendra started speaking to the lawyers and spectators inside the court hall, the magistrate had to call for order.
Sunday, March 13, 2005
Saraswati punished for countering Christian propaganda: RSS
[India News]: Mangalore, Mar 13 : RSS leaders have said that Jayendra Saraswati, has been punished for countering Christian conversion propaganda.
RSS chief KS Sudarshan, has accused the Central government of harassing Jayendra Saraswathi.
Saraswathi, implicated in a series of cases, ranging from money laundering to assaults, was earlier arrested in a case relating to the murder of a temple official, Shankararaman, who incidentally was also a bitter critic of the Seer.
Saraswati ic was granted bail in January, after nearly a month of detention and massive nation wide protests by Hindu groups.
The RSS said that the seer's extensive charity work was increasingly luring India's poor away from Christian missionaries.
"Even now the seer is being harassed and victimized and all this is happening at the behest of the Central government. It is under pressure from Christian missionaries who have been destabilized by Shankaracharya. The number of hospitals, school and charity organisations opened by him came as a boon for the poor people," Sudarshan told thousands of party workers at a conclave in Mangalore. (ANI)
RSS chief KS Sudarshan, has accused the Central government of harassing Jayendra Saraswathi.
Saraswathi, implicated in a series of cases, ranging from money laundering to assaults, was earlier arrested in a case relating to the murder of a temple official, Shankararaman, who incidentally was also a bitter critic of the Seer.
Saraswati ic was granted bail in January, after nearly a month of detention and massive nation wide protests by Hindu groups.
The RSS said that the seer's extensive charity work was increasingly luring India's poor away from Christian missionaries.
"Even now the seer is being harassed and victimized and all this is happening at the behest of the Central government. It is under pressure from Christian missionaries who have been destabilized by Shankaracharya. The number of hospitals, school and charity organisations opened by him came as a boon for the poor people," Sudarshan told thousands of party workers at a conclave in Mangalore. (ANI)
One-day fast on 'malicious' campaign against religious heads
[India News]: Chennai, Mar 12 : Devotees of the two Kanshi seers will observe a one-day fast tomorrow against the "systematic and malicious" campaign against Hindu religious heads, demanding withdrawal of cases against them Kanchi Kamakoti Akila Bharatha Devotees Forum and the VHP women's wing would observe the fast and a a group prayer would also be held, Janata Party Tamil Nadu unit president V S Chandralekha told reporters here today.
Chandralekha alleged that a public disinformation campaign had been mounted against the seers and that "bogus" video clippings and interviews had been published to "discredit them", particularly by a Tamil weekly.
If the state government did not take legal action against the weekly by April 14, "we shall file a private complaint before the court", Chandralekha said.
She alleged that Jayendra Saraswathi's proximity to the Dalits and backward classes had angered some political parties and claimed that the people's anger would be reflected in the assembly polls next year. PTI
Chandralekha alleged that a public disinformation campaign had been mounted against the seers and that "bogus" video clippings and interviews had been published to "discredit them", particularly by a Tamil weekly.
If the state government did not take legal action against the weekly by April 14, "we shall file a private complaint before the court", Chandralekha said.
She alleged that Jayendra Saraswathi's proximity to the Dalits and backward classes had angered some political parties and claimed that the people's anger would be reflected in the assembly polls next year. PTI
High Court Separates Mutt And Kanchi Seer
CHENNAI, INDIA, March 6, 2005: Madras High court has ruled that the Kanchi Kamakoti Mutt is a "separate organization and legal entity by itself," as distinct from the "head" who leads it. Justice K.P. Sivasubramaniam gave the far-reaching ruling while setting aside the special investigation team's recent directive to banks to "freeze" the mutt's bank accounts. The SIT is investigating the Shankar Raman murder case, in which Jayendra Saraswati and his junior Vijayendra Saraswati are the first and the second accused. The court ruled as "illegal" the police directive that froze 183 bank accounts of various institutions under the mutt, bringing its daily activities to a halt. In response to Jayendra Saraswati's challenge of the police order, Justice Sivasubramaniam said the Kanchi mutt "is a religious institution, entitled to constitutional protection, as envisaged under Article 26 of the Indian Constitution." Such institutions "are accepted as institutions/juridical persons..." the judge said. They do not necessarily have to be registered under any act in view of their antiquity and "acceptance to a large section of the members of society as representing their faith," the judge added. The court ruled that the daily activities of the mutt and the money it receives or spends on the activities "can absolutely have no relevance to the offences alleged to have been committed earlier by the head of the mutt or for the investigation into these offences."
Thursday, March 10, 2005
How do you spell hypocrisy? P-R-E-M-K-U-M-A-R
"Kanchi SP's complaint against Gurumurthy"
Chennai, March 9: Kanchipuram District Superintendent of Police, SP Premkumar said that he has filed a complaint against journalist S. Gurumurthy with the Institute of Chartered Accountants.
Auditor S. Gurumurthy writes articles in the newspapers from time to time. He wrote some articles regarding the arrest of Jayendra [Swamigal] in the Sankarraman murder case.
In connection with this, Kanchipuram police registered a case against him. Gurumurthy filed a writ petition requesting cancellation of this case in the High Court.
In this regard, Premkumar has filed a response petition in which he [ie Premkumar] said:
"Our intention is not to take revenge on Gurumurthy. He cannot claim special rights since he writes articles for the newspapers [journals]. Gurumurthy, although an auditor, writes articles for newspapers without the permission for the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Opposing that, I have given a complaint in the Delhi Institute of Chartered Accountants against him.
The Constitution gives the freedom to express themselves to everyone. But Gurumurthy is not exempted from actions being taken against him on the basis of Indian Criminal Code sections.
There is wrong publicity spread that I am acting unlawfully in the Sankarraman murder case. The writ petition filed by Gurumurthy should be dismissed," said Premkumar. This case is coming up for hearing on the 14th of this month [ie. March 14].
Chennai, March 9: Kanchipuram District Superintendent of Police, SP Premkumar said that he has filed a complaint against journalist S. Gurumurthy with the Institute of Chartered Accountants.
Auditor S. Gurumurthy writes articles in the newspapers from time to time. He wrote some articles regarding the arrest of Jayendra [Swamigal] in the Sankarraman murder case.
In connection with this, Kanchipuram police registered a case against him. Gurumurthy filed a writ petition requesting cancellation of this case in the High Court.
In this regard, Premkumar has filed a response petition in which he [ie Premkumar] said:
"Our intention is not to take revenge on Gurumurthy. He cannot claim special rights since he writes articles for the newspapers [journals]. Gurumurthy, although an auditor, writes articles for newspapers without the permission for the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Opposing that, I have given a complaint in the Delhi Institute of Chartered Accountants against him.
The Constitution gives the freedom to express themselves to everyone. But Gurumurthy is not exempted from actions being taken against him on the basis of Indian Criminal Code sections.
There is wrong publicity spread that I am acting unlawfully in the Sankarraman murder case. The writ petition filed by Gurumurthy should be dismissed," said Premkumar. This case is coming up for hearing on the 14th of this month [ie. March 14].
No connection to Sankaracharya's defense lawyers, says High Court!
Saturday, March5,2005
"Threat Complaint - 'Will not arrest lawyers for now': Prosecutor"
Chennai, March 5: "In connection with the case of threats, the accused turned approver in the Sankararaman murder case, Ravi Subramoniam, (we) will not arrest the Kanchipuram lawyers now", said the Government lawyer in Chennai High Court.
Police have registered a case saying that female lawyers Revathy and Nadira Banu went to Kanchipuram Sub Jail and threatened Ravi Subramoniam.
Kanchipuram lawyer Shanmugam had filed a petition against this asking for CBI investigation into this case.Chennai High Court Justice K.P.Sivasubramoniam heard this petition on Friday.
Senior lawyer Chanduru appeared on behalf of the petitioner. He argued that the police should not register cases like these with the intention of intimidating the lawyers who are doing their duty to defend the accused in this case.
"From the beginning, the police investigation in this case has been antagonistic towards the lawyers. The police have filed this case solely with the intention to intimidate the defence lawyers in the Sankararaman murder case."
Prosecutor K.Doraisamy argued : "[One] cannot say that actions cannot be taken against lawyers only because they are lawyers. Two female lawyers have threatened Ravi Subramoniam in Kanchipuram Sub Jail to retract his statement against Jayendrar. The investigation is still in the beginning stage. In this matter, I will present a detailed counter petition next week."
Following this, the [Honorable] Justice said: "The complaint is given only against the women lawyers, Revathy and Nadira Banu. Ravi Subramoniam has not mentioned the names of their senior lawyers, Shanmugam and Thyagarajan in the complaint. These two senior lawyers appear on behalf of the defendants in the Sankararaman murder case.
It is not evident that there is any connection between the petitioner Shanmugam and the complaint lodged against him by the police. Even the FIR lodged by the police mentions only the names of Revathy and Nadira Banu.
The petitioner considers that the case has been registered solely to intimidate the lawyers who appear on behalf of the defendants in the Sankararaman murder case."
The Prosecutor said that [they] would not arrest the senior lawyers Shanmugam and Thyagarajan for now. His statement is being recorded[ Translator's note: could be "registered"] in the court.The hearing is being adjourned to March 11th in order to allow [the Prosecutor] to lodge his counter petition, said the Judge.
"Threat Complaint - 'Will not arrest lawyers for now': Prosecutor"
Chennai, March 5: "In connection with the case of threats, the accused turned approver in the Sankararaman murder case, Ravi Subramoniam, (we) will not arrest the Kanchipuram lawyers now", said the Government lawyer in Chennai High Court.
Police have registered a case saying that female lawyers Revathy and Nadira Banu went to Kanchipuram Sub Jail and threatened Ravi Subramoniam.
Kanchipuram lawyer Shanmugam had filed a petition against this asking for CBI investigation into this case.Chennai High Court Justice K.P.Sivasubramoniam heard this petition on Friday.
Senior lawyer Chanduru appeared on behalf of the petitioner. He argued that the police should not register cases like these with the intention of intimidating the lawyers who are doing their duty to defend the accused in this case.
"From the beginning, the police investigation in this case has been antagonistic towards the lawyers. The police have filed this case solely with the intention to intimidate the defence lawyers in the Sankararaman murder case."
Prosecutor K.Doraisamy argued : "[One] cannot say that actions cannot be taken against lawyers only because they are lawyers. Two female lawyers have threatened Ravi Subramoniam in Kanchipuram Sub Jail to retract his statement against Jayendrar. The investigation is still in the beginning stage. In this matter, I will present a detailed counter petition next week."
Following this, the [Honorable] Justice said: "The complaint is given only against the women lawyers, Revathy and Nadira Banu. Ravi Subramoniam has not mentioned the names of their senior lawyers, Shanmugam and Thyagarajan in the complaint. These two senior lawyers appear on behalf of the defendants in the Sankararaman murder case.
It is not evident that there is any connection between the petitioner Shanmugam and the complaint lodged against him by the police. Even the FIR lodged by the police mentions only the names of Revathy and Nadira Banu.
The petitioner considers that the case has been registered solely to intimidate the lawyers who appear on behalf of the defendants in the Sankararaman murder case."
The Prosecutor said that [they] would not arrest the senior lawyers Shanmugam and Thyagarajan for now. His statement is being recorded[ Translator's note: could be "registered"] in the court.The hearing is being adjourned to March 11th in order to allow [the Prosecutor] to lodge his counter petition, said the Judge.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Why is the Indian media anti-Hindu?
By Manmath Deshpande
It is no secret that the media has a large anti-Hindu bias. But anyone who watched the TV channels’ coverage of the Kanchi Shankaracharya’s arrest will be disgusted at even knowing its behaviour. Star News channel held him guilty indirectly for two months and directly on January 12. It showed a video saying, “We had said a few days earlier that he confessed. Then, charges were made that we told lies. Now you can see we are telling the truth. He is crying, you can clearly see phoot phoot ke ro rahe hein.” On seeing the video it was clear that he was not crying at all and it only proved that the charges on it were true!
But what is sad and disappointing is the reaction of the Hindu leadership.
The channel should not be allowed to spread such ‘white lies’ that he has confessed.We should have blasted the channel and filed a petition for banning it in the courts and also urged the I&B Ministry to take action. But we did nothing of the sort.
The NDTV channel owned as it is by a communist like Prannoy Roy with Leftists running it, is horribly anti-Hindu. It causes tremendous damage to Hindu organisations. Already because of it, the word ‘Ramjanmabhoomi’ is becoming a joke among people, who say “Talk about ‘real issues’.” NDTV reports are biased and often spread white lies. TV debates are always designed to provoke Hindu nationalists, who are invariably less in number than the pseudo-secularists. The Hindus are also only from BJP which being a political party has to take a diluted stand on many occasions. What is astonishing is that the BJP workers do not blast TV channels. They never ask, “Why do you put two against one or three against one?”
Making the channels lose their credibilty is the only way to save Hindu nationalists. Why don’t BJP leaders come on TV and do it? Either the Hindu leadership does not know the harm that is caused by the channels or it is incapable of meeting the challenges.
The BJP's Hindu credentials are also suspect, since the party had passed a Chennai declaration in 1999 saying goodbye to all Hindutva issues forever. It is only because of the Hindu organisations’ pressures that the party is taking some Hindu issues.
Channels like NDTV never invite VHP leaders on TV because it knows exactly that VHP leaders argue very well. VHP can also take a much firmer line. Is not VHP an organisation important enough to be invited? The reason is that both the journalists cannot argue well and have to take a moderate position. VHP leaders like Surendra Jain bring fanatic Muslims like Aziz Burney to their knees on SubTV. They will do the same on NDTV.
Mental bankruptcy is an integral part of the media. Many newspapers like the Times of India even wrote editorials supporting Pakistan’s decision of boycotting Ahmedabad! Even in its counterview when the Times supported it, it was to “teach the Sangh Parivar a lesson” that the match should be played in Gujarat. The media which likes Pakistan more than Hindu nationalists should be blasted and asked to go to Pakistan. Opposing every view of the Hindu nationalists has become the habit of the media. Tomorrow they will say 2+2=5 and not 4 because the Sangh Parivar says it is 4! The Times of India is most bankrupt in its views.
When Governors were dismissed, all the newspapers showed some maturity except for the Times which supported the decision!
It is time we (Hindu nationalists) stopped blaming the media for everything and started taking a part of the blame on ourselves. We have failed to tame the media; we suffer because of it. We lack aggressiveness, assertiveness and the self-confidence needed to tame the media and only VHP has it. It is essential to tame the media or else it might be too late. Do we understand the need to do so? Or are we miles away from the ground?
(Contact author at ‘Anand-Vilas’, Chitale Road, Dhantoli, Nagpur-440012.)
It is no secret that the media has a large anti-Hindu bias. But anyone who watched the TV channels’ coverage of the Kanchi Shankaracharya’s arrest will be disgusted at even knowing its behaviour. Star News channel held him guilty indirectly for two months and directly on January 12. It showed a video saying, “We had said a few days earlier that he confessed. Then, charges were made that we told lies. Now you can see we are telling the truth. He is crying, you can clearly see phoot phoot ke ro rahe hein.” On seeing the video it was clear that he was not crying at all and it only proved that the charges on it were true!
But what is sad and disappointing is the reaction of the Hindu leadership.
The channel should not be allowed to spread such ‘white lies’ that he has confessed.We should have blasted the channel and filed a petition for banning it in the courts and also urged the I&B Ministry to take action. But we did nothing of the sort.
The NDTV channel owned as it is by a communist like Prannoy Roy with Leftists running it, is horribly anti-Hindu. It causes tremendous damage to Hindu organisations. Already because of it, the word ‘Ramjanmabhoomi’ is becoming a joke among people, who say “Talk about ‘real issues’.” NDTV reports are biased and often spread white lies. TV debates are always designed to provoke Hindu nationalists, who are invariably less in number than the pseudo-secularists. The Hindus are also only from BJP which being a political party has to take a diluted stand on many occasions. What is astonishing is that the BJP workers do not blast TV channels. They never ask, “Why do you put two against one or three against one?”
Making the channels lose their credibilty is the only way to save Hindu nationalists. Why don’t BJP leaders come on TV and do it? Either the Hindu leadership does not know the harm that is caused by the channels or it is incapable of meeting the challenges.
The BJP's Hindu credentials are also suspect, since the party had passed a Chennai declaration in 1999 saying goodbye to all Hindutva issues forever. It is only because of the Hindu organisations’ pressures that the party is taking some Hindu issues.
Channels like NDTV never invite VHP leaders on TV because it knows exactly that VHP leaders argue very well. VHP can also take a much firmer line. Is not VHP an organisation important enough to be invited? The reason is that both the journalists cannot argue well and have to take a moderate position. VHP leaders like Surendra Jain bring fanatic Muslims like Aziz Burney to their knees on SubTV. They will do the same on NDTV.
Mental bankruptcy is an integral part of the media. Many newspapers like the Times of India even wrote editorials supporting Pakistan’s decision of boycotting Ahmedabad! Even in its counterview when the Times supported it, it was to “teach the Sangh Parivar a lesson” that the match should be played in Gujarat. The media which likes Pakistan more than Hindu nationalists should be blasted and asked to go to Pakistan. Opposing every view of the Hindu nationalists has become the habit of the media. Tomorrow they will say 2+2=5 and not 4 because the Sangh Parivar says it is 4! The Times of India is most bankrupt in its views.
When Governors were dismissed, all the newspapers showed some maturity except for the Times which supported the decision!
It is time we (Hindu nationalists) stopped blaming the media for everything and started taking a part of the blame on ourselves. We have failed to tame the media; we suffer because of it. We lack aggressiveness, assertiveness and the self-confidence needed to tame the media and only VHP has it. It is essential to tame the media or else it might be too late. Do we understand the need to do so? Or are we miles away from the ground?
(Contact author at ‘Anand-Vilas’, Chitale Road, Dhantoli, Nagpur-440012.)
Friday, February 25, 2005
Need for Hindu offensive stressed
February 20, 05
By R.S. Narayanaswami
It was a sight for gods and no wonder, Lord Kapaleeswarar was a witness to the massive gathering of devout Hindus at Chennai on February 6, 2005, in response to a call by Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP).
The huge concourse of people came by all modes of transport from Kanyakumari to Hyderabad.
A call went out from the speakers that the Hindu society was being threatened from all sides and that Hindu consolidation was the need of the hour.
The huge audience responded in chorus to stand united as Hindus to counter the designs of the governments and the fanatics of alien faiths to denigrate and destroy the ancient Hindu culture in their own land.
The occasion was a public meeting, organised at a very short notice after a great many official hurdles, close to the very ancient Kapaleeswarar temple at Mylapore, Chennai. All the three wide roads around the big temple were packed with a sea of humanity estimated at 25,000 people.
That the vast gathering responded at a very short notice was proof of the capacity of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad in lighting for demonstration a just cause and also exhibit public anger over the arrest and incarceration, of the Kanchi Shankaracharyas.
The public meeting was organised as part of the continued struggle spearheaded by the VHP against the implication of the Kanchi Acharyas in a murder case by the Tamil Nadu government.
This is the fifth major successful programme of the VHP conducted in support of the Shankaracharyas.
The meeting started with bhajans and invocation and was addressed by Dr Murli Manohar Joshi, former Union Minister, Swami Visveswara Theertha Swamigal, Acharya Giriraj Kishore, Dr Subramaniam Swami, Janata Party leader, L. Ganesan, Akhil Bharatiya secretary, BJP, Shri H. Raja, BJP MLA, Shri P. Viswanatha Kakkan, advocate, Shri S. Vedantam, international vice president, VHP, and others.
Shankaracharya issue unites all
Launching an attack on the state government, Shri Raja listed the various cases foisted by the state government on many persons. He condemned the statement of the state government before the Human Rights Commission that the Shankara Mutt was no Mutt at all and that it was a graveyard. He called it defamatory and demanded an apology from the Chief Minister.
Dr Murli Manohar Joshi asserted that India had been a Hindu country since times immemorial possessing a great civilisation. “This noble civilisation is an eyesore to the fundamentalists of other faiths and an international conspiracy is being hatched to destroy the Hindu culture and Hindu institutions,” he said. He urged the Hindus to unite and stand up to defeat this conspiracy against Hinduism.
He said that Kanchi seers were revered all over the Hindu world and the silence of the Central Government over the the arrest and incarceration of the Acharyas was really intriguing.
He warned the Hindus that if they failed to unite now, worse things could happen to them in the future.
Shri L. Ganesan said that the state government must be removed for foisting fake cases on the Acharyas. He said that the Dravidian ideology must be eliminated and that Tamil Nadu must rally behind national and nationalist parties.
Smt. Radha Rajan wanted the Superintendent of Police, who is investigating and is himself under suspicion, to be dismissed.
Pejawar Mutt Acharya, Swami Visveswara Theertha Swamigal regretted that Jayalalithaa, who had done some good things for the Hindus in the past, had now taken this anti-Hindu action. “An Acharya who has been working for all sections of Hindu has been put to suffer indignity and humiliation,” he said and urged the Hindus to consolidate and counter all such wrong measures of secular powers. He said that the Hindus must be fearless and united.
Shri S. Vedantam referred to the fear psychosis created by the state government and said people must come out and rally behind the VHP and strengthen it to counter all such repressive measures of secular governments.
Dr S. Subramaniam Swami alleged that a world Christian conspiracy was afoot to destroy the Hindu culture and institutions. The action against Shankara Mutt was part of that conspiracy and alleged Jayalalithaa had acted under pressure from Sonia for her own reasons.
He asserted that the Dravidian movement which was dividing the Hindu society must be eliminated and regretted that the “law bends according to market place and while criminals roam about freely as leaders, the Acharyas are kept in prison.”
Shri Viswanatha Kakkan spoke on the need for Hindu consolidation and praised the efforts of VHP in uniting the Hindus.
Shri Raghavalu, VHP national secretary, speaking in Telugu, asserted that India was one and Hindus would rally behind any movement to counter threats to Hindu Mutts and institutions.
Shri C. Kanagarajan, proposed a vote of thanks.
Earlier, Shri R.S. Narayanaswami, state general secretary, VHP, welcomed the gathering.
The public meeting was a culmination of the five-day vishwa shanti mahayagna organised by the VHP for the honourable release of the Kanchi Acharyas.
By R.S. Narayanaswami
It was a sight for gods and no wonder, Lord Kapaleeswarar was a witness to the massive gathering of devout Hindus at Chennai on February 6, 2005, in response to a call by Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP).
The huge concourse of people came by all modes of transport from Kanyakumari to Hyderabad.
A call went out from the speakers that the Hindu society was being threatened from all sides and that Hindu consolidation was the need of the hour.
The huge audience responded in chorus to stand united as Hindus to counter the designs of the governments and the fanatics of alien faiths to denigrate and destroy the ancient Hindu culture in their own land.
The occasion was a public meeting, organised at a very short notice after a great many official hurdles, close to the very ancient Kapaleeswarar temple at Mylapore, Chennai. All the three wide roads around the big temple were packed with a sea of humanity estimated at 25,000 people.
That the vast gathering responded at a very short notice was proof of the capacity of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad in lighting for demonstration a just cause and also exhibit public anger over the arrest and incarceration, of the Kanchi Shankaracharyas.
The public meeting was organised as part of the continued struggle spearheaded by the VHP against the implication of the Kanchi Acharyas in a murder case by the Tamil Nadu government.
This is the fifth major successful programme of the VHP conducted in support of the Shankaracharyas.
The meeting started with bhajans and invocation and was addressed by Dr Murli Manohar Joshi, former Union Minister, Swami Visveswara Theertha Swamigal, Acharya Giriraj Kishore, Dr Subramaniam Swami, Janata Party leader, L. Ganesan, Akhil Bharatiya secretary, BJP, Shri H. Raja, BJP MLA, Shri P. Viswanatha Kakkan, advocate, Shri S. Vedantam, international vice president, VHP, and others.
Shankaracharya issue unites all
Launching an attack on the state government, Shri Raja listed the various cases foisted by the state government on many persons. He condemned the statement of the state government before the Human Rights Commission that the Shankara Mutt was no Mutt at all and that it was a graveyard. He called it defamatory and demanded an apology from the Chief Minister.
Dr Murli Manohar Joshi asserted that India had been a Hindu country since times immemorial possessing a great civilisation. “This noble civilisation is an eyesore to the fundamentalists of other faiths and an international conspiracy is being hatched to destroy the Hindu culture and Hindu institutions,” he said. He urged the Hindus to unite and stand up to defeat this conspiracy against Hinduism.
He said that Kanchi seers were revered all over the Hindu world and the silence of the Central Government over the the arrest and incarceration of the Acharyas was really intriguing.
He warned the Hindus that if they failed to unite now, worse things could happen to them in the future.
Shri L. Ganesan said that the state government must be removed for foisting fake cases on the Acharyas. He said that the Dravidian ideology must be eliminated and that Tamil Nadu must rally behind national and nationalist parties.
Smt. Radha Rajan wanted the Superintendent of Police, who is investigating and is himself under suspicion, to be dismissed.
Pejawar Mutt Acharya, Swami Visveswara Theertha Swamigal regretted that Jayalalithaa, who had done some good things for the Hindus in the past, had now taken this anti-Hindu action. “An Acharya who has been working for all sections of Hindu has been put to suffer indignity and humiliation,” he said and urged the Hindus to consolidate and counter all such wrong measures of secular powers. He said that the Hindus must be fearless and united.
Shri S. Vedantam referred to the fear psychosis created by the state government and said people must come out and rally behind the VHP and strengthen it to counter all such repressive measures of secular governments.
Dr S. Subramaniam Swami alleged that a world Christian conspiracy was afoot to destroy the Hindu culture and institutions. The action against Shankara Mutt was part of that conspiracy and alleged Jayalalithaa had acted under pressure from Sonia for her own reasons.
He asserted that the Dravidian movement which was dividing the Hindu society must be eliminated and regretted that the “law bends according to market place and while criminals roam about freely as leaders, the Acharyas are kept in prison.”
Shri Viswanatha Kakkan spoke on the need for Hindu consolidation and praised the efforts of VHP in uniting the Hindus.
Shri Raghavalu, VHP national secretary, speaking in Telugu, asserted that India was one and Hindus would rally behind any movement to counter threats to Hindu Mutts and institutions.
Shri C. Kanagarajan, proposed a vote of thanks.
Earlier, Shri R.S. Narayanaswami, state general secretary, VHP, welcomed the gathering.
The public meeting was a culmination of the five-day vishwa shanti mahayagna organised by the VHP for the honourable release of the Kanchi Acharyas.
Harassing Gurumurthy for taking up Hindu cause
February 27, 05
By Premendra Agrawal
The Vishnu Kanchi police station has filed a case against noted columnist S. Guru-murthy on charge of attempting to deviate the investigation by the Special Investigation Team into the Shankararaman murder case by giving wrong information. Pseudo-secularists see every thing with a pseudo-secular angle. Gurumurthy though a veteran social activist the media is hesitating to react on his arrest. On January 14, his article titled: ‘Will the ‘secular’ media heed Justice Reddy’s warning?” was published in: www.newindpress.com; Anonymous writes, “But it kept out of print an earlier and profound judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on the very Shankaracharya issue. Since the High Court had indicted the ‘secular’ media, the judgment was effectively censored by the media, understandably.”
A petition came up before Justice Narasimha Reddy of Andhra Pradesh High Court and he said, the “only provocation for the petitioner appears to be the recent unfortunate happenings in relation to a seer’’ of Kanchi mutt. The judge described the mutt as “an ancient, prestigious, glorious and reputed institution with almost 2,500 years’ history.” He said that the petitioner was ‘swayed’ by the media and “did not want to lag behind in the unprecedented process of denigration of the religious institution.’’ That is, the denigrating petition was provoked by the media.
The judge further said that it is “sad and sorrowful that an institution of such glory that withstood foreign invasions and social revolutions’’ over the past 2500 years “is virtually targeted and persecuted in an organised manner in an independent country”.
Who are all involved in the process of denigration? Justice Reddy answersed, “Not only individuals, but also a section of the institutions, such as the State and the press, appear to be determined to belittle and besmirch the Peetham.’’ Justice Reddy also said, “The role of courts, though indirect, is by no means insignificant.’’
He noted that “the proponents of human rights, fair play and dignity of the individuals and institutions have maintained a stoic silence.’’ He went on to say that “a powerful section is celebrating it or watching it with indifference.’’ Justice Reddy said this ‘perfidy’ against the mutt had ‘shocked’ the country and beyond.
Media have been quoting (Geelani’s lawyer) Nandita Haksar, who has said that the attack on Geelani was made by the Delhi police, which is absolutely baseless and a figment of imagination. For the media ‘Geelani’ is Saheb Geelani. Protest is going on in favour of him. After reading media reports, nobody can say Geelani is an accused in Parliament attack case. Media showed Geelani, Ishrat, etc. as innocent but what about Kanchi mutt and its seers?
Media carry reports on both sides of an incident generally, but they give more coverage to those personalities who are against Hindus and are one sided on Hindu heads and organisations. News channels sounded version of TN government's counsel Tulsi without mentioning seer’s verdict. They showed seer as culprit. But for them terrorists, separatists, insurgents such as college girl Ishrat Jehan, killed in Ahmedabad Police encounter, are patriot and innocent! So many human right activists come forward as rainy tortoise and media garland them. One activist in NDTV programme of Sirdesai declared attempts to kill Modi could not be called terrorist act. Where were these activists when in the mid-night on Diwali the seer was arrested. Jaya even said who is NHRC; I never bother for that.
The ‘disturbing’ past record of the investigating officer includes campaigning for an AIADMK candidates. Premkumar was suspended by the Chief Election Commissioner for campaigning for an AIADMK candidate during the 2004 Lok Sabha polls. But he was reinstated as an SP, Cuddalore, after the polls. It is obvious that here is a man who can go to any extent to please a political party. Even now he is embroiled in many cases.
Premkumar said that during the interrogation, Gurumurthy could not substantiate his argument put forth in his article. However, he forwarded a notice to the SIT stating that interrogating him was a wrong committed by the investigation team as he had freedom to express his views, Premkumar added.
While Premkumar had alleged that Nallakaman was stalling the trial, Justice Karpagavinayagam held that the cases had indeed been stalled by Premkumar and the other accused policemen and that the officer had shown disrespect to the Supreme Court and the High Court. The judge noted that the Madurai court had issued as many as 13 non-bailable warrants against Premkumar between September 1995 and March 2000, but none of them was executed.
By Premendra Agrawal
The Vishnu Kanchi police station has filed a case against noted columnist S. Guru-murthy on charge of attempting to deviate the investigation by the Special Investigation Team into the Shankararaman murder case by giving wrong information. Pseudo-secularists see every thing with a pseudo-secular angle. Gurumurthy though a veteran social activist the media is hesitating to react on his arrest. On January 14, his article titled: ‘Will the ‘secular’ media heed Justice Reddy’s warning?” was published in: www.newindpress.com; Anonymous writes, “But it kept out of print an earlier and profound judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on the very Shankaracharya issue. Since the High Court had indicted the ‘secular’ media, the judgment was effectively censored by the media, understandably.”
A petition came up before Justice Narasimha Reddy of Andhra Pradesh High Court and he said, the “only provocation for the petitioner appears to be the recent unfortunate happenings in relation to a seer’’ of Kanchi mutt. The judge described the mutt as “an ancient, prestigious, glorious and reputed institution with almost 2,500 years’ history.” He said that the petitioner was ‘swayed’ by the media and “did not want to lag behind in the unprecedented process of denigration of the religious institution.’’ That is, the denigrating petition was provoked by the media.
The judge further said that it is “sad and sorrowful that an institution of such glory that withstood foreign invasions and social revolutions’’ over the past 2500 years “is virtually targeted and persecuted in an organised manner in an independent country”.
Who are all involved in the process of denigration? Justice Reddy answersed, “Not only individuals, but also a section of the institutions, such as the State and the press, appear to be determined to belittle and besmirch the Peetham.’’ Justice Reddy also said, “The role of courts, though indirect, is by no means insignificant.’’
He noted that “the proponents of human rights, fair play and dignity of the individuals and institutions have maintained a stoic silence.’’ He went on to say that “a powerful section is celebrating it or watching it with indifference.’’ Justice Reddy said this ‘perfidy’ against the mutt had ‘shocked’ the country and beyond.
Media have been quoting (Geelani’s lawyer) Nandita Haksar, who has said that the attack on Geelani was made by the Delhi police, which is absolutely baseless and a figment of imagination. For the media ‘Geelani’ is Saheb Geelani. Protest is going on in favour of him. After reading media reports, nobody can say Geelani is an accused in Parliament attack case. Media showed Geelani, Ishrat, etc. as innocent but what about Kanchi mutt and its seers?
Media carry reports on both sides of an incident generally, but they give more coverage to those personalities who are against Hindus and are one sided on Hindu heads and organisations. News channels sounded version of TN government's counsel Tulsi without mentioning seer’s verdict. They showed seer as culprit. But for them terrorists, separatists, insurgents such as college girl Ishrat Jehan, killed in Ahmedabad Police encounter, are patriot and innocent! So many human right activists come forward as rainy tortoise and media garland them. One activist in NDTV programme of Sirdesai declared attempts to kill Modi could not be called terrorist act. Where were these activists when in the mid-night on Diwali the seer was arrested. Jaya even said who is NHRC; I never bother for that.
The ‘disturbing’ past record of the investigating officer includes campaigning for an AIADMK candidates. Premkumar was suspended by the Chief Election Commissioner for campaigning for an AIADMK candidate during the 2004 Lok Sabha polls. But he was reinstated as an SP, Cuddalore, after the polls. It is obvious that here is a man who can go to any extent to please a political party. Even now he is embroiled in many cases.
Premkumar said that during the interrogation, Gurumurthy could not substantiate his argument put forth in his article. However, he forwarded a notice to the SIT stating that interrogating him was a wrong committed by the investigation team as he had freedom to express his views, Premkumar added.
While Premkumar had alleged that Nallakaman was stalling the trial, Justice Karpagavinayagam held that the cases had indeed been stalled by Premkumar and the other accused policemen and that the officer had shown disrespect to the Supreme Court and the High Court. The judge noted that the Madurai court had issued as many as 13 non-bailable warrants against Premkumar between September 1995 and March 2000, but none of them was executed.
It could happen to you…
It could happen to you…
PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO AT LEAST 10 PATRIOTIC INDIANS - THEY DESERVE TO KNOW THE TRUTH
The current apathy of the Indian masses is appalling. Silent as they stand in mute consent to the attack on the Kanchi Mutt - this is the start of the degeneration of the freedom and liberty that we Indians take for granted.
Read the following facts and forward this to at last 10 other patriotic Indians. This is the least you can do to save Indian democracy and liberty. The Kanchi Sankaracharya case is NOT only about Hindus or Hinduism - it is about YOU and what could happen to YOU.
Case 1: If the State chooses to attack rather than protect
A State government (Tamil Nadu in this case) has charged two of the senior most religious figures of India on a murder case - listen to what our most revered Supreme Court had to say:
"There is no direct evidence linking the Sankaracharya to the instigating murder."
"People in public life, holding high offices may receive such slanderous letters. It is not possible to say that they could have read it all. In this particular case, the petitioner has kept quiet for three years. To say that he suddenly got angry (upset) and asked for Sankara Raman to be killed is not an acceptable argument."
Imagine what the State can do to YOU -
- Have someone flood you with letters of protest, threats etc.
- 'Significantly impact' the sender OR easier still, have that person file a case against you.
- And YOU could be fighting that case for all your life.
Who could this happen to?
This could happen to anyone - Yes my fellow Indians - ANYONE. You could be ...
a business man who refuses to bribe an officer,
a soldier refusing to be a mute spectator to injustice,
a school teacher who refuses to let an influential person’s child play truant.
And what can you do?
You cannot leave the country and flee.... you have no option but to hope that someone can save you from the illegitimate wrath of some influential 'leaders'.
think...
Case 2: If the State appoints a 'rogue' to 'POLICE' you
In the current Sankaracharya case, the State has appointed PREMKUMAR, a person who any average reader of this email would not hesitate to call 'an unfortunate choice' after reading the following -
• Mr. Premkumar faces several criminal cases and was convicted by a court in a criminal case and suspended from service by the Election Commission for having canvassed for the ruling AIADMK candidate (current ruling party in Tamil Nadu) in the Vilathikulam Assembly by-election
• Mr. Premkumar, when he was sub-inspector of police in Vadipatti near Madurai in 1982, thrashed and paraded one Mr. Nallakannu in handcuffs. Mr. Nallakannu’s wife, a teacher, and his son were also not spared.
SHOCKING? Well, there is more ...
• Mr. Premkumar allegedly tortured one Mr. John Joseph and two nuns in Nagercoil. They were stripped and humiliated. In that case, the High Court recommended that the Crime-Branch CID should prosecute him.
• In July 2003, a fast track court in Madurai found Mr. Premkumar guilty of various criminal offences. It, however, let him out under the Probationary Offenders Act after admonishing him. Though he was convicted in another case as well, the judge did not sentence him since the circumstances and facts leading to the registration of both the cases were the same.
• Despite pending criminal cases, Mr. Premkumar was promoted as Additional Superintendent of Police in 1998 and SP the next year.
Friends - if this is not SHOCKING - what is?
Can you see a trend where the State has chosen one truly 'unfortunate' choice and ensured that the Police who are meant to protect actually victimize you!
This is NOT a joke or a RANT. This is serious my friends. This is after all a Police force that COULD come to your door step this very moment and haul you away and do worse... and the worst part is that you can do NOTHING to stop a vengeful State.
Case 3: If the MEDIA hits below the belt
Do you know that the Indian media is one of the WORST in the world? It is not too far away from the trashy tabloids that the United Kingdom is famous for.
Consider this example - During the recent US elections, one of India's leading papers (Times of India) carried a headline that said - "Florida 2000. India 2004?" - stating a case as to why Americans in India could swing the election in favor of one party or the other!!! For those of who you live in the US - how many times did you hear THAT in your local media? You know the answer - ZERO! Of course there are Americans in India - but to say that their votes will swing an American election is vivid Imagineering at best and plain lies at worst.
So what should you do OR what can you do?
I am going to urge you to -
2. Ask the questions - DO NOT be afraid to ask for answers if you see the State failing you. Your silence on these and other issues will rot the base of our nation, even as we build skyscrapers of fortune. Do not let this happen to you and our future generations!
3. Rein in the media - flood the media and let them know if you do not believe that they are doing an honest job. Let them work for their earnings like you and I do.
WHY AM I SENDING this message?
As a proud Indian, I am happy to see our country progress on multiple fronts. This will soon fade away unless we ACT NOW. The above case of the Kanchi Seers brings to light a very dangerous and suicidal trend - State sponsored persecution of citizens. This is unfortunately not something new - ask the Jews in Nazi Germany.
So long my fellow Indians and God Speed - Long Live India! Long Live Democracy!
Yours,
A fellow Indian
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Protect the Freedom of Speech! - Journalist petitions High Court
"Gurumurthy files a writ petition in Chennai High Court."
Chennai: Kanchipuram police have filed a case against journalist Gurumurthy for writing articles in journals about the Sankararaman murder case. He is now in hiding. At this stage, a writ pettion has been filed in Chennai High Court on his behalf. In that he has said that the case foisted upon him is against the right to freedom of speech and is unlawful.
* * *
[Editor notes that Gurumurthy's lawyer was reported widely to have sent the police his client's whereabouts and contact telephone number. Therefore, we tend to discount dinamalar's characterization that Gurumurthy is "in hiding", especially since newsweekly vikatan recently found him easily enough for an interview!]
Chennai: Kanchipuram police have filed a case against journalist Gurumurthy for writing articles in journals about the Sankararaman murder case. He is now in hiding. At this stage, a writ pettion has been filed in Chennai High Court on his behalf. In that he has said that the case foisted upon him is against the right to freedom of speech and is unlawful.
* * *
[Editor notes that Gurumurthy's lawyer was reported widely to have sent the police his client's whereabouts and contact telephone number. Therefore, we tend to discount dinamalar's characterization that Gurumurthy is "in hiding", especially since newsweekly vikatan recently found him easily enough for an interview!]
Another Case Concocted!
"Effort to arrest again: Jayendra [Swamigal]'s petition for anticipatory bail."
Chennai Feb 22: Kanchi Jayendrar [Swamigal] has filed a petition to Chennai High Court saying that, since the Kanchipuram police are trying to arrest me again, the court should grant me anticipatory bail .
He has said in the petition:
Police have registered a case saying that two lawyers threatened approver Ravi Subramoniam asking him to retract his statement in the Sankararaman murder case.
On the basis of the complaint made by Ravi Subramoniam's wife Chitra on 19th Feb., a case has been filed on myself and lawyers Revathy, Nadira Banu, Shanmugam and Thyagarajan.
The case has been filed under IPC Cr Code Sections 201 (tampering with a witness), 213(helping an accused escape punishment), 450(trespassing with the intention to committ a crime) and 506 (threatening).
Chithra's complaint says that the lawyers Revathy and Nadira Banu met Ravi Subramoniam in the Kanchi Sub Jail and talked to him. At that time, they threatened him to retract his statement already made or else he will have to face serious consequences, the complaint states.This complaint is false.
Following this, [the lawyer named in the complaint], Nadira Banu got anticipatory bail from Chengalpet court. The Kanchi Bar Association has also passed a resolution condemning the police's action in this matter.
I, (Jayendrar) have no involvement whatsoever in this matter. There is absolutely no truth in this complaint. No one, not even the lawyers could meet Ravisubramoniam in Kanchi Sub Jail.
This case has been filed to intentionally void the bail granted to me by the Supreme Court and the High Court.
This case has been fabricated with an intention of creating a reason to cancel the bail granted to me. This trick the police is plying, is misuse of the law. It is [done] with an intention of [getting] revenge.
Hence an order should be given granting me anticipatory bail so the police do not arrest me. I firmly promise that I will not tamper witnesses or evidences in the Sankarraman murder case, said Jayendrar in the petition.
This petition comes for hearing on Tuesday [Feb 22, 2005].
* * *
[Editor's note: Well, this is a bit strange. On Feb 10th, Ravi Subramaniam, who is heavily guarded in Kanchi Sub Jail, wrote a letter to Magistrate Uttamaraaj, supposedly complaining that Revathy and Nadira Banu threatened him with his life on 2 occassions to change his testimony. For some odd reason, the case was never registered.
In the meanwhile, Nadira Banu applied for, and obtained anticipatory bail from Ramayana-reading Judge Akbar Ali.
9 full days later, with his letter still languishing presumably in some corner of the court system, Ravi Subramaniam's wife, Chitra suddenly appears at Shiva Kanchi police station to file an FIR alleging this outlandish story about her husband being threatened while in police custody.
Co-incidentally, just 1 day later, we hear that Ravi Subramaniam was admitted to the ICU at Kanchi Hospital.
Hmmm....
There is also a rather confusing story floating around that Ravi Subramaniam complained that two members of the Special Police team asked him to sign blank pieces of paper.
One wonders what might happen next to Ravi and his family. Will his family be placed under "police protection", so the police can keep a close eye - and a firm grip - on them as well?
We watch and wonder...]
Chennai Feb 22: Kanchi Jayendrar [Swamigal] has filed a petition to Chennai High Court saying that, since the Kanchipuram police are trying to arrest me again, the court should grant me anticipatory bail .
He has said in the petition:
Police have registered a case saying that two lawyers threatened approver Ravi Subramoniam asking him to retract his statement in the Sankararaman murder case.
On the basis of the complaint made by Ravi Subramoniam's wife Chitra on 19th Feb., a case has been filed on myself and lawyers Revathy, Nadira Banu, Shanmugam and Thyagarajan.
The case has been filed under IPC Cr Code Sections 201 (tampering with a witness), 213(helping an accused escape punishment), 450(trespassing with the intention to committ a crime) and 506 (threatening).
Chithra's complaint says that the lawyers Revathy and Nadira Banu met Ravi Subramoniam in the Kanchi Sub Jail and talked to him. At that time, they threatened him to retract his statement already made or else he will have to face serious consequences, the complaint states.This complaint is false.
Following this, [the lawyer named in the complaint], Nadira Banu got anticipatory bail from Chengalpet court. The Kanchi Bar Association has also passed a resolution condemning the police's action in this matter.
I, (Jayendrar) have no involvement whatsoever in this matter. There is absolutely no truth in this complaint. No one, not even the lawyers could meet Ravisubramoniam in Kanchi Sub Jail.
This case has been filed to intentionally void the bail granted to me by the Supreme Court and the High Court.
This case has been fabricated with an intention of creating a reason to cancel the bail granted to me. This trick the police is plying, is misuse of the law. It is [done] with an intention of [getting] revenge.
Hence an order should be given granting me anticipatory bail so the police do not arrest me. I firmly promise that I will not tamper witnesses or evidences in the Sankarraman murder case, said Jayendrar in the petition.
This petition comes for hearing on Tuesday [Feb 22, 2005].
* * *
[Editor's note: Well, this is a bit strange. On Feb 10th, Ravi Subramaniam, who is heavily guarded in Kanchi Sub Jail, wrote a letter to Magistrate Uttamaraaj, supposedly complaining that Revathy and Nadira Banu threatened him with his life on 2 occassions to change his testimony. For some odd reason, the case was never registered.
In the meanwhile, Nadira Banu applied for, and obtained anticipatory bail from Ramayana-reading Judge Akbar Ali.
9 full days later, with his letter still languishing presumably in some corner of the court system, Ravi Subramaniam's wife, Chitra suddenly appears at Shiva Kanchi police station to file an FIR alleging this outlandish story about her husband being threatened while in police custody.
Co-incidentally, just 1 day later, we hear that Ravi Subramaniam was admitted to the ICU at Kanchi Hospital.
Hmmm....
There is also a rather confusing story floating around that Ravi Subramaniam complained that two members of the Special Police team asked him to sign blank pieces of paper.
One wonders what might happen next to Ravi and his family. Will his family be placed under "police protection", so the police can keep a close eye - and a firm grip - on them as well?
We watch and wonder...]
Saturday, February 19, 2005
Sankaracharya was under surveillance: Was it a set up?
"Policeman who spied on Jayendrar [Swamigal] for 1 year"
February 14, 2005
When Jayendrar [Swamigal] and Jayalalithaa had a “cold war” going on between them, the police were ordered to keep a close eye on the Shankar Math. Since they [i.e. JJ’s government] might not get full information from the Intelligence Wing, they decided to plant someone inside as a spy. Following this [decision], the Government came forward to give security to Jayendrar [Swamigal].
This job was entrusted to an officer who is very close to The Girlfriend. The officer, whose name includes the word “mutthu”, used to go to the Sankara Math everyday and stand meekly before Jayendrar [Swamigal]. To inspect the Math's security and under the pretext of [giving] the Sankaracharyas security, arrangements were made for 24-hour, round the clock police watch.
In the same way, the Math's chief administrators were also under watch. They [i.e. police] also got permission from Sankaracharya to take pictures of suspicious people who came to the Math. So, they accumulated information about who came, when, at what time, etc. Amongst them, they [gave] most importance when people like actors and actresses or people like Appu [came], shooting off a whole lot of videotape .
The Math people were not in the least suspicious as police said this was done to protect the Math against terrorism. Their phones were also tapped. The close surveillance continued until they knew all the details of the activities of the Math and the people close to Sankaracharya.
After the work was done, that police officer [the one with 'mutthu' in his name] was transferred elsewhere. Following that only, the Shankarraman murder took place.
To help this case, they had already gathered photos, video footage and information to be used in this case, is the sensational rumor.
* * *
[http://sankaracharyaarticles.blogspot.com, Editor's comments: Hmmm... The police officer whose name includes the word ‘mutthu’..... Could it be JJ's favorite K. Muthukaruppan?
K. Muthukaruppan, former Police Commissioner for Chennai, whose brief, recent resume runs as follows:
June, 2001 -- Key figure in the midnight arrest of Karunanidhi. (Interestingly, talk of doctored video-tape doing the rounds back then!)
July, 2001 -- Reported to have contacted Stalin aide, Annanagar Ramesh in regards to a corruption case filed against then Chennai Mayor Stalin. Ramesh, along with his wife and 3 daughters later committed suicide, charging, in one of his suicide letters, that police had threatened to foist a narcotics case against him.
March, 2002 -- Accused of having illegally seized P. Ramesh's property near Annanagar.
June, 2003 -- Suspended upon investigation by Directorate of Vigilance, Anti-Corruption, into his 'disproportionate assets'.
October, 2004 -- Ordered to 7 days' jail by Madras High Court for inciting a subordinate to file a false affidavit].
February 14, 2005
When Jayendrar [Swamigal] and Jayalalithaa had a “cold war” going on between them, the police were ordered to keep a close eye on the Shankar Math. Since they [i.e. JJ’s government] might not get full information from the Intelligence Wing, they decided to plant someone inside as a spy. Following this [decision], the Government came forward to give security to Jayendrar [Swamigal].
This job was entrusted to an officer who is very close to The Girlfriend. The officer, whose name includes the word “mutthu”, used to go to the Sankara Math everyday and stand meekly before Jayendrar [Swamigal]. To inspect the Math's security and under the pretext of [giving] the Sankaracharyas security, arrangements were made for 24-hour, round the clock police watch.
In the same way, the Math's chief administrators were also under watch. They [i.e. police] also got permission from Sankaracharya to take pictures of suspicious people who came to the Math. So, they accumulated information about who came, when, at what time, etc. Amongst them, they [gave] most importance when people like actors and actresses or people like Appu [came], shooting off a whole lot of videotape .
The Math people were not in the least suspicious as police said this was done to protect the Math against terrorism. Their phones were also tapped. The close surveillance continued until they knew all the details of the activities of the Math and the people close to Sankaracharya.
After the work was done, that police officer [the one with 'mutthu' in his name] was transferred elsewhere. Following that only, the Shankarraman murder took place.
To help this case, they had already gathered photos, video footage and information to be used in this case, is the sensational rumor.
* * *
[http://sankaracharyaarticles.blogspot.com, Editor's comments: Hmmm... The police officer whose name includes the word ‘mutthu’..... Could it be JJ's favorite K. Muthukaruppan?
K. Muthukaruppan, former Police Commissioner for Chennai, whose brief, recent resume runs as follows:
June, 2001 -- Key figure in the midnight arrest of Karunanidhi. (Interestingly, talk of doctored video-tape doing the rounds back then!)
July, 2001 -- Reported to have contacted Stalin aide, Annanagar Ramesh in regards to a corruption case filed against then Chennai Mayor Stalin. Ramesh, along with his wife and 3 daughters later committed suicide, charging, in one of his suicide letters, that police had threatened to foist a narcotics case against him.
March, 2002 -- Accused of having illegally seized P. Ramesh's property near Annanagar.
June, 2003 -- Suspended upon investigation by Directorate of Vigilance, Anti-Corruption, into his 'disproportionate assets'.
October, 2004 -- Ordered to 7 days' jail by Madras High Court for inciting a subordinate to file a false affidavit].
Red Herrings and secular charlatans
Red Herrings and secular charlatans
‘Jayalalithaa defends Kanchi SP’ was a headline in one of the English newspapers on Monday the 7th February and I am not surprised. Only a charlatan could defend the indefensible. The news report is remarkable for one reason only - that the TN Assembly could be led so easily astray by ‘communal’ red herrings. What may be closer to the truth is that these elected representatives belonging to several parties, because discussing the real issue may expose holes in their own armour, allowed Jayalalithaa to put a ring around their noses and willingly allowed themselves to be led astray. Or worse still, this Assembly probably collectively either lacked the intelligence or the political will (inexcusable both ways) to push Jayalalithaa into a corner over the whole issue of a scum bag called Prem Kumar.
Prem Kumar is the Superintendent of police in Kancheepuram ‘entrusted’ (wrong word) with investigating the Sankararaman murder case. Prem Kumar’s track record as a policeman and the manner of his (read Jayalalithaa’s) treatment of the Kanchi Acharyas are so sordid that an honest and upright Director-General of Police like IK Govind had to be removed from Law and Order to an inconsequential posting where I am sure he will remain until his retirement or for as long as Jayalalithaa remains Chief Minister; whichever is sooner.
Prem Kumar was brought in as SP Kancheepuram by the diabolical Jayalalithaa for his known violent, abusive and intimidating ways. What makes the blood boil is that in doing so Jayalalithaa has perpetrated with impunity not just a patently undemocratic act but an act that ought to have invited a scathing contempt-of-court indictment. Prem Kumar’s abusive and violent conduct with civil society provoked a judge of the Madras High Court to term him ‘barbarian’. Prem Kumar has been indicted for gross intimidation, foisting false cases, obtaining ‘confessions’ under duress for offences and crimes not committed and also for using the print and electronic media to ‘bolster’ false confessions and for disinformation.
It is for these very reasons that Jayalalithaa had Prem Kumar posted as SP of Kancheepuram to probe the Sankararaman murder case. Her intention was to destroy Pujya Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal, break his spirit, destroy the reputation of the Acharyas and the mutt, and ultimately destroy the mutt itself. If she could have her way, she would do anything to make sure that Pujya Acharya languished for as long as possible in jail. But she had no real case against him. And so she needed the scum bag called Prem Kumar to achieve this for her and he for reasons best known to him obliged the woman. His mandate was to manufacture cases using any method to destroy Pujya Acharya’s reputation and to keep him in jail.
In a case that came up for hearing before Justice Karpagavinayakam of the Madras High Court in October 2002, (http://www.vigilonline.com/interact/discuss/discuss.asp?plainSpeakId=21) the judge indicted the scumbag for illegal confinement of Father John Joseph and two nuns of the Charismatic Center – Sister Femina Rose and Sister Sahaya Rani for two days without producing them before the local Magistrate, for torturing them, for physically assaulting them, violating their modesty and dignity and also for using intimidating tactics to obtain confessions. This indictment has been made by Justice Karpagavinayakam in the strongest possible language for any judge. The judge had also directed the CBCID to file a ‘last report’ before the court stating compliance with the Court’s order to initiate prosecution against Prem Kumar.
[48. To sum up:
(i)The first respondent, namely, the State of Tamil Nadu is directed to launch prosecution through C.B.C.I.D. against Premkumar, former D.S.P., Special Branch, Nagercoil and Panneerselvam, former D.S.P. of Nagercoil Town, who were involved in the offences relating to the illegal custody of the injured persons and torture committed on them, especially on women, viz., witness No.4 Sahaya Rani and witness No.5 Femina Rose.
(ii) On passing suitable orders by the State Government, the C.B.C.I.D. shall record the statement of the injured Femina Rose and register F.I.R. against Premkumar and Panneerselvam, the D.S.Ps. for the appropriate offences and shall record the statements of the other injured persons and other witnesses examined before the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, the Team of Doctors and any other witnesses to be produced and collect other materials, if any, and launch prosecution against the two named police officials by filing the final report before the appropriate Court within three months from the date of receipt of this order.]
The judge has also passed scathing remarks against Prem Kumar in another case which unfortunately for Prem Kumar had come up for hearing before Justice Karpagavinayakam himself earlier in June 2002. The judge wondered how a policeman facing criminal charges and who was directly recruited into the police force as DSP, could accept promotions under false pretexts and also how he could deliberately not inform the High Court of the same. Justice Karpagavinayakam also wondered how, when the Supreme Court had ordered speedy disposal of these cases and when his rank as DSP had been held to be temporary in view of the cases pending against him, the state government could further promote the scum bag to ASP and later to SP.The judge also declared him 'absconder' with non-bailable warrants issued against him. Prem Kumar was directed by the judge to surrender before the sessions court to get the NBW revoked and then to subject himself to the due process of law.
[ 32. It is further noticed from the diary extract that on 23.4.2001, N.B.W. was again issued against the petitioner (A1) and the same has not been executed till date. This shows that the petitioner has no regard for law and for truth. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has made an incorrect and false statement to mislead this Court.
38. The fact that N.B.W. issued against the petitioner is pending for more than one year without execution and the failure of the petitioner to surrender before the Court, seeking for withdrawal of the said warrant and the non-appearance of the accused one after another on every hearing would make it clear that the trial is being dragged on for a number of years only at the instance of the accused and not at the instance of the prosecution party. 41. Therefore, the Director General of Police is directed to give suitable direction to the concerned Superintendent of Police to ensure the presence of all the accused, the police personnel in these cases on the relevant dates so that the trial would be over within the time mentioned above. The petitioner and others against whom N.B.Ws. were issued are directed to surrender before the Court concerned along with the petition to recall the N.B.Ws. On their surrender, the trial Court may recall by imposing suitable conditions to ensure their presence before the Court on all the hearing dates.
33. One other aspect is to be noticed in this context. When the appointment of the petitioner as D.S.P. was challenged in writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.11966 of 1985, by the order dated 22.7.199 4, this Court while referring the Rule 10(a)(iv) which provides that, where it is necessary to appoint an officer against whom an enquiry into allegations of corruption or misconduct is pending, the appointing authority may appoint him temporarily pending enquiry into the charges against him, would hold that the appointment cannot be said to be illegal as the appointment has been made only temporary as the criminal cases against him are pending in the Court of Session.
34. As such, the finding given by this Court in the above writ petition that the appointment is only temporary which is subject to the result in the criminal proceedings. But, it is stated by the petitioner in paragraph 3 of his petition that the petitioner was promoted as Additional Superintendent of Police in the year 1998 and further promoted as Superintendent of Police in the year 1999.
35. There are no details in the petition as to how he was promoted even though his appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police was temporary pending disposal of the criminal cases before the Court of Session. Having obtained the promotion as Superintendent of Police even though his appointment was held to be temporary by this Court, the petitioner instead of bringing to the notice of the writ Court that the order passed by this Court has not been complied with and instead of filing an application for seeking a fresh direction, has approached this Court for the reasons best known to him seeking for quashing alleging that the criminal cases pending against him are unnecessarily dragged on at the instance of Nallakaman with a view to harass the petitioner. This prayer for quashing sought for by the petitioner in this petition would amount to disrespect the orders passed by this Court as well as the Supreme Court earlier.]
Now let us go beyond these horrifying judicial strictures and examine Jayalalithaa’s devilish motives in posting this sleaze as SP Kancheepuram. As the two judgments would indicate, Prem Kumar is known to ill-treat people whom he summons for questioning. He is also known to arrest people and not produce them within 24 hours before a local magistrate as is the law. He is known to physically and verbally abuse these people. He is also known to summon the media and coerce his victims to make ‘confessional’ statements to them. And Prem Kumar’s favourite weapon is always sexual misconduct and threats of rape and/or physical assault.
That an obliging judge in the subordinate courts could actually hand over Pujya Acharya into police custody, into the hands of this scum bag called Prem Kumar takes my breath away. Was not the judge aware of the damning indictment of Prem Kumar by the Madras High Court for violence and physical assault? Had the judge known about Justice Karpagavinayakam’s strictures against Prem Kumar would the judge have still granted police custody of Pujya Acharya to this scum bag? Is there any excuse for the judge not knowing about the Madras High Court’s indictment of Prem Kumar or that the Governor of Tamil Nadu has sanctioned the prosecution of Prem Kumar as directed by the Madras High Court? Or are we to assume that the judge knew about these strictures and nevertheless granted police custody?
When Pujya Acharya’s police custody ended Prem Kumar planted stories in the media about Pujya Acharya having confessed to the crime. There was also this terrible video clipping of Pujya Acharya in the Vellore jail talking in slurred tones, lying supine. It is not difficult to conclude that Pujya Acharya was probably drugged when the video was taken. More to the point, who shot the video? And if this was a police video why was this video ‘released’ to Nakkeeran, a journal as sleazy as Prem Kumar himself? News is, the wife of one of Nakkeeran’s reporters and Prem Kumar’s wife are sisters!
Then we have sordid planted-by-police stories of womanizing and sexual misconduct by Pujya Acharya with one Usha, another Anuradha and yet another Swarnamalya all being dragged and dragging Pujya Acharya through slime. By this time it was obvious that Prem Kumar and his lady boss had no real case against Pujya Acharya and Jayalalithaa’s henchman was only doing what he had been mandated to do – foist cases, obtain confessions under duress and use the media to destroy the reputation of his victims. This was and continues to be Prem Kumar’s modus operandi. The following is the damning indictment of Prem Kumar by Justice Karpagavinayakam again in October 2002.
[It is clear from the observation made by this Court as well as the Supreme Court that if a police officer transgresses the circumscribed limits and illegally exercises his investigatory powers in breach of any statutory provision causing serious prejudice to the personal liberty of a citizen, then the Court on being approached by the person aggrieved shall consider the nature and extent of the breach of the police officer concerned and pass appropriate orders as may be called for without leaving the citizen to the mercy of police echelons, since human dignity is a dear value of our Constitution.
If this sort of inhuman and ill-treatment in the name of interrogation by the police officers, that too at the D.S.P. level is allowed to go on, then there is no protection even to the persons who are innocent. When these atrocities were brought to the notice of this Court, certainly the powers of this Court have got to be exercised to give appropriate orders so that the members of the Law Enforcing Agency will know their limit. The people also would feel and hope that they would be protected as per the rights guaranteed under the Constitution by arms of law through the appropriate orders passed by this Court by invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The role played by the police officers in this case would make this Court to think that these officials have behaved like barbarians without giving any respect to human dignity, that too with the ladies Sahaya Rani and Femina Rose who are regarded as sisters. As a matter of fact, these people were compelled to give statements to Press persons who took video. This Court earlier dealt with the bail application by some of the accused in this case and had an occasion to see the said video in order to show whether those statements were obtained by threat or coercion. On seeing the Video, this Court was unable to come to the conclusion that there was any threat since only some of the portions of the statements were shown to this Court. This Court is unable to understand as to why the Press Reporters were allowed to take Video. Admittedly, the Video was not taken by the Law Enforcing Agency. Strangely, the Superintendent of Police has filed an affidavit before this Court in this writ petition stating that the Video was taken by the Press Persons in spite of the objection raised by the police. This statement of Superintendent of Police cannot be true. When the objection was raised by the police, how the Press Reporters could record statement of these injured persons through Video? In the bail application, this Court was requested by the Public Prosecutor to witness the Video. If such an objection was raised by the police, there was no necessity to keep that Video with them. These are all would show that the police agency wanted to mislead the Court by giving the false particulars by showing the Video.]
Every sane person who saw the video clipping featured on every gloating satellite channel would have asserted that the video was doctored and unnatural in the extreme. They say habitual and hardened criminals always have a signature modus operandi. The course that the Sankararaman murder investigation traversed has Prem Kumar’s fingerprints and signature all over. I have been wondering why Justice Karpagavinayakam has so far not taken suo moto notice of press reports about the course of the case and have Prem Kumar removed from the case in the best interests of truth and justice.
I can even understand that Jayalalithaa, as is her wont, has scant respect for truth or justice or even the law and the judiciary. But I find this absolutely mind-boggling that having launched prosecution against a policeman in compliance with a court order, the state government will then go on to use the same twice damned policeman in an extremely sensitive murder investigation. The following are the details of the Government Order (GO) launching prosecution against Prem Kumar:
[Home (SC) Department. (SC is strictly confidential)
GO # 3D {67} dated 21st May, 2003
Ref. 1: Order dated 3-10-2002 of the High Court of Madras in WP (writ petition) # 15596/97 filed by Thiru John Joseph.
Ref. 2: From the Addl. DGP Crime Branch CID Chennai, letter RC # C6/5/016523/2002 dated 12-4-2003 received with DGP’s letter RC # 3382/231132/CRIME III (2/2002 dated 25-4-2003)
Abstract: Prosecution – police department – Thiru K Prem Kumar, formerly DSP, now SP, Coastal Security Group, Chennai – Allegations of criminal conspiracy and abetment of criminal misconduct – sanction of prosecution under Sec. 197 (1) (b) Cr. PC – accorded]
As seen, the Governor has ordered the state government to prosecute Prem Kumar for criminal conspiracy and criminal misconduct in 2003. It was Jayalalithaa’s government then. So what does it say for her pious protestations about all of us being equal before the law, that the law must take its own course and about the majesty of the law. Above all what does it say about the Assembly of idiots who made passionate speeches about the secular credentials of Prem Kumar who placed the charge sheet against Pujya Acharyas and 26 others at the feet of Lord Varadaraja of Kancheepuram before lodging it with the courts. Not one member of this august Assembly had the wits to demand Prem Kumar’s scalp or Jayalalithaa’s head for his continuance in the TN police force or for Jayalalithaa using him for all the dirty reasons.
For these elected representatives that Prem Kumar placed the charge sheet at the feet of the Lord was more important than the fact that he has been found guilty of barbarism and criminal misconduct by the Madras High Court. Secular charlatans all of them. The next time some ass tells you all that the law is majestic or that the law must take its own course or that all are equal before the law, do take the law into your own hands folks and deal appropriately with these scoundrels. The law will be safer in your hands than in the hands of police men like Prem Kumar or the judge who handed Pujya Acharya into Prem Kumar’s police custody.
[42. Before parting with this case, it shall be mentioned that there are very serious allegations against the petitioner, who is stated to have severely beaten the Ex-serviceman and his wife, a Teacher at the police station causing grievous hurt. It is shocking to see from the complaints of Nallakaman and the R.D.O., the petitioner disrobed the saree of the woman Teacher at the police station and attempted to remove her Thali (Mangalya Sutra). It is further stated that she was brutally beaten and the second respondent with the handcuffs was taken outside the police station and was paraded up to the Bus Stand and in the presence of the public, he was continuously beaten. Only on the agitation of the public, the District Collector intervened, as a result of which, an enquiry was conducted by the R.D.O. after examining 83 witnesses.
43. If these allegations are true and proved before the Court of law, it would be shameful to find that a person like the petitioner has been allowed to work in the Police Department. In the light of the very serious allegation, the trial Court should see that the trial is to go on preferably on day-to-day basis and the same is finished of within the time schedule.
44. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court by the order dated 7.11.19 89 would specifically observe that all the three cases to be tried together. This Court also by the order dated 22.7.1994 directed the trial Court to dispose of the matters on or before 31.3.1995. Despite these directions, the trial Court was not allowed to be proceeded with. Therefore, this Court is constrained to give a fresh direction hoping that at least the direction given now would be complied with.]
And that is what we want to know from the CM and the DGP. Have they complied with the court order? And if they haven’t why can we not demand their removal? More to the point, why is the TN Assembly, specifically the DMK, the BJP and all other anti-Jayalalithaa parties and politicians silent on the issue? What are we to make of it? That they think playing the ‘secular’ card will win them more votes than standing on the side of righteousness, probity in public life, and respecting Hindu sensibilities? It would seem so. And Hindus have only themselves to blame that Indian polity doesn’t think it needs them for survival.
17th February, 2005.
‘Jayalalithaa defends Kanchi SP’ was a headline in one of the English newspapers on Monday the 7th February and I am not surprised. Only a charlatan could defend the indefensible. The news report is remarkable for one reason only - that the TN Assembly could be led so easily astray by ‘communal’ red herrings. What may be closer to the truth is that these elected representatives belonging to several parties, because discussing the real issue may expose holes in their own armour, allowed Jayalalithaa to put a ring around their noses and willingly allowed themselves to be led astray. Or worse still, this Assembly probably collectively either lacked the intelligence or the political will (inexcusable both ways) to push Jayalalithaa into a corner over the whole issue of a scum bag called Prem Kumar.
Prem Kumar is the Superintendent of police in Kancheepuram ‘entrusted’ (wrong word) with investigating the Sankararaman murder case. Prem Kumar’s track record as a policeman and the manner of his (read Jayalalithaa’s) treatment of the Kanchi Acharyas are so sordid that an honest and upright Director-General of Police like IK Govind had to be removed from Law and Order to an inconsequential posting where I am sure he will remain until his retirement or for as long as Jayalalithaa remains Chief Minister; whichever is sooner.
Prem Kumar was brought in as SP Kancheepuram by the diabolical Jayalalithaa for his known violent, abusive and intimidating ways. What makes the blood boil is that in doing so Jayalalithaa has perpetrated with impunity not just a patently undemocratic act but an act that ought to have invited a scathing contempt-of-court indictment. Prem Kumar’s abusive and violent conduct with civil society provoked a judge of the Madras High Court to term him ‘barbarian’. Prem Kumar has been indicted for gross intimidation, foisting false cases, obtaining ‘confessions’ under duress for offences and crimes not committed and also for using the print and electronic media to ‘bolster’ false confessions and for disinformation.
It is for these very reasons that Jayalalithaa had Prem Kumar posted as SP of Kancheepuram to probe the Sankararaman murder case. Her intention was to destroy Pujya Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal, break his spirit, destroy the reputation of the Acharyas and the mutt, and ultimately destroy the mutt itself. If she could have her way, she would do anything to make sure that Pujya Acharya languished for as long as possible in jail. But she had no real case against him. And so she needed the scum bag called Prem Kumar to achieve this for her and he for reasons best known to him obliged the woman. His mandate was to manufacture cases using any method to destroy Pujya Acharya’s reputation and to keep him in jail.
In a case that came up for hearing before Justice Karpagavinayakam of the Madras High Court in October 2002, (http://www.vigilonline.com/interact/discuss/discuss.asp?plainSpeakId=21) the judge indicted the scumbag for illegal confinement of Father John Joseph and two nuns of the Charismatic Center – Sister Femina Rose and Sister Sahaya Rani for two days without producing them before the local Magistrate, for torturing them, for physically assaulting them, violating their modesty and dignity and also for using intimidating tactics to obtain confessions. This indictment has been made by Justice Karpagavinayakam in the strongest possible language for any judge. The judge had also directed the CBCID to file a ‘last report’ before the court stating compliance with the Court’s order to initiate prosecution against Prem Kumar.
[48. To sum up:
(i)The first respondent, namely, the State of Tamil Nadu is directed to launch prosecution through C.B.C.I.D. against Premkumar, former D.S.P., Special Branch, Nagercoil and Panneerselvam, former D.S.P. of Nagercoil Town, who were involved in the offences relating to the illegal custody of the injured persons and torture committed on them, especially on women, viz., witness No.4 Sahaya Rani and witness No.5 Femina Rose.
(ii) On passing suitable orders by the State Government, the C.B.C.I.D. shall record the statement of the injured Femina Rose and register F.I.R. against Premkumar and Panneerselvam, the D.S.Ps. for the appropriate offences and shall record the statements of the other injured persons and other witnesses examined before the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, the Team of Doctors and any other witnesses to be produced and collect other materials, if any, and launch prosecution against the two named police officials by filing the final report before the appropriate Court within three months from the date of receipt of this order.]
The judge has also passed scathing remarks against Prem Kumar in another case which unfortunately for Prem Kumar had come up for hearing before Justice Karpagavinayakam himself earlier in June 2002. The judge wondered how a policeman facing criminal charges and who was directly recruited into the police force as DSP, could accept promotions under false pretexts and also how he could deliberately not inform the High Court of the same. Justice Karpagavinayakam also wondered how, when the Supreme Court had ordered speedy disposal of these cases and when his rank as DSP had been held to be temporary in view of the cases pending against him, the state government could further promote the scum bag to ASP and later to SP.The judge also declared him 'absconder' with non-bailable warrants issued against him. Prem Kumar was directed by the judge to surrender before the sessions court to get the NBW revoked and then to subject himself to the due process of law.
[ 32. It is further noticed from the diary extract that on 23.4.2001, N.B.W. was again issued against the petitioner (A1) and the same has not been executed till date. This shows that the petitioner has no regard for law and for truth. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has made an incorrect and false statement to mislead this Court.
38. The fact that N.B.W. issued against the petitioner is pending for more than one year without execution and the failure of the petitioner to surrender before the Court, seeking for withdrawal of the said warrant and the non-appearance of the accused one after another on every hearing would make it clear that the trial is being dragged on for a number of years only at the instance of the accused and not at the instance of the prosecution party. 41. Therefore, the Director General of Police is directed to give suitable direction to the concerned Superintendent of Police to ensure the presence of all the accused, the police personnel in these cases on the relevant dates so that the trial would be over within the time mentioned above. The petitioner and others against whom N.B.Ws. were issued are directed to surrender before the Court concerned along with the petition to recall the N.B.Ws. On their surrender, the trial Court may recall by imposing suitable conditions to ensure their presence before the Court on all the hearing dates.
33. One other aspect is to be noticed in this context. When the appointment of the petitioner as D.S.P. was challenged in writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.11966 of 1985, by the order dated 22.7.199 4, this Court while referring the Rule 10(a)(iv) which provides that, where it is necessary to appoint an officer against whom an enquiry into allegations of corruption or misconduct is pending, the appointing authority may appoint him temporarily pending enquiry into the charges against him, would hold that the appointment cannot be said to be illegal as the appointment has been made only temporary as the criminal cases against him are pending in the Court of Session.
34. As such, the finding given by this Court in the above writ petition that the appointment is only temporary which is subject to the result in the criminal proceedings. But, it is stated by the petitioner in paragraph 3 of his petition that the petitioner was promoted as Additional Superintendent of Police in the year 1998 and further promoted as Superintendent of Police in the year 1999.
35. There are no details in the petition as to how he was promoted even though his appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police was temporary pending disposal of the criminal cases before the Court of Session. Having obtained the promotion as Superintendent of Police even though his appointment was held to be temporary by this Court, the petitioner instead of bringing to the notice of the writ Court that the order passed by this Court has not been complied with and instead of filing an application for seeking a fresh direction, has approached this Court for the reasons best known to him seeking for quashing alleging that the criminal cases pending against him are unnecessarily dragged on at the instance of Nallakaman with a view to harass the petitioner. This prayer for quashing sought for by the petitioner in this petition would amount to disrespect the orders passed by this Court as well as the Supreme Court earlier.]
Now let us go beyond these horrifying judicial strictures and examine Jayalalithaa’s devilish motives in posting this sleaze as SP Kancheepuram. As the two judgments would indicate, Prem Kumar is known to ill-treat people whom he summons for questioning. He is also known to arrest people and not produce them within 24 hours before a local magistrate as is the law. He is known to physically and verbally abuse these people. He is also known to summon the media and coerce his victims to make ‘confessional’ statements to them. And Prem Kumar’s favourite weapon is always sexual misconduct and threats of rape and/or physical assault.
That an obliging judge in the subordinate courts could actually hand over Pujya Acharya into police custody, into the hands of this scum bag called Prem Kumar takes my breath away. Was not the judge aware of the damning indictment of Prem Kumar by the Madras High Court for violence and physical assault? Had the judge known about Justice Karpagavinayakam’s strictures against Prem Kumar would the judge have still granted police custody of Pujya Acharya to this scum bag? Is there any excuse for the judge not knowing about the Madras High Court’s indictment of Prem Kumar or that the Governor of Tamil Nadu has sanctioned the prosecution of Prem Kumar as directed by the Madras High Court? Or are we to assume that the judge knew about these strictures and nevertheless granted police custody?
When Pujya Acharya’s police custody ended Prem Kumar planted stories in the media about Pujya Acharya having confessed to the crime. There was also this terrible video clipping of Pujya Acharya in the Vellore jail talking in slurred tones, lying supine. It is not difficult to conclude that Pujya Acharya was probably drugged when the video was taken. More to the point, who shot the video? And if this was a police video why was this video ‘released’ to Nakkeeran, a journal as sleazy as Prem Kumar himself? News is, the wife of one of Nakkeeran’s reporters and Prem Kumar’s wife are sisters!
Then we have sordid planted-by-police stories of womanizing and sexual misconduct by Pujya Acharya with one Usha, another Anuradha and yet another Swarnamalya all being dragged and dragging Pujya Acharya through slime. By this time it was obvious that Prem Kumar and his lady boss had no real case against Pujya Acharya and Jayalalithaa’s henchman was only doing what he had been mandated to do – foist cases, obtain confessions under duress and use the media to destroy the reputation of his victims. This was and continues to be Prem Kumar’s modus operandi. The following is the damning indictment of Prem Kumar by Justice Karpagavinayakam again in October 2002.
[It is clear from the observation made by this Court as well as the Supreme Court that if a police officer transgresses the circumscribed limits and illegally exercises his investigatory powers in breach of any statutory provision causing serious prejudice to the personal liberty of a citizen, then the Court on being approached by the person aggrieved shall consider the nature and extent of the breach of the police officer concerned and pass appropriate orders as may be called for without leaving the citizen to the mercy of police echelons, since human dignity is a dear value of our Constitution.
If this sort of inhuman and ill-treatment in the name of interrogation by the police officers, that too at the D.S.P. level is allowed to go on, then there is no protection even to the persons who are innocent. When these atrocities were brought to the notice of this Court, certainly the powers of this Court have got to be exercised to give appropriate orders so that the members of the Law Enforcing Agency will know their limit. The people also would feel and hope that they would be protected as per the rights guaranteed under the Constitution by arms of law through the appropriate orders passed by this Court by invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The role played by the police officers in this case would make this Court to think that these officials have behaved like barbarians without giving any respect to human dignity, that too with the ladies Sahaya Rani and Femina Rose who are regarded as sisters. As a matter of fact, these people were compelled to give statements to Press persons who took video. This Court earlier dealt with the bail application by some of the accused in this case and had an occasion to see the said video in order to show whether those statements were obtained by threat or coercion. On seeing the Video, this Court was unable to come to the conclusion that there was any threat since only some of the portions of the statements were shown to this Court. This Court is unable to understand as to why the Press Reporters were allowed to take Video. Admittedly, the Video was not taken by the Law Enforcing Agency. Strangely, the Superintendent of Police has filed an affidavit before this Court in this writ petition stating that the Video was taken by the Press Persons in spite of the objection raised by the police. This statement of Superintendent of Police cannot be true. When the objection was raised by the police, how the Press Reporters could record statement of these injured persons through Video? In the bail application, this Court was requested by the Public Prosecutor to witness the Video. If such an objection was raised by the police, there was no necessity to keep that Video with them. These are all would show that the police agency wanted to mislead the Court by giving the false particulars by showing the Video.]
Every sane person who saw the video clipping featured on every gloating satellite channel would have asserted that the video was doctored and unnatural in the extreme. They say habitual and hardened criminals always have a signature modus operandi. The course that the Sankararaman murder investigation traversed has Prem Kumar’s fingerprints and signature all over. I have been wondering why Justice Karpagavinayakam has so far not taken suo moto notice of press reports about the course of the case and have Prem Kumar removed from the case in the best interests of truth and justice.
I can even understand that Jayalalithaa, as is her wont, has scant respect for truth or justice or even the law and the judiciary. But I find this absolutely mind-boggling that having launched prosecution against a policeman in compliance with a court order, the state government will then go on to use the same twice damned policeman in an extremely sensitive murder investigation. The following are the details of the Government Order (GO) launching prosecution against Prem Kumar:
[Home (SC) Department. (SC is strictly confidential)
GO # 3D {67} dated 21st May, 2003
Ref. 1: Order dated 3-10-2002 of the High Court of Madras in WP (writ petition) # 15596/97 filed by Thiru John Joseph.
Ref. 2: From the Addl. DGP Crime Branch CID Chennai, letter RC # C6/5/016523/2002 dated 12-4-2003 received with DGP’s letter RC # 3382/231132/CRIME III (2/2002 dated 25-4-2003)
Abstract: Prosecution – police department – Thiru K Prem Kumar, formerly DSP, now SP, Coastal Security Group, Chennai – Allegations of criminal conspiracy and abetment of criminal misconduct – sanction of prosecution under Sec. 197 (1) (b) Cr. PC – accorded]
As seen, the Governor has ordered the state government to prosecute Prem Kumar for criminal conspiracy and criminal misconduct in 2003. It was Jayalalithaa’s government then. So what does it say for her pious protestations about all of us being equal before the law, that the law must take its own course and about the majesty of the law. Above all what does it say about the Assembly of idiots who made passionate speeches about the secular credentials of Prem Kumar who placed the charge sheet against Pujya Acharyas and 26 others at the feet of Lord Varadaraja of Kancheepuram before lodging it with the courts. Not one member of this august Assembly had the wits to demand Prem Kumar’s scalp or Jayalalithaa’s head for his continuance in the TN police force or for Jayalalithaa using him for all the dirty reasons.
For these elected representatives that Prem Kumar placed the charge sheet at the feet of the Lord was more important than the fact that he has been found guilty of barbarism and criminal misconduct by the Madras High Court. Secular charlatans all of them. The next time some ass tells you all that the law is majestic or that the law must take its own course or that all are equal before the law, do take the law into your own hands folks and deal appropriately with these scoundrels. The law will be safer in your hands than in the hands of police men like Prem Kumar or the judge who handed Pujya Acharya into Prem Kumar’s police custody.
[42. Before parting with this case, it shall be mentioned that there are very serious allegations against the petitioner, who is stated to have severely beaten the Ex-serviceman and his wife, a Teacher at the police station causing grievous hurt. It is shocking to see from the complaints of Nallakaman and the R.D.O., the petitioner disrobed the saree of the woman Teacher at the police station and attempted to remove her Thali (Mangalya Sutra). It is further stated that she was brutally beaten and the second respondent with the handcuffs was taken outside the police station and was paraded up to the Bus Stand and in the presence of the public, he was continuously beaten. Only on the agitation of the public, the District Collector intervened, as a result of which, an enquiry was conducted by the R.D.O. after examining 83 witnesses.
43. If these allegations are true and proved before the Court of law, it would be shameful to find that a person like the petitioner has been allowed to work in the Police Department. In the light of the very serious allegation, the trial Court should see that the trial is to go on preferably on day-to-day basis and the same is finished of within the time schedule.
44. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court by the order dated 7.11.19 89 would specifically observe that all the three cases to be tried together. This Court also by the order dated 22.7.1994 directed the trial Court to dispose of the matters on or before 31.3.1995. Despite these directions, the trial Court was not allowed to be proceeded with. Therefore, this Court is constrained to give a fresh direction hoping that at least the direction given now would be complied with.]
And that is what we want to know from the CM and the DGP. Have they complied with the court order? And if they haven’t why can we not demand their removal? More to the point, why is the TN Assembly, specifically the DMK, the BJP and all other anti-Jayalalithaa parties and politicians silent on the issue? What are we to make of it? That they think playing the ‘secular’ card will win them more votes than standing on the side of righteousness, probity in public life, and respecting Hindu sensibilities? It would seem so. And Hindus have only themselves to blame that Indian polity doesn’t think it needs them for survival.
17th February, 2005.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Indian Church Strengthening Political Ties with Communists
Wednesday February 16 2005 10:09 IST
THRISSUR
newindpress.com
When CPM’s Lonappan Nambadan MP on Saturday attended the meeting of the Irinjalakkuda Catholic Diocesan Pastoral Council as a member, it was a sign of the Church opening its doors a bit more wide to the CPM.
Nambadan pegs his nomination to the Council by Bishop Mar James Pazhayattil on the changed equations between the two institutions and the ‘‘decentralisation’’ that has taken place within the Church.
‘‘This is perhaps the first time that a CPM Parliament member is being nominated. It further proves that the days of the Church’s blind anti- Communist - pro-Congress attitude are over. The Church now has an openness which can acknowledge good deeds regardless of political colour,’’ Nambadan told this website’s newspaper.
The Church has been ‘decentralised’ and the faithful have more voice today, said Nambadan, who was minister on two occasions and an MLA for 25 years.
The Pastoral Council of the Syro-Malabar Church is an advisory committee to the Bishop on matters religious and material.
‘‘The suggestions of the council are not binding. But to be nominated is an honour,’’ Nambadan, who admits to be a regular church-goer, said.
He is not a novice at the Pastoral Council either.
He was a member of the council of the unified Thrissur Diocese back in 1977.
‘‘I was with the UDF then, though. But at the time an LDF MLA - not even a CPM MLA - would have found the council out of bounds. The fact that I contested under the official party symbol and still could find a place on council proves things have changed,’’ he says.
Nambadan points to his thumping victory over Padmaja Venugopal (Congress) in the last Lok Sabha elections as another potent sign of the traditionally-pro - Congress-faithful accepting the CPM.
‘‘Mukundapuram was a constituency where K.Karunakaran won a majority of 52,000 votes. But in the last elections, we had a majority of 1.17 lakh votes, the lion’s share of which came from the traditional Christian vote bank of the Congress,’’ Nambadan says.
However, Nambadan had to cut short his attendance at the first Council meeting on Saturday due to the death of CPI leader and former Minister Krishnan Kaniyamparambil.
THRISSUR
newindpress.com
When CPM’s Lonappan Nambadan MP on Saturday attended the meeting of the Irinjalakkuda Catholic Diocesan Pastoral Council as a member, it was a sign of the Church opening its doors a bit more wide to the CPM.
Nambadan pegs his nomination to the Council by Bishop Mar James Pazhayattil on the changed equations between the two institutions and the ‘‘decentralisation’’ that has taken place within the Church.
‘‘This is perhaps the first time that a CPM Parliament member is being nominated. It further proves that the days of the Church’s blind anti- Communist - pro-Congress attitude are over. The Church now has an openness which can acknowledge good deeds regardless of political colour,’’ Nambadan told this website’s newspaper.
The Church has been ‘decentralised’ and the faithful have more voice today, said Nambadan, who was minister on two occasions and an MLA for 25 years.
The Pastoral Council of the Syro-Malabar Church is an advisory committee to the Bishop on matters religious and material.
‘‘The suggestions of the council are not binding. But to be nominated is an honour,’’ Nambadan, who admits to be a regular church-goer, said.
He is not a novice at the Pastoral Council either.
He was a member of the council of the unified Thrissur Diocese back in 1977.
‘‘I was with the UDF then, though. But at the time an LDF MLA - not even a CPM MLA - would have found the council out of bounds. The fact that I contested under the official party symbol and still could find a place on council proves things have changed,’’ he says.
Nambadan points to his thumping victory over Padmaja Venugopal (Congress) in the last Lok Sabha elections as another potent sign of the traditionally-pro - Congress-faithful accepting the CPM.
‘‘Mukundapuram was a constituency where K.Karunakaran won a majority of 52,000 votes. But in the last elections, we had a majority of 1.17 lakh votes, the lion’s share of which came from the traditional Christian vote bank of the Congress,’’ Nambadan says.
However, Nambadan had to cut short his attendance at the first Council meeting on Saturday due to the death of CPI leader and former Minister Krishnan Kaniyamparambil.
"I am not afraid of anyone" - S.Gurumurthy
Then Came the Case
"The Bitter Pill the Police had to Swallow" [Txlator's note: literally, the asafoeitda ('hing') that irrated the police's eyes]
Vishnu Kanchi police have filed a case against noted journalist S. Gurumurty. 'Refusal to give revealing information about the Sankarraman murder case', 'Refusal to respond to a legally appointed enquiry officer's question, conveying false evidence to the Government' - the case has been registered under these 3 sections.
Convener of the Swadeshi Jagran Manch, Gurumurthy is also in touch with a number of Hindu organizations. Special police interrogated him on December 9th in connection with Jayendrar [Swamigal]'s case,
Gurumurthy sent a lawyer notice to SP [Premkumar] and Additional SP [Shaktivel] asking for the video shots of that interrogation taken at the Forest Bungalow. With that, he sent Rs 1000 also as cost for copying the video. 'After bringing me in for questioning, and taking video without permission, the pictures and details of that interrogation were given to journals [which is] wrong under IPC 166. [Show cause as to] why I should not proceed in court against you?" asked Gurumurthy in that notice.
In this circumstance, came the case. Gurumurthy in hiding! Special Force sent to find him! - These are the rumors emerging from Kanchi.
At this stage, we contacted Gurumurthy on his cell phone.
"I haven't disappeared anywhere. I am in Mumbai on work. I am going to Delhi from here and I will be in Chennai at month end. In the meanwhile, if the Kanchi Special Police want to talk to me, they are free to do so. I have informed them through my lawyer and even given them my cell phone number.
With this introduction, Gurumurthy got ready to take our questions.
What did you do so as to cause the police to call you for interrogation in Jayendrar's case?
G: I look at any problem from an alternate perspective. In the same way, I looked at Jayendrar's arrest matter also. I wrote my opinions in journals like Indian Express, Thuglak, etc..
In this murder case, most journals are putting out only the information spread by the police -- that is my primary assessment.
In that deluge of news, the few articles I wrote were like a little drop [of asofoetida or 'hing'- a strong astringent spice] in the ocean. That bitter pill is what the police are having trouble swallowing. [Translator's note: literally, that 'hing' is what is irritating the police's eyes].
I emphasized in my articles that the police should investigate the Sankarraman murder from all angles. The police itself says that Sankarraman wrote that if there was any harm to [his] life, the Sankaramatam would be responsible. How would the Sankaramatam or its Madaadipathis conspire to murder a person who had already identified them as an enemy in advance? - That is the logical question I raised. Couldn't anybody who knew of this public feud have committed the murder, thinking they would easily escape punishment? The police did not look at the case from this angle at all - This was the second question I raised.
When police investigate a murder case, they have to do it with an open mind, looking at all different angles, without ignoring any fact. Especially in a criminal investigation, police have to follow this.
But in the Sankarraman murder case, police are sticking to only the angle they want - and only trying to prove the version of the case they already have [in mind]. As a journalist and a citizen who cares about the welfare of society, I have full freedom to express this opinion. I have written clearly in the article I wrote in Thuglak. But the police is accusing me of weakening the Sankarraman murder case! (a short pause) - Maybe Premkumar likes my sharp approach to the case and wants to keep chatting with me over and over, so probably that is why he is inviting me back to Kanchi by connecting me to the case - (at the other end, a loud laugh!)
What did they ask you during interrogation in the Forest Bungalow? Isn't it said that you tried to hide information?
G: Initially, in the summons they sent me, they said 'Since you write so keenly about the Sankarraman murder case, you must know some details about the case. That's why, by law, we want to interrogate you.'
I appeared on December 9th in person - Premkumar talked to me. We can't say there was any interrogation because what took place that day was only an argument between me and the police.
Police know full well that I do not know either about the victim or who committed the murder. That is why they did not ask me any questions about this. They asked me again and again about the questions I raised in my articles. I don't understand what it is they claim I hid!
Not only that, SP Premkumar, when he called me for interrogation, told me off the record about some difficulties in the police interrogation. I did not write about any of that.
Based on what did you say the murder investigation is not going on the right way?
The police's initial investigation said that money distributed to the murderers came from the ICICI Mutt account. For that, police could not show any evidence to document that, either directly or through the bank. When it became known the money wasn't taken out from that bank, they began hunting around from bank to bank.
When the Supreme Court asked did Jayendrar have any direct connection to the murder, for that [question], the police side could not give an answer. On the basis of these discrepancies only, the Supreme Court granted bail to Jayendrar.
After starting to investigate the Madaadipathis in a murder case, simultaneously, sleazy rumors were started up about women issues.
I want to tell one truth in this matter. Writer Anuradha Ramanan started stirring up complaints that Jayendrar tried to misbehave with her privately.
But last year, March 21st, in a meeting arranged by Kanchi Kamakoti Sankara Medical Trust in Rathnagiriswar Temple in Besantnagar, the same Anuradha Ramanan has spoken in that meeting praising Jayendrar to the heavens. 'I was suffering from paralysis. If I am able to walk and talk before you, the reason is Jayendrar only,' - like this she talked. Many highly placed people heard this with their own ears.
An Elder whom she had respected 8 months before, today, the same woman is suddenly making shocking accusations against. What is the background behind this? Did someone instigate her against Jayendrar? This is enough to say the police investigation is not going on the proper path.
Do you think there might be other reasons to file a case against you?
G: Somebody might have thought I am giving legal opinions to Jayendrar who is out on bail and staying in Kalavai. Or polic emight have thought I could take some next intent step regarding this case.
So far, the police have not responded to the lawyer notice [I sent them]. This is the current situation.
Fundamentally, I am not afraid of anyone. I am not hesitant to face anything legally. Anyone who knows about my past will understand this. For the time being, I have given a fitting response to the police. After I come back to Chennai, the next actions will follow.
"The Bitter Pill the Police had to Swallow" [Txlator's note: literally, the asafoeitda ('hing') that irrated the police's eyes]
Vishnu Kanchi police have filed a case against noted journalist S. Gurumurty. 'Refusal to give revealing information about the Sankarraman murder case', 'Refusal to respond to a legally appointed enquiry officer's question, conveying false evidence to the Government' - the case has been registered under these 3 sections.
Convener of the Swadeshi Jagran Manch, Gurumurthy is also in touch with a number of Hindu organizations. Special police interrogated him on December 9th in connection with Jayendrar [Swamigal]'s case,
Gurumurthy sent a lawyer notice to SP [Premkumar] and Additional SP [Shaktivel] asking for the video shots of that interrogation taken at the Forest Bungalow. With that, he sent Rs 1000 also as cost for copying the video. 'After bringing me in for questioning, and taking video without permission, the pictures and details of that interrogation were given to journals [which is] wrong under IPC 166. [Show cause as to] why I should not proceed in court against you?" asked Gurumurthy in that notice.
In this circumstance, came the case. Gurumurthy in hiding! Special Force sent to find him! - These are the rumors emerging from Kanchi.
At this stage, we contacted Gurumurthy on his cell phone.
"I haven't disappeared anywhere. I am in Mumbai on work. I am going to Delhi from here and I will be in Chennai at month end. In the meanwhile, if the Kanchi Special Police want to talk to me, they are free to do so. I have informed them through my lawyer and even given them my cell phone number.
With this introduction, Gurumurthy got ready to take our questions.
What did you do so as to cause the police to call you for interrogation in Jayendrar's case?
G: I look at any problem from an alternate perspective. In the same way, I looked at Jayendrar's arrest matter also. I wrote my opinions in journals like Indian Express, Thuglak, etc..
In this murder case, most journals are putting out only the information spread by the police -- that is my primary assessment.
In that deluge of news, the few articles I wrote were like a little drop [of asofoetida or 'hing'- a strong astringent spice] in the ocean. That bitter pill is what the police are having trouble swallowing. [Translator's note: literally, that 'hing' is what is irritating the police's eyes].
I emphasized in my articles that the police should investigate the Sankarraman murder from all angles. The police itself says that Sankarraman wrote that if there was any harm to [his] life, the Sankaramatam would be responsible. How would the Sankaramatam or its Madaadipathis conspire to murder a person who had already identified them as an enemy in advance? - That is the logical question I raised. Couldn't anybody who knew of this public feud have committed the murder, thinking they would easily escape punishment? The police did not look at the case from this angle at all - This was the second question I raised.
When police investigate a murder case, they have to do it with an open mind, looking at all different angles, without ignoring any fact. Especially in a criminal investigation, police have to follow this.
But in the Sankarraman murder case, police are sticking to only the angle they want - and only trying to prove the version of the case they already have [in mind]. As a journalist and a citizen who cares about the welfare of society, I have full freedom to express this opinion. I have written clearly in the article I wrote in Thuglak. But the police is accusing me of weakening the Sankarraman murder case! (a short pause) - Maybe Premkumar likes my sharp approach to the case and wants to keep chatting with me over and over, so probably that is why he is inviting me back to Kanchi by connecting me to the case - (at the other end, a loud laugh!)
What did they ask you during interrogation in the Forest Bungalow? Isn't it said that you tried to hide information?
G: Initially, in the summons they sent me, they said 'Since you write so keenly about the Sankarraman murder case, you must know some details about the case. That's why, by law, we want to interrogate you.'
I appeared on December 9th in person - Premkumar talked to me. We can't say there was any interrogation because what took place that day was only an argument between me and the police.
Police know full well that I do not know either about the victim or who committed the murder. That is why they did not ask me any questions about this. They asked me again and again about the questions I raised in my articles. I don't understand what it is they claim I hid!
Not only that, SP Premkumar, when he called me for interrogation, told me off the record about some difficulties in the police interrogation. I did not write about any of that.
Based on what did you say the murder investigation is not going on the right way?
The police's initial investigation said that money distributed to the murderers came from the ICICI Mutt account. For that, police could not show any evidence to document that, either directly or through the bank. When it became known the money wasn't taken out from that bank, they began hunting around from bank to bank.
When the Supreme Court asked did Jayendrar have any direct connection to the murder, for that [question], the police side could not give an answer. On the basis of these discrepancies only, the Supreme Court granted bail to Jayendrar.
After starting to investigate the Madaadipathis in a murder case, simultaneously, sleazy rumors were started up about women issues.
I want to tell one truth in this matter. Writer Anuradha Ramanan started stirring up complaints that Jayendrar tried to misbehave with her privately.
But last year, March 21st, in a meeting arranged by Kanchi Kamakoti Sankara Medical Trust in Rathnagiriswar Temple in Besantnagar, the same Anuradha Ramanan has spoken in that meeting praising Jayendrar to the heavens. 'I was suffering from paralysis. If I am able to walk and talk before you, the reason is Jayendrar only,' - like this she talked. Many highly placed people heard this with their own ears.
An Elder whom she had respected 8 months before, today, the same woman is suddenly making shocking accusations against. What is the background behind this? Did someone instigate her against Jayendrar? This is enough to say the police investigation is not going on the proper path.
Do you think there might be other reasons to file a case against you?
G: Somebody might have thought I am giving legal opinions to Jayendrar who is out on bail and staying in Kalavai. Or polic emight have thought I could take some next intent step regarding this case.
So far, the police have not responded to the lawyer notice [I sent them]. This is the current situation.
Fundamentally, I am not afraid of anyone. I am not hesitant to face anything legally. Anyone who knows about my past will understand this. For the time being, I have given a fitting response to the police. After I come back to Chennai, the next actions will follow.
Kanchi seer will prove his innocence: Hindu Munnani
[India News]: Kalavai,Feb 16 : Kanchi Seer Jayendra Saraswathi will come out unscathed and prove his innocence in court in the cases against him, Hindu Munnani leader Rama Gopalan said today.
He told reporters here after a two-hour meeting with the Sankaracharya that 'The Seer is clean and will come out unscathed. Crores of people also believed that he will come out uscathed." After being absolved of the charges, Jayendra Sarswathi will "guide" society, he said.
He justified the boycott of courts by advocates in Kancheepuram. "It is inhuman to threaten advocates," he said.
On the Special investigation team filing a case against columnist Gurumurthy, he said filing cases against media personnel would prove to be "counterproductive".
He said his organisation would conduct a yagna at Rameswaram for three days from February 21 for world peace. He called on the seer to seek his blessings for the yagna, he said. Pti
He told reporters here after a two-hour meeting with the Sankaracharya that 'The Seer is clean and will come out unscathed. Crores of people also believed that he will come out uscathed." After being absolved of the charges, Jayendra Sarswathi will "guide" society, he said.
He justified the boycott of courts by advocates in Kancheepuram. "It is inhuman to threaten advocates," he said.
On the Special investigation team filing a case against columnist Gurumurthy, he said filing cases against media personnel would prove to be "counterproductive".
He said his organisation would conduct a yagna at Rameswaram for three days from February 21 for world peace. He called on the seer to seek his blessings for the yagna, he said. Pti
Detention of mutt manager violates directive
Thursday, 17 February , 2005, 17:24
Rajapalayam: Detention of Kanchi Mutt manager Sundaresa Iyer and Raghu, brother of junior Sankaracharya Vijayendra Saraswathi, both accused in the Sankararaman murder case, under the Goondas Act appears to be a clear violation of a Tamil Nadu government’s recent directive on detentions under the stringent law.
The circular, issued in January to the district collectors and superintendents of police, asked them to ensure that while ordering detention of a person under the Act, there should be at least one "adverse" case or more cases against him/her other than the ground case.
The circular had been issued in the light of observations made by the Supreme Court which held in a case that a solitary instance of robbery, as mentioned in the grounds for detention under the Goondas Act in a criminal case, was not relevant for sustaining the order of detention for the purpose of preventing the persons from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, an official told PTI on condition of anonymity.
Besides, the advisory board, empowered to review the detentions under the Act, had taken a stand that for the solitary offence under Section 302 of the IPC (murder), the normal law would take care and, therefore, there may not be any detention under the said Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 against such individuals as "Goondas."
The government had revoked some detention orders also following the above advice of the board, the official said.
Rajapalayam: Detention of Kanchi Mutt manager Sundaresa Iyer and Raghu, brother of junior Sankaracharya Vijayendra Saraswathi, both accused in the Sankararaman murder case, under the Goondas Act appears to be a clear violation of a Tamil Nadu government’s recent directive on detentions under the stringent law.
The circular, issued in January to the district collectors and superintendents of police, asked them to ensure that while ordering detention of a person under the Act, there should be at least one "adverse" case or more cases against him/her other than the ground case.
The circular had been issued in the light of observations made by the Supreme Court which held in a case that a solitary instance of robbery, as mentioned in the grounds for detention under the Goondas Act in a criminal case, was not relevant for sustaining the order of detention for the purpose of preventing the persons from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, an official told PTI on condition of anonymity.
Besides, the advisory board, empowered to review the detentions under the Act, had taken a stand that for the solitary offence under Section 302 of the IPC (murder), the normal law would take care and, therefore, there may not be any detention under the said Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 against such individuals as "Goondas."
The government had revoked some detention orders also following the above advice of the board, the official said.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Truth, confessions and videotape
In our justice system due process is becoming the punishment
Posted online: Thursday, February 17, 2005
PRATAP BHANU MEHTA
Anara Gupta, beauty queen. S.A.R. Geelani, academic. Shankaracharya, spiritual leader. Vicky Thakur, suspected kidnapper. Jammu, Delhi, Chennai, Patna. Four lives, four professions, four cities, four tales in our justice system. The crimes they were accused of range from murder to things that should not even be a crime. Are they guilty or innocent? Whether or not they are has become irrelevant. Their legal status became a sideshow in a macabre drama, orchestrated by the police. If science exonerated Anara, as it apparently did in the first lab tests, we should not worry. There can always be another lab test. Confessions may not be judicially admissible. But the police can extract them from a Geelani or a Shankaracharya.
The Shankracharya may or may not be guilty. But police conduct in the case is certainly not above board: press leaks are legion and the strategy now seems to have moved away from concentrating on the original evidence to drowning the benighted pontiff in a fog of moral turpitude. Even those who are criticising the police are being taken in for questioning. Then there is the extraordinary case of Geelani, the man who has twice defied death. Everything about the latest attack on him remains murky. Many, including Geelani himself, suspect a police hand in the matter. Those who are predisposed against him feign a naivete and ask what possible motive the police could have to kill him at this point? Those who are convinced of his innocence cannot contemplate any other possibility. Well, we can always have the CBI find the truth. Which CBI? The very same one that turns cases on and off under political guidance? Anara’s case appears to have been nothing more than a venial police vendetta. And then there is the fate of Vicky Thakur, suspected of kidnapping Kisalaya. In all probability guilty. But like many, he will never have his day in court. Another suspect killed, like in those encounter killings where it is easier to bring death than justice.
Perhaps the courts will help us sort out the issues. But then we can always appeal any decision. The extent of bias in courts of law is a debatable matter. But isn’t acceptance of court decisions itself becoming a function of our politics? We are angry with the courts when politicians are let off the hook, when alleged perpetrators of riots are exonerated on technicalities. Some applaud the court when it exonerates Geelani, others think it has gone soft on terrorism. The very idea of guilt or innocence, or of truth or falsehood, that lies beyond politics and prejudice and has become suspect. We don’t believe it, because we don’t believe that our public institutions will deliver these determinations impartially. Courts and Confessions, Videos and Investigations, Facts and Depositions, Commissions and Evidence are opportunities for obfuscation rather than sources of clarity.
This crisis of credibility has created a vacuum: motives can be freely uncovered, loopholes can be found in any theory and facts can be created. Just recall Tehelka investigations and their aftermath. The loop of truth, lies and videotape got so circuitous that we stopped caring. In this melange of postmodernism, what matters is what you can get away with. Information is an instrument in a propaganda war, not a means to truth.
Even judicial commissions can now apparently produce rival versions of the truth, leaving the citizens more bewildered. The bewilderment produces two sentiments, both dangerous for democracy. In some it produces a sense of entitlement to whatever you want to believe. When in doubt might as well go with your predispositions. Since no institution has the credibility to refute them, you might as well consider yourself entitled to them. Ironically, the police can now itself become a victim of this disposition. We are now free to pronounce the police guilty or innocent before the facts are in! Others are reconciled to uncertainty. Who really knows? We throw up our hands. This is itself a dangerous symptom in a demoracy, because it lets prejudices go unchecked, facts remain unverified. A corrosive skepticism is not a healthy prelude to uncovering the truth, it simply lets the prejudiced get away with their feigned certainties. It signals the death of outrage.
But most of all, what the four cases named above produce is an overpowering sense of vulnerability. You need not have any empathy with the accused to wonder: should you happen to be accused at some point, what will be your fate? Who will draw the line between guilt and innocence? Between fabrication and reality? Will it be trial by public opinion, with the police orchestrating what evidence gets out and what does not? But even more urgently: when will the investigation shade over into persecution? When will the objective be determination of the truth? Or will the objective be to break the accused? Or will it be harassment? What is a CBI investigation really about? Innocent or Guilty, the police will have the power to scar your life. They may not always do it, but they often have. Now they will get away with it, not because they use force, but because we are too uncertain to care or to believe.
There is a myth that lawlessness has increased because rates of conviction in India are low. This is a myth because it assumes that punishment has something to do with conviction. We are moving to a justice system, where in subtle and not so subtle forms, punishment can be meted out to you even when you have not been convicted. Arundhati Roy’s political judgement may not always be spot on, but her insight into the justice system deserves to be immortalised. In India, we do not get punishment after due process. Due process is the punishment. After all, aren’t there more than seven million arrests a year, a thousand undertrials in prison who have already been there more than five years? And what about the scourge of custodial deaths, a phenomenon every civilised police force has managed to abolish. Perhaps Pappu Yadav is an apt symbol of the inversion of values that corrosive skepticism allows: the jail as a secure rest house, freedom as fraught with danger, as Geelani has found out. At whose discretion we get justice, who knows.
Posted online: Thursday, February 17, 2005
PRATAP BHANU MEHTA
Anara Gupta, beauty queen. S.A.R. Geelani, academic. Shankaracharya, spiritual leader. Vicky Thakur, suspected kidnapper. Jammu, Delhi, Chennai, Patna. Four lives, four professions, four cities, four tales in our justice system. The crimes they were accused of range from murder to things that should not even be a crime. Are they guilty or innocent? Whether or not they are has become irrelevant. Their legal status became a sideshow in a macabre drama, orchestrated by the police. If science exonerated Anara, as it apparently did in the first lab tests, we should not worry. There can always be another lab test. Confessions may not be judicially admissible. But the police can extract them from a Geelani or a Shankaracharya.
The Shankracharya may or may not be guilty. But police conduct in the case is certainly not above board: press leaks are legion and the strategy now seems to have moved away from concentrating on the original evidence to drowning the benighted pontiff in a fog of moral turpitude. Even those who are criticising the police are being taken in for questioning. Then there is the extraordinary case of Geelani, the man who has twice defied death. Everything about the latest attack on him remains murky. Many, including Geelani himself, suspect a police hand in the matter. Those who are predisposed against him feign a naivete and ask what possible motive the police could have to kill him at this point? Those who are convinced of his innocence cannot contemplate any other possibility. Well, we can always have the CBI find the truth. Which CBI? The very same one that turns cases on and off under political guidance? Anara’s case appears to have been nothing more than a venial police vendetta. And then there is the fate of Vicky Thakur, suspected of kidnapping Kisalaya. In all probability guilty. But like many, he will never have his day in court. Another suspect killed, like in those encounter killings where it is easier to bring death than justice.
Perhaps the courts will help us sort out the issues. But then we can always appeal any decision. The extent of bias in courts of law is a debatable matter. But isn’t acceptance of court decisions itself becoming a function of our politics? We are angry with the courts when politicians are let off the hook, when alleged perpetrators of riots are exonerated on technicalities. Some applaud the court when it exonerates Geelani, others think it has gone soft on terrorism. The very idea of guilt or innocence, or of truth or falsehood, that lies beyond politics and prejudice and has become suspect. We don’t believe it, because we don’t believe that our public institutions will deliver these determinations impartially. Courts and Confessions, Videos and Investigations, Facts and Depositions, Commissions and Evidence are opportunities for obfuscation rather than sources of clarity.
This crisis of credibility has created a vacuum: motives can be freely uncovered, loopholes can be found in any theory and facts can be created. Just recall Tehelka investigations and their aftermath. The loop of truth, lies and videotape got so circuitous that we stopped caring. In this melange of postmodernism, what matters is what you can get away with. Information is an instrument in a propaganda war, not a means to truth.
Even judicial commissions can now apparently produce rival versions of the truth, leaving the citizens more bewildered. The bewilderment produces two sentiments, both dangerous for democracy. In some it produces a sense of entitlement to whatever you want to believe. When in doubt might as well go with your predispositions. Since no institution has the credibility to refute them, you might as well consider yourself entitled to them. Ironically, the police can now itself become a victim of this disposition. We are now free to pronounce the police guilty or innocent before the facts are in! Others are reconciled to uncertainty. Who really knows? We throw up our hands. This is itself a dangerous symptom in a demoracy, because it lets prejudices go unchecked, facts remain unverified. A corrosive skepticism is not a healthy prelude to uncovering the truth, it simply lets the prejudiced get away with their feigned certainties. It signals the death of outrage.
But most of all, what the four cases named above produce is an overpowering sense of vulnerability. You need not have any empathy with the accused to wonder: should you happen to be accused at some point, what will be your fate? Who will draw the line between guilt and innocence? Between fabrication and reality? Will it be trial by public opinion, with the police orchestrating what evidence gets out and what does not? But even more urgently: when will the investigation shade over into persecution? When will the objective be determination of the truth? Or will the objective be to break the accused? Or will it be harassment? What is a CBI investigation really about? Innocent or Guilty, the police will have the power to scar your life. They may not always do it, but they often have. Now they will get away with it, not because they use force, but because we are too uncertain to care or to believe.
There is a myth that lawlessness has increased because rates of conviction in India are low. This is a myth because it assumes that punishment has something to do with conviction. We are moving to a justice system, where in subtle and not so subtle forms, punishment can be meted out to you even when you have not been convicted. Arundhati Roy’s political judgement may not always be spot on, but her insight into the justice system deserves to be immortalised. In India, we do not get punishment after due process. Due process is the punishment. After all, aren’t there more than seven million arrests a year, a thousand undertrials in prison who have already been there more than five years? And what about the scourge of custodial deaths, a phenomenon every civilised police force has managed to abolish. Perhaps Pappu Yadav is an apt symbol of the inversion of values that corrosive skepticism allows: the jail as a secure rest house, freedom as fraught with danger, as Geelani has found out. At whose discretion we get justice, who knows.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
