The Crucifixion of Jayendra Saraswathi

by Kalyan Sundaram

In my younger days, quiz competitions were a favorite pastime, particularly when it came to questions about the highest, longest, fastest etc. The answer to one such question, “What was the name of the movie with the longest title?” was: “The persecution and assassination of Jean-Paul Marat as performed by the inmates of the asylum of Charenton, under the direction of Marquis de Sade”. As I watch and read about the railroading of the Kanchi seer, Jayendra Saraswathi, it is this movie title, which comes to mind, with Marat played by Jayendra Saraswathi, Marquis de Sade by Madame Jayalalitha and the asylum inmates by the Tamil Nadu police. The one added ingredient, missing from the Marat/ Sade historical episode, is the cheerleading section, played to the hilt by the Indian media.

Actually, historical parallels to this monumental tragedy are plenty. The most obvious is the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, a religious activist of 2000 years ago, who offended both the ruling elite and the religious orthodoxy equally, and was tried, convicted and crucified like a common criminal. From the manner of his arrest to the very first pronouncement by the public prosecutor, the Kanchi seer too has been treated as a common criminal, and not as the head of a reputed religious institution with no known prior history of crime. If anything, Christ was afforded a little more dignity in the timing of his arrest. One suspects that, if Jayalalitha had been in the place of Pontius Pilate, she would have arrested Jesus right in the middle of the Last Supper.

What is the role of the junior swami, Vijayendra Saraswathi in all this? Is he unwittingly being duped into becoming the modern day Judas? Look at the ironies. On one hand, we are told that the Kanchi mutt is a conglomerate whose net worth is in thousands of crore rupees, and on the other hand Vijayendra Saraswathi has to hitch a ride from a person who has been most critical of his guru over the years. In what may be seen as the Indian version of embedded journalism, we had the news report, carried by some news agencies but conveniently underplayed by the Hindu newspaper, of the junior seer finally returning to Kanchi mutt several days after his senior was arrested, riding in the vehicle of the Hindu editor, N. Ram, and accompanied by the latter as well as the Hindu bureau chief, V. Jayanth. The Hindu, which took a pass on editorializing the day after the Godhra arson, had been quick to run an editorial the day after Jayendra Saraswathi was arrested, mouthing piously that the law must take its own course and all but convicting him through words, tone and intent. And the junior seer was comfortably riding with the editor of the same newspaper! Of course, a couple of days after that event, V. Jayanth, the same one who accompanied the junior seer, was writing an article in Hindu, wherein he recommended that the Vijayendra Saraswathi being already the de facto head of the mutt should formally take over. Laughably, he also accused the Kanchi mutt of indulging in nepotism, when it is a wellknown fact that his own newspaper has been doing the nepotism tango for as long as one can remember.

The strain 'law must take its own course' was played throughout the media. All of a sudden, the Indian politician, the Indian police and the Indian justice system, which had been painted as being corrupt to the core, now became a paragon of virtue. The same Hindu newspaper, which had penned critical commentaries on the midnight arrest of Karunanidhi by Jayalalitha and had fought tooth and nail, the arrest warrants for its own editors by the same Jayalalitha (no pious proclamations of the law taking its course here) could suddenly find nothing wrong in the machinations of the police. The same judge, who could not be relied upon to prosecute fairly a case of wrongful accumulation of assets against the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, so much so that the trial was transferred to Karnataka, was now running the show-trial on behalf of the same Chief Minister. Other media, which cast a suspicious eye on any action by the police and local judiciary, was now deliriously happy to give the benefit of the doubt to the police. No one exhibited more deliriousness than the Outlook magazine and its virulently anti-Brahmin writer S. Anand. Every innuendo mentioned by anyone was happily written up by the author. The Brahmin-ness of Jayalalitha, which was played up in previous criticisms of her actions, was now presented as proof that her arrest of a Brahmin priest had to be above board, never mind her reputation of playing to the gallery, political gamesmanship and personal vindictiveness. Such was her sudden reversal of fortune with the media that both the Hindu and Outlook published the full text of her speech in the Assembly castigating Karunanidhi for suspecting her motives, a privilege usually reserved for the likes of Arundhati Roy, whose public speeches were usually reproduced in full by both of these publications (in the case of the Hindu, by its stable-mate, Frontline).

The silence of several key figures in the Indian scene is equally noteworthy. President Abdul Kalam, probably still smarting from Rafiq Zakaria's assertion that he is not a Muslim, on account of his awareness of Hindu scriptures and interaction with Hindu organizations, has chosen to remain silent. So has Sonia Gandhi who, like many others, has suddenly discovered the phrase 'sub judice' and has chosen to not say anything. Maybe her speechwriters have not bothered to write anything for her to say. All the so-called NGOs and human rights organizations, which have usually taken the position that the police can do no right, have now become mute spectators to this sordid drama. Some of those, who are speaking up, are quick to decry the Sangh Parivar's exploitation of the issue, but have no qualms themselves in bringing up political issues that have no connection with the murder and the alleged reasons behind it. The most prominent criticism has to do with the fact that the seer veered away from the path of spirituality and involved himself with social and political issues. If that is so, shouldn't the same yardsticks apply to others who sport religious prefixes to their names, but constantly indulge in social engineering and political activism? Shouldn't 'Swami' Agnivesh, still sporting the 'hated' saffron robe, be contemplating on the formless idol-free god of his Arya Samaj, instead of indulging in social activism? Or how about his journalistic twin, 'Reverend' Valson Thampu? Shouldn't he be chanting 'The Lord is my Shepherd' rather than spouting 'anti-communal' rhetoric? Mr. Agnivesh, by the way, has waded into the issue already, demanding an investigation into the 'criminalization of religion'. Slam bang. Two more nails on the seer's cross, if you please.

It is certainly valid to speculate that the whole episode could have been carefully orchestrated by people who wanted the seer out of the way for political reasons, and who were quite sure that the opposition faced by the seer from spiritual circles would minimize any groundswell of support for him, other than from the usual suspects, the Parivar. Just consider that the main driving force behind the seer's arrest was Veerappan's embedded journalist, Nakkeeran Gopal, who has had a major role to play both before and after the murder, and whose social sympathies are well known. In its recent issue, Frontline reported, “With the police investigation into the murder making little headway, the Tamil magazine Nakkeeran began its own investigation. An article in its September 11, 2004 issue said the magazine had received a letter dated August 30, from Sankararaman, besides other letters connected with it.” Given that magazines are in public circulation a few days before the stated publication date, the Nakkeeran issue would have been on the streets by 8th or 9th of September. Rewind a couple of days for the preparation of the article and printing of the magazine, and we are looking at a gap of 3-4 days between the date of the murder (September 3) and when the magazine decided that police investigation was making little headway. Rather high expectations of the police, that too by an editor, who had no problems with the delay in bringing Veerappan to justice!

A couple of silver linings in this cloud have to be acknowledged. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board came out in support of the seer, criticizing the manner of his arrest, and praising his role as a mediator in the Ayodhya dispute. So did a couple of Muslim organizations in Tamil Nadu, as well as some Dalit organizations, giving the lie to claims by the mainstream media that the seer was nothing but an anti-minority hindutvawadi. Unfortunately, such support has been sporadic. The usual divisiveness that characterizes the Hindu community has resulted in far too many people unwilling to speak on his behalf. Clearly, the seer had made too many enemies, far more than the late Sankararaman seems to have.

As the case is proceeding towards an inexorable conclusion, one cannot help recalling that most famous miscarriage of justice in Tamil history, when Kovalan was accused and then executed for having stolen the Queen's bracelet. When his wife, Kannagi, found out about it, she confronted the King with the fact that the bracelet found to have been in Kovalan's possession was the one she had given to him, and not the queen's. Not satisfied with the King's apology, she gave vent to her anger by burning down the entire city of Madurai. One wonders what the consequences of this latest miscarriage of justice would be. Jayalalitha, who is supposed to have removed the statue of Kannagi from the beaches of Chennai, on suspicion that the statue brought bad luck to the city, and Karunanidhi who is known for his Tamil oratory, would do well to ponder.