Revengeful politics at Kanchi

M.V. KAMATH | Saturday, January 29, 2005 13:3:39 IST
Where was the need to surreptitiously leak out the seer's alleged confession while in police custody to two private TV channels?

IT is now getting increasingly clear that what is projected as a case against Kanchi Sankaracharya, Sri Jayendra Saraswathi for murder is, in reality, an attempt by the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, J. Jayalalitha, to destroy the reputation of the religious head. All this talk of letting the law take its course seems rubbish. Jayalalitha is indulging in a vendetta. She is doing everything she can to destroy the reputation of the Kanchi Sankaracharya. Leave aside the fact that the Supreme Court has given bail to the Mathadhipathi. As The Hindu (January 12) said: 'The Court would permit detention only if it finds reasonable grounds for believing that the person is guilty. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution in the Sankaracharya case did not cross this threshold'. Of course, the court made it very clear that the final decision has yet to be made and as The Hindu put it, 'in purely legal terms, if (the Sankaracharya's) arrest two months ago could not be seen as proof of guilt, his release on bail is not be seen as final exoneration either'. Granted. But to quote the paper again: 'With the Supreme Court finding that the evidence gathered so far in the Sankararaman murder case is too thick to warrant detention of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi, the arrest of the junior Acharya who would seem to be more peripheral in the case, is inexplicable'. What is clear so far is that Jayalalitha is hell-bent on destroying the Kanchi seer's image. Where was the need to surreptitiously leak out the seer's alleged confession while in police custody to two private TV channels? Isn't that meant to condition the public mind in one particular direction? What kind of a sick woman is this Jayalalithaa? Why can't the Court restrain her? As Hindustan Times (January 12) put it, 'the case brings out the shoddy working of the police in our country'. The paper said that "instead of investigating a case and building up grounds for an arrest, the police first rush to arrest a suspect, take him into custody and, through what is euphemistically called 'sustained interrogation' made up a case". The paper further said: 'The time has come for the government to give serious consideration to professionalising criminal investigation across the country and ending the tyranny of rules framed in the 19th century'. Meanwhile, another question arises. Can one sue the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu for encouraging her police to leak out alleged evidence even before the Court hears it? Is that proper? Importantly, is that legal? With what seems a clear case of vengefulness the Tamil Nadu government has frozen as many as 183 bank accounts of the Kanchi mutt, making it almost impossible for the mutt's aid centres, hospitals, educational institutions and veda pathashalas to function. The Telegraph (January 14) quotes one of Jayendra Saraswathi's lawyers, A. Shanmugham as saying: "This is without any basis and amounts to violation of the fundamental rights of my client." At this point, what exactly is the seer charged with? Abetment of murder? Molestation of women devotees? Misappropriation of funds? How come Jayalalitha is allowed to get away with her vengefulness on the theory that the law is no respecter of persons and will take its course? Is that true only of a religious head, or is it equally applicable to a Chief Minister? Somebody must answer to that. The Supreme Court has exposed the irrelevance of the charges so far made against the seer. Can this be used to sue Jayalalitha for character assassination? Murder comes in all shapes and forms. The media, understandably, has been lapping up whatever material it comes across.

Assam newsline

It would seem that the print media these days is becoming more and more attractive to young graduates. According to The Statesman (January 8), journalism is presently drawing 'hundreds of young professionals from the sciences, apart from the arts stream which was where most hailed from'. Fancy journalism inviting technical graduates including those from agriculture, veterinary, geology and other applied sciences! What is it that attracts them? Print journalism is flourishing. Again, according to The Statesman Assam's political, commercial and educational hub, Guwahati, has 'twenty' dailies, half of them in Assamese. Seven dailies are published from more than one centre and three Assamese dailies claim circulation surpassing a lakh each. The print media in Assam is a major employer, with 8,000 direct jobs and indirect employment for some 20,000 persons in a state with a population of 26 million. Apparently, another 400 Guwahati based journalists work for various local, regional and national newspapers. But what marks the Assamese language media and what is not widely known outside the region, says The Statesman, is that a number of their editors are award winning and highly regarded scholars like Manoj Goswami of Dainik Janasadharan, Homen Borgohain, formerly of Amar Asom and Kanak Sen Deka of Agradoot. Sen, reportedly, is the current president of the Asom Sahitya Sabha, with Borgohain being his immediate predecessor.
But what is even less known is the enormous pressure under which Assamese journalists function. They are reportedly under constant threats from insurgents, surrendered militants and even security personnel. In the last twenty years, over twenty journalists have been killed in the line of duty. And that is a sobering thought. In its earliest days, Assamese journals seemed to have only one major aim; liberating Assam from the Bengali hold. Later that was viewed as another facet of social work. But it was only following the student-led agitation against illegal migration in the early 1980s that journalism assumed a political face. And that is the face it presently wears.

Exercising power

Incidentally - and so far, only The Telegraph (January 14) has carried the story, the Income Tax Department is pushing for a physical assessment of offerings made by Jayalalitha, including a diamond-studded gold crown, to the Guruvayoor Sri Krishna temple in June 2001 'in the face of opposition from the temple authorities and the Kerala government'. The crown is reportedly worth Rs. 6.5 crore. How come Jayalalitha could afford to spend Rs. 6.5 crore for an offering? There are several cases against her and it is time the government took a closer look at them. Jayalalitha is quoted by The Telegraph as saying that whatever she gifted to the temple, was given to her by her supporters and devotees of Guruvayoorappan. Some explanation, that. For far too long a time has this country put up with politicians' shenanigans. It is time the government took some action against those who have been exercising power indiscriminately, without being accountable to anyone, let alone the general public. The rubbishing of the people should be called a halt to. There has been enough of it.