Vindictive?

The onus is now on the Jayalalithaa government to defend its action against the Kanchi seer

Posted online: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 at 0000 hours IST

When Shankaracharya Jayendra Saraswathi was arrested two months ago, many were quick to spot political motives. In fact, the late night swoop in Andhra Pradesh by a planeload of armed commandos despatched from Tamil Nadu did seem excessive. But in that moment, it seemed imperative to urge that the manner of arrest and the possible intent behind dramatising it, be distinguished from the case itself. Surely the focus must remain on the serious nature of the allegations against the pontiff, the law must be allowed to take its own course. Two months later, it has become extremely difficult to say that again. The arrest of the junior acharya Vijayendra Saraswathi, only hours after Jayendra Saraswathi was granted bail by the Supreme Court, booked under the same sections under which the police arrested his senior, places the issue of timing and manner squarely centrestage. It does something more than that. Coming on the heels of the apex court’s critical observations on the police investigations so far, the onus is unambiguously on the Jayalalithaa government this time. It must explain why it should not be seen to be acting from political motives, and even vindictiveness.

The apex court has found ‘‘no worthwhile prima facie evidence’’, apart from the alleged confessions, to show that the pontiff was party to a conspiracy. In a case as sensitive as this one was certain to be, why was the necessary homework not done? Could it be true, then, that Jayalalithaa’s government acted arbitrarily, or in haste? And that the real reason behind the police’s now-apparent lack of preparedness is the chief minister’s indecent hurry to shore up an anti-Brahmin votebank in the wake of the AIADMK’s drubbing on May 13? Could it be, really, that a government take-over of the Kanchi mutt is now in the offing, as a flamboyant gesture to a targeted constituency? If these questions are being given any credence today, the Jayalalithaa administration must shoulder the blame.

It must also be held accountable for making it easier for practitioners of an irresponsible politics to capitalise on the troubles at the Kanchi mutt. Wild rhetoric of ‘‘Hinduism in danger’’ and ‘‘assault on religious institution’’ is already being pitched higher. Swaggering threats of the ‘‘Hindu samaj’’ losing its ‘‘patience’’ can be heard. In all this, it may become more of an uphill task to counsel discrimination between the man and the institution. When the investigating agency is not above suspicion, or at least not seen to be so, it seems trite to advise patience because the law must take its own course. In the end, regardless of the outcome of this particular case, that’s the real worry.