Sankararaman murder case - Kanchi Shankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati acquitted

[Asirvadam]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

The fact is someone was found murdered. Some people were prosecuted and acquitted. Yet it cannot be denied that there is a killer who killed, who committed the act of murder, crime, who is the culprit. The accused/acquitted have not committed the act, but it is certain they know who the killer is. We Indians are not dumb fools enough not to discern this fact. As per Indian Law and IPC, the killer has to be arrested/tried/sentenced/convicted. Why not the accused who know who the killer is, boldly reveal the fact!!!!

 

[sarang]

I believe, in USA, those accused in the murder of a professor of indian origin, (stabbed in front of his son and wife, recent case) were acquitted by the court. A white policeman who shot and killed a black was also acquitted (there was no dispute about the shooting). There are several 'katchi' murders which do not reach a the conviction stage. Life is like that.

The released-accused may provide names, but he has to produce evidence too.

The fact is someone was found murdered. Some people were prosecuted and acquitted. Yet it cannot be denied that there is a killer who killed, who committed the act of murder, crime, who is the culprit. The accused/acquitted have not committed the act, but it is certain they know who the killer is. We Indians are not dumb fools enough not to discern this fact. As per Indian Law and IPC, the killer has to be arrested/tried/sentenced/convicted. Why not the accused who know who the killer is, boldly reveal the fact!!!!

 

[V.Balasubramani]

The released-accused may provide names, but he has to produce evidence too.

You are right sir.

Merely pointing out finger at some one as accused is not enough. It involves a cumbersome exercise of producing eye witnesses, evidences and a written statement and all these have to be corroborated cogently.

Judgement will be pronounced only after hearing both defence and prosecution witnesses, cross-examination, etc after carefully scrutinizing prosecution and defence evidences/documents and upon hearing arguments of learned counsels of both sides and after application of mind strictly adhering to the principles of law.

Even in such exercise, some of the cases acquitted in lower courts get convicted in Appellate Courts and few cases ended in conviction in lower Court, get acquitted at Appellate Courts.


With regards.

 

[sarang]

The police and the power behind them have two predetermined courses: decide who is guilty and prepare case documents to 'prove' his 'superimposed guilt'. Decide that the guilty person is innocent, prepare documents to exonerate him either by inadequate investigation or charging somebody else.

Only when the police works with an open mind and without political pressure, real culprits will get caught.

 

[sangom]

This is interesting.

If the pontiffs were convicted instead of freed as happened in this case, will they be perceived more innocent?!

It appears some were/are convinced of the Seers' guilt for one reason or the other and are unable to bear the fact that the court considered them not guilty.

You say, "If the pontiffs were convicted instead of freed as happened in this case, will they be perceived more innocent?!" My answer is, yes, and surely, yes. AFAIK the Indian mind, the public invariably has sympathy for those punished though they may not consider them (the punished) as innocent. But if an accused gets acquitted and that too when the judge says loudly that many of the witnesses have turned hostile the public views it as victory for money or political power, and when the judge says the material evidence have been tampered as to make them worthless, the public starts believing that the accused had influenced the police and/or the court officials as well. These would not have been necessary at all, if the accused were genuinely innocent and hence the needle of suspicion points to the accused having been not innocent of the crime but manipulated the system and got themselves acquitted.

A lesser person for the Kanchi devotees, one Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, was accused of various crimes and jailed many times and was sentenced also in many of the cases. There was absolutely no acquittal on similar lines and grounds. Yet the overwhelming majority of Indians considered this Gandhi as a great person. I am sure he would have been forgotten if he ever had tried (it is a different matter whether the colonial british regime would have allowed such things but since we never heard of Gandhi attempting any such smart things, we need not consider that aspect.) similar ways.

Yes! There may always be some folks like those seen in this forum who will make sure of this happening!

For a moment, let's imagine what would have happened if the courts had found the Seers guilty? I doubt if anyone will be allowed here to express dissent at the court's opinion without being castigated as a religious fanatic! And I think that reveals something!

As I said above, if the court had found the seers guilty and pronounced some sentence - even a hefty penalty - at least my sentiment would definitely have been more favourable to them. I am also sure that this is what generally happens in any case, even with very ordinary people getting accused of some crime like house-breaking, theft, etc. The Indian mind is more with the underdog or the suffering party; it is reluctant to endorse the high and the mighty. Possibly very deep-rooted sub-conscious communism at work!

 

[Vaagmi]

There is a lot of heat generated here about who is guilty and whether the really guilty ones have escaped because of money and political powers. No one is bothered about the fact that when an Institution like Kanchimutt or any other mutt comes into a conflict with the ruling dispensation, it is the head of the mutt who takes the maximum damage in the duel. It is unfair. Are we thinking of avoiding such things happening in future? When the dust settles down, we would still have learnt no lessons. We will never decentralise the powers in the mutt. We will never protect the head of the mutt from unnecessary mudslinging.

This is the second time I come across such bad treatment of a mutt head. Earlier when a vaishnavite mutt head in Sriperumbudur came in conflict with Govt because of Govt take over of some properties, the mutt head was asked to come and attend the case in court personally. He was asked to wait for the judge to come, was asked to get into the witness's box and swear that what he said was only truth etc., This to a man who has disowned his name when he took sanyas. We never learn anything from experience. So happy slugfest until another shock comes.

 

[sangom]

People having extreme love for Kanchi Acharyas and Extreme Hatred for Kanchi Acharyas are experiencing different emotions in this case . The former had a tough time answering why these Acharyas were arrested in the first place and latter are having a tough time answering why the hell they still doubt them when the court has given them a clean chit .

Shri Krishna sir,

The Kanchi acharyas have been "let off" because the charge against them could not be proved before the court. Is that not the correct position? Though I still do not know who the actual killers/conspirators of Sankararaman were, because there are many attendant facts which makes the needle of suspicion towards the seers, take it from me that all people who criticize the Kanchi Mutt or how it was formed, etc., are all harbouring "Extreme Hatred for Kanchi Acharyas". Such a stand belies your subsequent assertion that "I am neither a fanatic admirer of the Acharyas nor have hatred towards them...<snipped>"

It is true, however, that for devotees of the Kanchi Mutt and its acharyas, it is 'either you are with us, or you are against us' and, rather unintentionally, you also seem to be subscribing to the same sentiment.

Even in the Sankararam Murder case I am not giving a clean chit to anyone but now since the court has acquitted the Achrayas and other accused the onus is now on the Establishment to speak where they erred and how they erred . If they deliberately allowed the case to be weakened then they must answer why did they arrest them in the first place ? If they feel that DMK Government weakened the case during their time then they must establish what motive they had in doing the same . If the establishment wanted they could have given proper protection to the witness and seen to it that they did not turn hostile ? Why did they fail to do it ? Also if the DMK was seem to be diluting the case during its regime why did not the AIADMK protest against that dilution at that time ? So lot of questions need to be answered by the DMK and AIADMK establishment in why this lack of interest /enthusiasm in this case during the last few years ?

Exactly. I will say that the seers should now move - through the courts - for impartial investigation by an agency like NIA to find out the real culprits and bring them before law. They should sue the TN government for libel and demand a huge sum as compensation. But I am sure no such thing will happen. Why?

 

[auh]

... The accused/acquitted have not committed the act, but it is certain they know who the killer is. We Indians are not dumb fools enough not to discern this fact. As per Indian Law and IPC, the killer has to be arrested/tried/sentenced/convicted. Why not the accused who know who the killer is, boldly reveal the fact!!!!

It would be enlightening if you could detail the reason behind the certainity, as in your above post.

Thanks,

 

[auh]

Dear sir,

You say, "If the pontiffs were convicted instead of freed as happened in this case, will they be perceived more innocent?!" My answer is, yes, and surely, yes. AFAIK the Indian mind, the public invariably has sympathy for those punished though they may not consider them (the punished) as innocent. But if an accused gets acquitted and that too when the judge says loudly that many of the witnesses have turned hostile the public views it as victory for money or political power, and when the judge says the material evidence have been tampered as to make them worthless, the public starts believing that the accused had influenced the police and/or the court officials as well. These would not have been necessary at all, if the accused were genuinely innocent and hence the needle of suspicion points to the accused having been not innocent of the crime but manipulated the system and got themselves acquitted.

A lesser person for the Kanchi devotees, one Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, was accused of various crimes and jailed many times and was sentenced also in many of the cases. There was absolutely no acquittal on similar lines and grounds. Yet the overwhelming majority of Indians considered this Gandhi as a great person. I am sure he would have been forgotten if he ever had tried (it is a different matter whether the colonial british regime would have allowed such things but since we never heard of Gandhi attempting any such smart things, we need not consider that aspect.) similar ways.



As I said above, if the court had found the seers guilty and pronounced some sentence - even a hefty penalty - at least my sentiment would definitely have been more favourable to them. I am also sure that this is what generally happens in any case, even with very ordinary people getting accused of some crime like house-breaking, theft, etc. The Indian mind is more with the underdog or the suffering party; it is reluctant to endorse the high and the mighty. Possibly very deep-rooted sub-conscious communism at work!

Imo, the above is not an impartial stand on the issue, and esp the comparison of a matathipathi to gandhi.

1) Facts are independent of what public believe, or are led to believe. One cannot engage in dalliances with the judiciary based on the tunes of public opinion in a criminal case where evidences and motives should inescapably point to the culprit(s).

2) Gandhi represented the idea of freedom and a voice against the high and mighty british rule, and people saw not the man but their spirit in his resentment of the empire. Gandhi did not go to jail in a democratic setup among dissenting voices, but he had the support of the natives behind him. Obviously his rendezvous with the gaol would only be glorified.

3) The most convenient angle is ignored (it has been pointed by several members) - When the hostility of Sankararaman is acknowledged in writing, would not it be a straight case if the accused (in his complaints) were to do him away? It is too naive for the "public" to think of a case so simple. Anyway barring complexities aside, there is no evidence to show that the matathipathis are guilty. This should be reasonable enough to understand, imo.

Regards,

 

[Raji Ram]

The witnesses followed Mahatma Gandhi's

Picture courtesy: Google images.

 

[auh]

The Kanchi acharyas have been "let off" because the charge against them could not be proved before the court. Is that not the correct position? Though I still do not know who the actual killers/conspirators of Sankararaman were, because there are many attendant facts which makes the needle of suspicion towards the seers,

Would it not be too easy for any anti-hindu organization to sniff up the animosity between the late Sankararaman and to deduct (rather correctly, it would seem) that if he were done off, the blame would only too easily point towards the seers/matam?

Exactly. I will say that the seers should now move - through the courts - for impartial investigation by an agency like NIA to find out the real culprits and bring them before law. They should sue the TN government for libel and demand a huge sum as compensation. But I am sure no such thing will happen. Why?

Maybe that would happen... let us wait and watch. If it does not, it would surely seem fishy and I agree with you on that.

 

[Raji Ram]

......... Maybe that would happen... let us wait and watch. If it does not, it would surely seem fishy and I agree with you on that.

This might not happen because recently

The Talwars insisted they wanted the killers found and petitioned the court to reopen the case - only to be charged with murder themselves.

Source: Aarushi Talwar case:

 

[sangom]

Would it not be too easy for any anti-hindu organization to sniff up the animosity between the late Sankararaman and to deduct (rather correctly, it would seem) that if he were done off, the blame would only too easily point towards the seers/matam?

Yes, this is as much a possibility as the seers themselves conspiring the murder. But reportedly, Sankararaman in his letters critical of the mutt, had also said that there was danger to his life. Unless we presume that Sankararaman knew exactly of this anti-hindu outfit and its plans but still wanted to incriminate the seers at any cost, the natural suspicion is on the seers. Is it not?

Plus, if the seers are really not guilty at all, people of their (supposed) calibre should not have been talking to the judge, promising money for favourable judgment, etc., which forced the High Court to change the judge. Again, who made so many witnesses turn hostile and so many evidences destroyed/tampered with? Was it because one and all became convinced of the seers' innocence? If so, why not all witnesses did not turn hostile, all evidences rendered useless? What about the ICICI bank account and the course of money flow?

 

[auh]

Yes, this is as much a possibility as the seers themselves conspiring the murder. But reportedly, Sankararaman in his letters critical of the mutt, had also said that there was danger to his life. Unless we presume that Sankararaman knew exactly of this anti-hindu outfit and its plans but still wanted to incriminate the seers at any cost, the natural suspicion is on the seers. Is it not?

The apprehension of Sankararaman might very well be a vague one just to protect himself in case of any eventualities. A protection clause against the matam, so that he could very well say that "should anything happen to me, you (being shown inimical towards me by reason of the letters) would be the main suspects, and hence beware".

I do not disagree that the Seers are not suspects; they definitely would be, but when the suspicion lacks evidence it fails to materialise and they are suspects no more. Don't you agree?

Plus, if the seers are really not guilty at all, people of their (supposed) calibre should not have been talking to the judge, promising money for favourable judgment, etc., which forced the High Court to change the judge. Again, who made so many witnesses turn hostile and so many evidences destroyed/tampered with? Was it because one and all became convinced of the seers' innocence? If so, why not all witnesses did not turn hostile, all evidences rendered useless? What about the ICICI bank account and the course of money flow?

Lack of answers to these questions do not warrant to pin a blame, as grave as calculated murder, on the shoulders of the Seers.

 

[Asirvadam]

It would be enlightening if you could detail the reason behind the certainity, as in your above post.

Thanks,

Reasons are obvious.

You are welcome!!

 

[sangom]

The apprehension of Sankararaman might very well be a vague one just to protect himself in case of any eventualities. A protection clause against the matam, so that he could very well say that "should anything happen to me, you (being shown inimical towards me by reason of the letters) would be the main suspects, and hence beware".

I do not disagree that the Seers are not suspects; they definitely would be, but when the suspicion lacks evidence it fails to materialise and they are suspects no more. Don't you agree?



Lack of answers to these questions do not warrant to pin a blame, as grave as calculated murder, on the shoulders of the Seers.

If you "do not disagree that the Seers are not suspects", that means that you "agree that the seers are (also, probable, if not the) suspects. Then why should the 'double negative' usage be OK but without those double negatives, it becomes disagreeable?

The suspicion does not "lack evidence", really; it was supported by evidence. But the evidence was carefully destroyed so that the court had nothing to go on. The court is bound by its rule book of jurisprudence but public opinion is not. That is the difference, in my view.

 

[tks]

I do not think this verdict however way it might have gone changed anything for anyone.
How someone reads the verdict is a reflection of the person's character in my view.

Indian people in cities by and large promote a corrupt a society by direct action or by lack of action. The so called public at large of the structured society therefore do not deserve anything in my view. All they know is to talk when it is safe to do so.

This whole case is a good show for media and probably a victory for non-Hindu forces regardless of outcome.

The so called Seers and Mutt should ignore all reactions favorable or unfavorable. They should strive to do some good projects for the unstructured part of the Indian society.

 

[tks]

Naina, what about this report: Guilty Won't be Spared by God: Son - The New Indian Express

At the end this article there is this,"The Sankaracharya took a private jet and landed at Thoothukudi in the afternoon."

There are conflicting reports, and that is why I am asking this question.

Anyway ....

It is puzzling that nobody wants to comment on the questions I raised. Saidevo thinks I am letting my imagination run wild, but he also tacitly admitted these questions remain unanswered with his call for impartial investigation. Under these circumstances, saying this is a "complete vindication" and calling for JJ to apologize are premature.

In a court of law the seers have the right to be presumed innocent, but not in the court of public opinion. All the circumstantial evidence point to the seers. Due to various reasons, including the one pointed out by Mrs. RR, the prosecution couldn't prove their case "beyond reasonable doubt". But the cloud of suspicion still hangs over the seers. The only way to lift this cloud is to properly answer the open questions.

Sri Nara

What is the nature of issue if the Seers took a private jet? why should we care??

 

[mkrishna100]

There is a lot of heat generated here about who is guilty and whether the really guilty ones have escaped because of money and political powers. No one is bothered about the fact that when an Institution like Kanchimutt or any other mutt comes into a conflict with the ruling dispensation, it is the head of the mutt who takes the maximum damage in the duel. It is unfair. Are we thinking of avoiding such things happening in future? When the dust settles down, we would still have learnt no lessons. We will never decentralise the powers in the mutt. We will never protect the head of the mutt from unnecessary mudslinging.

This is the second time I come across such bad treatment of a mutt head. Earlier when a vaishnavite mutt head in Sriperumbudur came in conflict with Govt because of Govt take over of some properties, the mutt head was asked to come and attend the case in court personally. He was asked to wait for the judge to come, was asked to get into the witness's box and swear that what he said was only truth etc., This to a man who has disowned his name when he took sanyas. We never learn anything from experience. So happy slugfest until another shock comes.

Except for few select spiritual Organizations and Mutts most of the Mutts and Spritual Organizations are quite unresponsive to the changes needed to be made in the current context in which Society , Law , Government Establishment and other agencies works . Either it is due to pure ignorance or lethargy or due to the belief that nothing will happen or purely due to the fact they want to have all the control with themselves and all decisions to be made only with their consent and approval . Some organizations made changes to their administrative and operational structure after the Kanchi Episode but the rest feel it is a one off episode and nothing will happen to them and their Organization .

 

[auh]

If you "do not disagree that the Seers are not suspects", that means that you "agree that the seers are (also, probable, if not the) suspects. Then why should the 'double negative' usage be OK but without those double negatives, it becomes disagreeable?

I dont think that the usage of the double-negative is not incorrect in my above reply , but you have correctly surmised the intent. The disagreement is to highlight that the susceptibility of the seers is not the only angle in this case as is made out to me (maybe due to popularity).

 

[Nara]

..... Anyway barring complexities aside, there is no evidence to show that the matathipathis are guilty. This should be reasonable enough to understand, imo.

auh, please note, the court has acquitted the seers because the state did not prove their case. The standard in a court of law for conviction is, I believe, please correct me if I am wrong, the accusations must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. So, all that we can logically infer from the verdict is some reasonable doubt exists. Your assertion that there is no evidence for guilt is going too far, especially considering so many open questions still exist that link the seers to the case.

I don't think a court acquittal and guilty are mutually exclusive.

Further, many here have suggested that the court has given its verdict, and it is now time to move on. This advice is misguided. There is a distinction between court and public opinion. Public has a right to disagree with the court verdict. They can't do much about it, but they don't have to accept the verdict, they can disagree and be outraged with the verdict. Many years ago O.J. Simpson was acquitted, many people felt outraged and expressed it. If the acquittal of a sports icon with no claim to moral authority can be questioned, it is all the more understandable when the acquittal with so many open questions of a religious torchbearer with moral influence over millions is not meekly accepted by one and all.

I am really surprised that the sishyas have rallied around these two seers who have actually put the institution through so much ignominy. Why can't they demand the appointment of a new seer and these two to step aside? Turn a new leaf, build anew? The mindset is to deify these people and hero worship them. They can do no wrong. Like Nixon claimed, if the president does it, it means it is not illegal. It is this attitude that puts these two individual seers above the institution.

To be sure I have no tears to spare for the institution. My sympathy is for the common bhaktha who murmurs shankara, shankara at the sight of these seers. The seers have betrayed such common ordinary sishyas. Are they entitled to be considered gurus, let alone jagat gurus. But the Hindu mindset is to look at these seers as Adi Shankara incarnate.

 

[sangom]

< snipped >

I am really surprised that the sishyas have rallied around these two seers who have actually put the institution through so much ignominy. Why can't they demand the appointment of a new seer and these two to step aside? Turn a new leaf, build anew? The mindset is to deify these people and hero worship them. They can do no wrong. Like Nixon claimed, if the president does it, it means it is not illegal. It is this attitude that puts these two individual seers above the institution.

Dear Shri Nara,

I think what is playing out here is a certain sense of possessive prestige. It is like, "The Kanchi Mutt is "our mutt" and so it has to be, like Caesar's wife, above suspicion and blame."

The mutt unfortunately got mired into controversies, first when J ran away leaving even his "dandam" and now, again, by gettting charged with murder conspiracy. But the first one, which was more a matter of internal disobedience of the mutt's code of conduct, has been successfully papered over and the sishyas now want that this latest episode should also be similarly papered over as quickly and completely as possible.

I am reminded of the following line from a movie song which was popular at one time :

விளக்கி எடுத்துத் திருத்தும் தன்மை

That is what is now sought after.

To be sure I have no tears to spare for the institution. My sympathy is for the common bhaktha who murmurs shankara, shankara at the sight of these seers. The seers have betrayed such common ordinary sishyas. Are they entitled to be considered gurus, let alone jagat gurus. But the Hindu mindset is to look at these seers as Adi Shankara incarnate.

Personally, I differ in this respect. Nobody has compelled these zombie-like bhaktas to go on chanting and deifying the seers or this mutt, or for that matter any mutt or its seer. Hinduism does not lay down such a rule. As one swamiji himself wrote, the major function of the sanyasis and family gurus, at one time, was to bestow ஸந்தானபாக்யம் to the rich and powerful zamindars. From that stage many changes have taken place. Still, if some gullible people deify this or that saamiyaar, then it is his botheration. Even Adi sankara was not given any regard by his own clansmen during his lifetime. But tabras are generally highly susceptible to the so-called spiritual people. May be this also gets embedded into the tabra genes by generations following the tabra culture. However, such blind worship of saffron-clad people is not found so pervasive among UP or Assamese brahmins.

 

[Nara]

Sri Nara

What is the nature of issue if the Seers took a private jet? why should we care??

This report, if true, is intriguing to me in many levels.

First the optics, right after the verdict, the victim's son aghast at the outcome, and the seer off on a private jet. The powerlessness of the victim's son and the power of the seer was in sharp relief. I felt intrigued by it.

When I was growing up the heads of the Mathams used to either walk or be carried in planquin. As times changed the Matam heads didn't find it hard to change with it and adopt new technologies, the mode of transportation being just one example. But somehow, they are unwilling to change some of the old practices that do not have any particular socially redeeming value. In this twenty first century we have caste-based segregation in a school that the founders say is "Inspired by the philosophy of His Holiness, Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi Swamigal, the 68th acharya of Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam".

Welcome to Vidyamandir - Educate-Enlighten-Empower

The eligibility criteria for admission to their Veda Patashala includes -- "Admissions are open to all brahmin boys between the age of 7 years and 11 years." I find clinging to jAti discrimination in who can study the vedas but readily adopt modern technology in other aspects of their religious life quite intriguing.

Finally, even in the U.S. only the super rich have private jet. In poor India to have ready access to private jet is to have the richest of the rich and the powerful of the powerful at your command. Even though he is a sanyasi, one who has renounced everything in this world, he can yet command so much power and influence. This is indicative of how Brahmins wielded power through the centuries even while the spectrum of Brahmin families included some who were relatively poor at the bottom end. We see all this right in front of our eyes, yet there are some who insist Brahmins never had any power, it is all the upper caste NBs, that is quite intriguing.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

... Seers and Mutt should ignore all reactions favorable or unfavorable. They should strive to do some good projects for the unstructured part of the Indian society.

Dear TKS,

The Shankara Mutt is involved in many such projects serving the poor and needy. If you had read the interview of HH after the verdict was announced [available here: kanchi-sathya.org - information on the kanchi seer, latest news on the the seer trial, facts about the kanchi mutt :: media ::], continuation of such efforts is part of Mutt's agenda for the future.

 

[zebra16]

auh, please note, the court has acquitted the seers because the state did not prove their case. The standard in a court of law for conviction is, I believe, please correct me if I am wrong, the accusations must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. So, all that we can logically infer from the verdict is some reasonable doubt exists. Your assertion that there is no evidence for guilt is going too far, especially considering so many open questions still exist that link the seers to the case.

You are trying to turn the legal definition on its head, but I am afraid you are not succeeding.

The legal dictum is "You are innocent till proved guilty" and when the guilt is not proven by the standard means of evidence you continue to be innocent.

I find you adopt a vacillating stand sometimes requiring "perception" to have an upper hand when you press home a point which has no legal sanctity and when others point out "perception" you want to apply the rigors of scientific approach.

Anyways the criminal system adopted in India is, an accused is charged with the alleged crimes he or she or they are supposed to have committed and the competent court declares him/her/them to be guilty or not guilty of the charges. They do not use the word "innocent" of the charges. if that is what you are looking for.

So playing on the words of suspicion, residual effects of suspicion, needles of suspicion, burden of suspicion etc, etc, by whatever name you call them are of little value. As per the Law he is as capable as he was before the charge and as pristine as he was before the accusation.