[t'venkatam] "Ordeal by Fire" - The case for 'sitA-pirAtti'- (PART 2)

[Guest guest]

--- sadagopaniyengar <sadagopaniyengar

wrote: Entering into the spirit of your

> enactment of the court scene, I would like to lay

> the following lines before the "jury". I know it is

> not customary for the defence to interrupt before

> the prosecution has concluded its arguments, but the

> fear that the jury might be mesmerised by the

> apparent logic in your skilful harangue prompts me

> to enter this rebuttal.

 

 

Dear SrimAn Sadagopan Iyengar,

 

Thank you for your note. I'm quite surprised that even

before the "prosecution" has had its opportunity to

complete its closing arguments, the Defense Counsel

has taken undue advantage and hastened to court to

make a host of supplementary representations and

rebuttals. The reason for this, the learned

defense-counsel says, is he "fears that the jury might

be mesmerised by the apparent logic in your skilful

harangue"! But the real reason for the learned

counsel's action, to my mind, is quite different. And

it has been spelt out clearly in his own words:

 

(Quote)... "your spirited advocacy of the

"prosectuion" was admirable for its style and the

formidable case you have built up against the

"accused" does look daunting, but not for the

traditionalists." (UNQUOTE)

 

By the above statement the learned counsel's real

motive is clearly revealed. He seeks to unduly

influence the jury by making a pre-emptive appeal to

those amongst them whom he believes are

"traditionalists". By doing so, he hopes to be able to

portray the prosecution as being "non-traditionalist"

and therefore non-conformist and hence un-convincing.

 

 

When the prosecution made its arguments it did not

divide the members of the jury into "traditionalists"

and non-"traditionalists". It merely sought to argue

its case using/quoting evidence already available in

relevant passages of the 'Srimadh Valmiki-Ramayana'.

No attempt was made to arouse a rift between

"traditionalist" sentiments and "liberal" sentiments.

The facts alone were presented so that it it would

ultimately be left to the members alone to sift

through the evidence, in an impartial manner, and

reach their own conclusions.

 

But the defense counsel has now totally changed the

rules of engagement by bringing in the extraneous

dimension of "traditionalist" bias in evaluating the

genuine facts of the case. This is a very clever move

indeed! It's a very clever tactic but very unfair. In

fact, it is tantamount to "contempt of court" since

its seeks to unduly influence the jury process.

 

The prosecution confesses it does not have anything in

its armoury to counter such unfair tactics. The moment

these proceedings are turned into a discourse between

so-called "traditionalists" and "non-traditionalists",

the hard facts of the 'Ramayana' will fade away into

the background and instead it's the poor prosecutor

himself, yours truly, who will personally come under

trial! From this point onwards, I'm sure it is not the

"Valmiki Ramayana" that will be the focal point of

discussion (amongst the jury members) but whether the

counsel for prosecution is a heretic who deserves to

be pilloried!

 

Although I compliment the learned defense counsel on

his deft, though devious, legal master-stroke, I have

to say I cannot admire him for it.

 

The prosecution however must continue with its

representations and make its case. This is a matter

which concerns the deity of 'Sita-pirAtti', who is

very close to my heart! I like to regard myself not so

much a "rAma-bhakta" as a "sitArAma-bhakta". I prefer

to address Lord Rama more often as "jAnaki-ramaNa"

than as "kOthanda-pANi". Sir, whatever be the outcome

of this delightful engagement between you and me, and

no matter what the "traditionalists" or

non-traditionalists may have to say finally, I will

still make my case on behalf of my 'Sita-pirAtti'...

 

On this occasion at least, and until my next posting

on the subject, I earnestly hope the defense counsel

will allow me to continue with my summations

un-hindered .

 

Before I sign off, I will only say this. The

'Valmiki-Ramayana' was not written for the sake of

so-called "traditional" commentatary alone. The

"ramayana" is not a piece of fossilized history. It is

a living document meant for the living present. It is

meant to be studied by one and all and re-studied, to

be contemplated upon, debated and re-debated about by

each one of us in our own individual lives; it is

meant to be lived and re-lived inside our very hearts;

every scene from it is meant for us to individually

enact and re-enact within our own minds...

endlessly.... The beauty of the epic, the magic of its

scenes and the glory of its characters, lies in that

effort alone...

 

As for the members of the "jury" (and I mean all

members, irrespective of their "traditionalist" or

non-traditional loyalties), they may please await the

prosecution to make its closing statements in the next

posting. Please bear with me in patience.

 

Rgds,

dAsan,

 

Sudarshan

 

 

 

______________________

India Careers: Over 65,000 jobs online

Go to: http://.naukri.com/