The Case for Piratti-Part 1

[Guest guest]

Dear shri Sudarshan,

 

This is in reply to Part I of your posting.

 

Knowing the public prosecutor to be an impressive and eloquent advocate, the

Defence had expected much more solid arguments from him. In fact, the

prosecution's submission so far has hardly been able to even scrape at the

concrete wall of the defence arguments, leave alone knock a hole in the same.

 

The by-now "famous" line, "If Rama did it, it must be correct!" appears to stand

unassailed, despite the prosecution's attempts to demolish it.

 

I would appeal to the amicus curae and members of the jury to note very

carefully the adept way in which the prosecutor has shifted the scene from the

Agni pariksha, to Uttara Kandam. I would like to emphasize very much and

repeatedly, that the case we have on hand concerns Sri Rama's conduct on the

occasion of Sri Sita's ordeal by fire and is not at all about Her being

abandoned in the woods. I pray to the jury not to be misled by counsel's

skilful attempts to shift the focus from Agni pariksha, where he finds not any

text to support him, to the Uttara Kandam episode.

 

Members of the jury and Amicus curae, it is a basic principle of jurisprudence

that one must argue one's case on the basis of available facts pertaining to the

instant case alone, and not bring in material irrelevant to the same, simply

because no tenable arguments can be adduced for the current case. If we are

talking about Agni Pariksha, we will continue to do so. If we are to talk about

the Uttara Kanda, we will do so separately and not mix up things merely for our

convenience.

 

Having cautioned members of the jury against these diversionary tactics, I would

like to point out that even the texts quoted by the learned prosecutor hardly

afford him the requisite degree of support. All these slokas pertain strictly to

Piratti's plight in the woods in the Uttara Kanda, with the Agni Pariksha

episode hardly figuring in them, unless such a "spin" is put on the impartial

Maharshi's words.

 

And I draw the jury's attention to the careful way in which the prosecutor has

avoided all reference to the Sundara Kanda sloka of Piratti. If you want to

listen to the true Voice of Sita Piratti, placed in context, it is to be found

in Her admission of guilt to Siriya Tiruvadi--

 

"Mamaiva dushkritam kinchit, mahadasti na samsaya:"

 

Why doesn't the prosecutor take cognisance of this plain text which is incapable

of embellishment or misinterpretation?

In fact, Sri Mythily emphasises Her admission with the words, "na

samsaya:"(undoubtedly). It is natural that the prosecutor disregards this, for,

if he were to admit the same, it would lay clear to all the truth that the

Public Prosecutor is arguing a case he has dreamed up on his own, with

absolutely no basis for the same in the form of a complaint from the aggrieved

party. Have you ever heard of a prosecution without a complaint? You have a

bizarre instance of it here. It is a case of being more loyal than the King,

for, can anyone in the jury or the listening public say with any element of

certainty that Sri Sita Piratti would ever prefer a complaint against Her

beloved?

 

All that the much-wronged "traditionalists" have done is to identify the acts

which Piratti Herself considers to be sins, big and small. And without such

"traditionalists", Mr. Public Prosecutor, pray tell us where we would all be in

the matter of finding interpretations to esoteric components of the Scripture,

whether it be the Brahma Sutras or the Dravida Vedam? It is tradition which is

our life line, without which all of us, irrespective of our social, economic or

spiritial standing, would be entirely lost and floundering for the rest of our

lives in this mundane morass, without the guiding light of scriptural wisdom. So

there is nothing wrong, per se, with "traditionalists" and their accounts.

 

In sum, I am sure that members of the jury would entirely agree with me that the

prosecution has so far been unable to prove anything and has been forced to

resort to diversionary tactics, much in the manner of the hapless Hamilton

Burger, the District Attorney in many of Erle Stanley Gardner's "Perry Mason"

novels.

 

Let me deal with Part 2 of the Prosecution Counsel's averments later.

 

dasan, sadagopan