You are here: SriPedia - SriRangaSri - Archives - Jul 2004

SriRangaSri List Archive: Message 00199 Jul 2004

 
Jul 2004 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


--- sadagopaniyengar <sadagopaniyengar@xxxxxxxx>
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



________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Careers: Over 65,000 jobs online
Go to: http://yahoo.naukri.com/



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/VkWolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SriRangaSri/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    SriRangaSri-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list