Ramanisblog

Tag: Sankararaman

  • Jayendra Saraswati Innocent View Examined

    I have been posting blogs on Jayendra Sarasvati and his involvement in the Sankararaman Murder case.

    My point has been there is enough evidence that he is guilty.

    Jayendra Sarswati
    Jayendra Saraswati Acquitted

    Lest people I am blindly attacking Jayendrar, I am posting excerpts from S.Gurumurthy‘s article in defence of Jayendrar.

    Why is it the arrest of Jayendrar construed as an attack on the Mutt?

    In the soundbytes Vijayendrar’s implications are left unanswered.

    The article speaks of framing, by the Political Parties, without specifying the party except saying Dravidian.

    Jayendrar was arrested during Jayalalithaa‘s tenure as CM.

    Jayalalithaa as every one knows is very devout and has been admirer of the Kanchi Mutt and the Maha Periyava,

    She had also attended Poojas with Jayendrar present.

    She, being a Brahmin, what axe she has to grind against a Brahmin Mutt?

    One can understand if it is Kaunanidhi, with his pathological hatred of Hindus, Brahmins in particular.

    New Indian Has declared that’The Case is Dead’ says Gurumurthy.

    On what grounds?

    I am unable to locate the article in the web.

    Can someone forward me the news item?

    People can not simply say ‘I am framed’ without saying , at least why?

    Who stands to benefit?

    Jayalalithaa?

    Ridiculous.

    On the contrary she lost Kanchi Mutt Brahmin Votes and provided Karunanidhi to pose as beacon of Brahmins!

    Nobody bothers to ask the questions I have asked in my post’ Jayendra Saraswati Acquittal, Baffling”

    ”

    The first article titled “As the Sankaracharya stands like Abhimanyu” [NIE 23.11.2004] captured the Dravidian political and secular media theatre in the state which were hounding the hapless Acharya stung and stunned by the heinous charge against him.

    The Acharya was damaged more by the false news items planted by the police which the willing secular media and Dravidian megaphones lapped up to defame and discredit the Acharya. Another article titled “Unless the Case is Reinvestigated, Justice will not be Done” [26.11.2004] detailed how on the procured testimonies of hardened criminals the state was telling the judiciary that the Sankaracharya was “the worst criminal”. The fourth article dated 3.12.2004 was on how the case had ceased to be an investigation into a crime and had become a vicious campaign to demolish the Acharya himself. The article ended thus: “Even if, at the end, I am entirely proved wrong, I cannot shirk my duty to alert the public and sensitise the authorities about the destruction of too many values involved in this investigation which is gradually turning into a battle between the silent and silenced Kanchi Mutt on the one hand and police and its associate, the media megaphones on the other. It is no more an investigation into crime….it is now a larger design to defame and discredit the Mutt itself.” The final article titled “Will the Secular Media Heed Justice Reddy’s Warning?” appeared on January 14, 2005. This article was on the judgment of Justice Narasimha Reddy of the Andhra Pradesh High Court before whom a frivolous writ had been filed by some labour union on the basis of media reports linking some deaths [which had taken place six years ago on the premises of a mill, from where the Acharya had been arrested] to the Acharya.

    Disposing of the writ, the judge said the petitioner swayed by the media did not want to lag behind in the unprecedented process of denigration of the Kanchi Mutt, an ancient, prestigious and glorious institution with almost a 2,500-year history. He added that it was sad that an institution of such glory was targeted and persecuted in an organised manner in an independent country, by “not only individuals, but also a section of the institutions, such as the State and the Press”. He also noted that the proponents of human rights, fair play and dignity to individuals and institutions have maintained stoic silence, adding “a powerful section is celebrating or watching it with indifference” the “perfidy against the Mutt” that had shocked the nation and beyond”. He noted that the “amount of disrepute and sacrilege inflicted on Sri Jayendra Saraswathi has no comparables adding that harshest possible words were used directly or in innuendo against him” and “today he is subjected to similar treatment as was Draupati in the Court of Kauravas”. That was the state of the Acharya and the Mutt when The New Indian Express stood for truth against tsunami of vicious campaign against the Acharya…

    The reward for these articles was an arrest warrant against me and almost a search on The New Indian Express and even the Thuglak magazine, which had carried the Tamil version of the articles. As usual the judiciary came to the rescue and passed orders restraining the state. I was questioned by the Superintendent of Police who led the investigation. When I asked him why he was suspecting the Acharya to be the offender, he said that the victim had been sending highly offensive letters to the Acharya and therefore he had a motive to eliminate him. I asked him whether he thought of the possibility of someone inimical to the Acharya eliminating the victim to put the blame on the Acharya. He was blank.

    http://newindianexpress.com/nation/Recalling-the-Kanchi-Sankaracharya-Case/2013/11/28/article1915161.ece

    Related Articles

  • Jayendra Saraswati Acquittal Baffling

    Jayendra Saraswati,Vijayendrar of The Kanchi Mutt and 23 others were acquitted by judge in Puducherry on 27 November on the Sankararaman Murder case on the ground that the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were in Conspiracy.

    Nithyananda and Jayendra Saraswati
    Jayendra Saraswati with Nithyananda

    Ant  the other reason given is that the witnesses have not identified the accused.

    Now consider the following facts.

    1.Sankararaman was murdered and he was presumably blackmailing the Pontiff.

    Nobody checked his motive and the possible fact for the blackmail.

    If this is checked you will get the motive.

    On Sankararaman:

    ”

    Sankararaman had begun serving the Kanchi Mutt after the death of his father, S Anantakrishna Sharma, who was an employee of the Mutt for over 60 years. However, he did not get along well with the junior Shankarcharya, Sri Jayendra Saraswati, and he left the Mutt on his own. He later went on to become the manager of the Sri Varadaraja Perumal temple in Kancheepuram.

    Although Sankararaman left the Mutt, he continued to question Jayendra Saraswati regarding his activities. In 2000, when the seer had plans to go to China, Sankararaman opposed him saying that the Hindu scriptures did not allow a Mutt’s chief to travel across oceans. He moved the Court to stop Jayendra Saraswati from his efforts following which the latter abandoned his China trip. This worsened their relationship further.

    He continued to write letters to Sri Jayendra Saraswati questioning him on the mismanagement of the Mutt. In his last letter, written on August 30, 2004, Sankararaman wrote to him that the Shankarcharya was misusing his powers and that he would move the Court against him.

    Soon after, he was attacked and hacked to death by a gang  in the evening of September 3, 2004.

    2.There were 181 witnesses for the case for the Prosecution.

    3.81 turned Approvers.

    4.These 81 did a volte face and turned hostile witnesses.

    This should be world record.

    5.The victim Sankararaman’s family initially complained about the murder, later retracted.

    http://newindianexpress.com/states/tamil_nadu/Victim-was-an-Ardent-Mutt-Devotee/2013/11/28/article1915642.ece

    Then they retracted their statements.

    Again they claimed that Sankararaman was murdered at the behest of Jayendra Saraswati.

    6.An auditor Radhakrishnan who was connected to the Kanchi Mutt was brutally attacked in Chennai by thugs.

    7.There was an indirect admission by the Jayendrar when he was in custody where he bemoaned Vijayendra not caring about him and was trying to protect his brother.

    8.One of the accused Kathiravan was murdered, he was a member of  a locla dada in Chennai .

    9.There was an attempt by some one claiming to be close to Kanchi Mutt to bribe the Puducherry Judge, the audio was broadcast.

    10.A Chennai Dada was seen frequenting the Kanchi Mutt sometime before Sankararaman murder.

    Well, if these are not enough to convict then there is even less to convict Ramalinga Raju for Sathyam scam Harshad Mehta for Stamp paper scam and more recently Rajesh Talwar for Aarushi and Hemraj’s murders.

    Law is an ass, true.

    Now to the question of the Government going for appeal.

    Normally one would expect Jayalalitha to go for appeal.

    But one has to see whether the impending elections have a bearing on her mind.

    Story:

    With as many as 20 witnesses turning hostile in the Sankararaman murder case, a Puducherry court on Wednesday acquitted all 23 accused including the Shankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati, seer of the Kanchi Mutt. Public prosecutors admitted the witnesses including prosecution witnesses turned hostile, with the result that no motive or conspiracy could be proved, leading to all

    The case till now: * On 3 September, 2004, a man named Sankararaman, a manager of the Varadarajaperumal temple in Kanchipuram, was murdered. A report in Tamil magazine Nakkeeran then linked the murder to the pontiff of the Kanchi Kamakoti mutt, Jayendra Saraswati.Nakkeeran reporter Damodaran Prakash quoted letters from Sankararaman to various publications, authorities and corporates regarding alleged malpractices in the Kanchi Mutt, the Shaivite Hindu mutt. * It began to appear that Sankararaman was a serial letter writer and whistleblower, and he had even approached the Mutt about the alleged malpractices, misuse of funds, the Shankaracharya’s travels abroad, etc. * Given that he was a much-revered religious leader whose support was wooed by political leaders and business magnates, the allegations against the Shankaracharya led to a furore among his followers. A political drama followed too, with the opposition DMK launching a massive offensive against Jayalalithaa, followed later by rumours that the case against the seers was itself caused by the Mutt’s growing friendship with the DMK. There were also rumours that the TN government was eyeing the expansive properties of the mutt.More political drama ensued with right wing parties staging protests and dharnas, BJP leader Sushma Swaraj later visiting the seer in jail and more. * In November 2004, as the Shankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati and his junior Vijayendra Saraswati were conducting a puja in Mahbubnagar, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu Police arrested the seer. * Barely weeks later, one of the accused, Kathiravan withdrew his statement made in front of a magistrate. Kathiravan was later murdered.

    http://www.firstpost.com/india/shankaracharya-acquitted-in-sankararaman-case-key-case-facts-1252729.html

    http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=20041217006101900.htm&date=fl2125/&prd=fline&

    In efence of Jayendra Sarsawati

    http://www.freewebs.com/victorymeansguruprasath/apps/blog/show/17988869-the-crucial-facts-of-the-kanchi-case

    NOR.html

    http://ramanisblog.in/2013/03/16/time-to-disown-jayendra-saraswati/