In battle for Jayalalithaa’s legacy, her image is being tarnished one lie at a time

Apparently, they were only waiting for an opportune moment to release the video, to use the final images of Jayalalithaa for maximum advantage, writes Dhanya Rajendran in TNM. Read on: 

The nervous cameraman had carefully set up his frames, and the tension in the room was palpable as we waited for our VIP guest to arrive. It was 2010, and the 2G scam was rocking Tamil Nadu politics. A calm Jayalalithaa walked into the room and greeted us. She immediately looked at the second camera pointed at her chair and told us that she did not like her profile shots, and that the camera angle had to be changed.

That was Jayalalithaa, always conscious of her image, not a hair out of place.

Would the three-time Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu have liked to see a video of herself in the hospital, looking frail and vulnerable, out in the public? Definitely not. In fact, it was fearing her obsessiveness for privacy and image-consciousness that the Sasikala family never released her video, even though there were several conspiracy theories during her hospitalisation. Her personal staffer had stated then that no one would dare release even a photo of her, because she would not spare them for doing so, once she was discharged.

Even after Jayalalithaa's death, this video that was purportedly shot by Sasikala, or someone in her family, remained elusive.

Everyone wanted to have a look at the video. Many journalists, including me, had asked Sasikala's family why they were keeping the video or pictures secret even as those in the other AIADMK factions like Manoj Pandian had made serious allegations about the circumstances that led to Jayalalithaa's death. Even when a Madras High Court judge asked why Jayalalithaa's body could not be exhumed, the family remained adamant that they will not show the video to anyone, even to the court. One member of the Sasikala family asked me, “Why should we release video? She was a lion. We don't want anyone to see her in hospital."

Clearly, the dignity of the lion can be massacred at the altar of electoral politics. Just a day before the RK Nagar polls, disqualified MLA Vetrivel, known to be close to TTV Dhinakaran, has released a video showing her in the hospital.

Despite all the brickbats and wild allegations, the Sasikala family said that Jayalalithaa's privacy was sacrosanct to them. Some of us discussed how the Sasikala family deserved some respect for not using Jayalalithaa's images in hospital to gain political brownie points.

Apparently, they were only waiting for an opportune moment to release the video, to use the final images of Jayalalithaa for maximum advantage.

The Sasikala family says that Vetrivel released the video of his own accord, without their consent. How did he get the video? And do they really expect people to believe that a well-timed release of the video by a close confidante was without their blessing?

What’s ironic about the situation is that this doesn’t bode well for the Sasikala family’s political opponents within the AIADMK either. Was it just political opportunism that the OPS camp first remained complicit in silence with Sasikala, and then fuelled conspiracy theories about her death? If the video is authentic, and Jayalalithaa was conscious at some point during her hospitalisation, did they lie in spite of knowing the truth? Is it simply a case of desperate times, desperate measures?

In the political battles following Jayalalithaa’s death, her legacy is being tarnished, one lie at a time.

Who shot the Jayalalithaa hospital video? Sasikala, claims Vetrivel. How, ask others

The controversial video was released by TTV Dhinakaran supporter Vetrivel on Wednesday in Chennai.

A video of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa sitting up on a bed and sipping a glass of juice has sent Tamil Nadu politics into a tizzy. Will this quell the rumours about how Jayalalithaa got treatment at Apollo Hospitals? Will this stop the multiple reports that have come since December 5, 2016 that claimed that the late Chief Minister was in a coma throughout her 73 days stay at the hospital?

Apparently, the video is only raising more questions than providing answers. And the one big question that many people are asking is: who shot the video?

Tamil Nadu Fisheries Minister Jayakumar has also raised this question at a press conference in Chennai hours after the video was released by disqualified MLA and TTV Dhinakaran supporter Vetrivel.

He asked, "Who has taken this video breaching security? When was this video taken? Amma is in Z plus category security. So who took the video? There are no details on this.”

However, Jayakumar’s question comes even as the person who released the video made a stunning claim. Vetrivel told media persons that the video was shot by Sasikala herself.

P Vetrivel said, “Chinamma took this video after Amma had come out of ICU. This was taken at Apollo. I released the video as I had no other choice. Even a year after her death, people have been tarnishing her image. Even yesterday there was a cheap news about Amma. Upon Panneerselvam’s inciting, one or two people are coming forward, claiming that Amma has one child or two children.”

It has to be recalled that TTV Dhinakaran has earlier, while confirming the existence of such a video, had also claimed that it was shot by his aunt Sasikala.

“But we have a footage shot by Chinnamma (Sasikala), after Jayalalithaa insisted that she take a video because she had lost a lot of weight,” a newspaper quoted him as saying.

Jayakumar’s press conference, along with Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise P Thangamani, and Minister for Food and Civil Supplies R Kamaraj, was part of the EPS-OPS combine’s strategy in the face of the release of this video.

Ever since the EPS and OPS factions of the AIADMK merged, and the EPS faction sidelined TTV Dhinakaran and Sasikala, the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister, have suggested that there was mystery around Jayalalithaa’s death, pointing a finger at the Sasikala family.

In fact, one of the demands of the OPS faction before they merged with the ruling EPS faction was that there should be an inquiry into Jayalalithaa’s hospitalization and death. Soon after the merger, the AIADMK government in Tamil Nadu instituted a one-man inquiry commission headed by Justice Retd Arumugasamy to look into the matter.

Not only this, ministers and leaders of the AIADMK made a U-turn following the sidelining of TTV Dhinakaran. For instance, Forest Minister Dindigul Sreenivasan who had earlier claimed that Jayalalithaa had given him sweets, later changed his version at a public meeting and openly declared that he and others had lied about Jayalalithaa’s health. He even said that he had never seen Jayalalithaa throughout the time she was hospitalised.

Speaking at a public meeting in Madurai, Sreenivasan said: "We told lies that she (Jayalalithaa) had idlis and people met her. The truth is that nobody saw her."

In fact, in the face of such contradictory comments, Vetrivel has also claimed on Wednesday that he has videos of EPS and OPS discussing where to take Jayalalithaa for treatment next.

Threatening to release more videos that would expose the current Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister, he said, “These people did not have the guts to stand before her when she was alive. Now these people are raising doubts about her death without any end. They are continuing this. I never went inside Apollo even one day. I would stand outside. All these people – O Panneerselvam, Edappadi Palaniswami, RB Udayakumar, Vijayabaskar and Jayakumar –  would discuss where to take Amma for treatment next. We have that video also. We will release that next.”

Jayakumar for his part asked why Vetrivel hadn’t given the videos to the inquiry committee instead of threatening to release them to media.

“None of us Ministers were allowed to see her. The top leaders from the Centre were also not allowed to see her. So who took this video? Once the investigating committee has been constituted, all evidence must be submitted to them. This act of releasing the video to external outlets is disrespectful to the committee. This politically motivated to bring disrepute to Amma," he said.

"There seems to be an ulterior motive to this. This is a violation of election practices," he said.

Questioning the ethics and legality of shooting such a video, Jayakumar said, "In a hospital, the patient has to be under the control of the hospital. This is also a breach of hospital rules."

(Source: TNM)

First video of Jayalalithaa in hospital: TTV aide releases visuals to 'disprove rumours'

Sasikala's family have finally chosen to show the video to the public.

Questions around J Jayalalithaa's hospitalisation and death have dominated public discourse in Tamil Nadu for a year. Though the Sasikala family have denied theories that Jayalalithaa was in coma throughout her hospitalisation, they had refused to share a video that had been captured by a family member.

Sasikala's family had claimed that they were not releasing the video out of respect to Jayalalithaa's privacy. But now, they have finally chosen to show the video to the public, apparently in light of a one man inquiry commission probing the circumstances around her hospitalisation and death.

The video shows a frail Jayalalithaa on a bed, drinking from a glass and presumably watching TV. She has a BP monitor attached to her right hand, while she’s sipping on a glass of juice in her left hand.

The video was released by MLA P Vetrivel, who belongs the TTV Dhinakaran camp.

"Both EPS and OPS were aware of how Jayalalithaa's health was in the hospital. We released this video because there are too many rumours about her condition following her death. They are constantly raising doubts about her death, we thought they will stop but there seems to be no sign. Amma and Chinamma are both important to me. This video was with me even though I hadn't gone into Apollo. OPS, EPS and Vijayabaskar are people who have discussed her treatment and yet they talk in this manner. We have even more evidence in store," Vetrivel told media persons.

"The release of the video is not connected to the RK Nagar elections in any manner. This is to prevent her image from getting further tarnished," Vetrivel added.

"This is basically evidence that Jayalalithaa was alive and was being cared for in hospital. She underwent treatment before she was unfortunately taken away due to a heart attack," Apsara Reddy, a TTV Dhinakaran supporter said.

Speaking to a TV channel, Thanga Tamizhchelvan, a suppoter of TTV Dhinakaran, said, "People have been casting aspersions on the circumstances of her death for so long. We have digested this for so long. I've never seen Amma in hospital. Now I am satisfied that Amma was in hospital. How can we stand such a denigration of her death?"

C Rajasekaran, a TTV Dhinakaran supporter told a news channel, “As a common man and supporter of Jayalalithaa, I was feeling bad there was no video to substantiate the fact that she was being treated in hospital … I don’t want to attribute a motive to this video. It’s not about the RK Nagar bye-polls at all. We care about her life. This shows that all those theories that floated about how she allegedly died earlier and we were keeping quiet about it are all fake.”

The DMK meanwhile has reiterated that the questions they have raised are about whether Jayalalithaa was given proper treatment.

"Prathap Reddy himself has said that we were advised to say certain things and that they were asked not to reveal certain things. Our questions are: What happened in Poes Garden? Under what circumstances was she taken to hospital? Why was she not saved by giving the right the right treatment?" asked DMK leader KC Palanisamy.

Ever since Jayalalithaa's death on December 5, 2016, several people have raised questions over the circumstances of her hospitalisation and death. In fact, an AIADMK leader who had previously claimed that Jayalalithaa had given him sweets while she was in hospital, later turned around and claimed he had never seem her while she was hospitalised. Forests Minister Dindigul Sreenivasan said, "I seek a huge pardon from you. Please forgive me. We told lies Amma (Jayalalithaa) is eating sambar, chatni, tea etc so that you will believe that she is improving. In fact no body saw Amma eating idli or drinking tea or chatting... all are lies."

With even the Madras High Court raising questions over Jayalalithaa's death, the TN government had appointed a one man commission headed by Justice (Retd.) Arumugasamy to probe into the death.

#TTVDhinakaran supporter MLA Vetrivel releases footage of #Jayalalithaa that was taken inside Apollo hospital. Idea clearly to show she was on the path to recovery and that #Sasikala had no role to play in Jaya's death pic.twitter.com/XsLvJoG6Is

— T S Sudhir (@Iamtssudhir) December 20, 2017

(Source: TNM)

The firebrand top cop who exposed Sasikala's VVIP treatment in Bengaluru jail

D Roopa, an IPS officer from Davangere, Karnataka exposed the sham running in the Bengaluru Parappana Agrahara Central jail and remains defiant in the face of controversy.

The maverick Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of Prisons who blew the whistle on the VVIP treatment given to AIADMK general secretary Sasikala in Bengaluru prison has decided to stick to her word.

D Roopa, an IPS officer from Davangere, Karnataka exposed the sham running in the Bengaluru Parappana Agrahara Central jail and remains defiant in the face of controversy.

In her report, she has mentioned how the Karnataka Director General of Prisons (DGP) Satyanarayana Rao was one of the officers on Sasikala's payroll who helped her avail special treatment- like a separate kitchen.

The report reads how Sasikala allegedly paid Rs 2 crore to jail officials for a 'comfortable stay'.

Quashing her report, DGP Rao lashed out against D Roopa and has asked for an explanation and evidences to back the allegations.

WHO IS D ROOPA?
D Roopa secured 43rd rank in the UPSC exam in 2000.

During her training at NPS Hyderabad, she was ranked fifth in her batch and was the sole officer allotted to the Karnataka cadre.

A sharp shooter, she has won numerous awards in NPA.

She was conferred with President's Police Medal for Meritorious service on 26 January 2016.

A trained Bharatnatyam dancer, D Roopa is also well versed with classical Hindustani music.

As a SP, Roopa arrested the then Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh Uma Bharti after the court order in a rioting case.

When she was DCP of Bengaluru, she withdrew number of police personnel unauthorised to be attendants of VVIPs and politicians.

As DCP City Armed Reserve, she withdrew a number of police vehicles that were being used in the cavalcade of former Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa without permit.

Recently, she was involved in a Twitter spat with Mysuru Kodagu MP Pratap Simha after four senior IPS officers went on central deputation.

(Source: India Today)

What’s happening in TN is not new, we set the wrong precedent in 1952

The very first election had resulted in a coalition government, set in place by engineered defections and horse-trading, a government that also had more than 30 members supporting it from outside.

Constitutional crisis. Numbers game. An un-elected Chief Ministerial nominee. Constitutional impropriety and worse, violation. Gubernatorial chicanery. Horse-trading.

All these were scripted first in Tamil Nadu as early as in 1952, in the aftermath of the very first general elections under the Constitution adopted two years earlier. The state was at that time called Madras and included what are now parts of Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.

File image of Rajaji from Rashtrapati Bhavan archives

As the last of the votes polled in the elections to the Legislative Assembly of the then Madras State, had been counted, the ignominy of the Congress was clear. The party had been booted out of power, and reduced to a minority, managing to win just 152 of the 375 seats. Adding insult to injury was the fact that the incumbent Chief Minister and provincial Congress Committee President Kamaraj’s own man, Kumaraswami Raja, and some of his ministers including M Bhaktavatsalam, Madhava Menon, and Bezwada Gopala Reddy, had been defeated.

The performance of the party was uniformly bad across the different linguistic areas, with the best performance coming only in the Kannada speaking areas, where it won nine of the 11 seats. In the Tamil speaking areas it had managed only 96 of the 190 seats. The impact of the Communists and the Congress breakaways, and the movement for separate Andhra state was very much in evidence in the Telugu speaking areas, where the Congress could muster only 43 of the 143. But the rout in the Malabar region was almost total - just 4 of the 29 seats. Its only consolation was that it was still the single largest party, and that its nearest contender CPI had won only 62. The party position in the newly elected Legislative Assembly was:

Indian National Congress                           15
Communist Party of India                              62
Kisan Mazdoor Praja Party                           35
Tamil Nadu Toilers Party                               19
Krishikar Lok Party                                         15
Socialist Party                                                 13
Commonweal Party                                         5
Madras State Muslim League                        5
Forward Bloc (Marxist Group)                        3
All India Scheduled Caste Federation          2
Justice Party                                                       1
Independents                                                   62

And thus, the very first general elections that Independent India had conducted had thrown up a hung assembly in Madras State. And as was to become a practice in the later decades, the drama started now.

Governor Maharaja Krishna Kumarsinhji of Bhavnagar now had an unviable Constitutional question on hand - should he invite the single largest party, the Congress to form the government or not? The other alternative was equally unappetizing — imposing Governor’s rule citing a Constitutional crisis, as no party had majority.

There were some leaders, even within the Congress, who advocated the second option. Accepting that would have meant that Kumarsihji would have gone down in the history as the first to impose Governor’s rule.

What followed was a protracted political exercise spread over nearly three months, with several twists and turns, the kind that would be seen in other parts of the country much later. Some of the developments in Madras set the precedent for future political shenanigans, including dubious role played by Governors of some states.

The Governor’s task was complicated further when the Communists, led by Nagi Reddi and P Ramamurthi, took the extraordinary step of forging a post-poll alliance with KMPP, led by T Prakasam, a clutch of smaller and anti-Congress parties, and also a varied bunch of independents.

Initially, Communist stalwart P Ramamurthi was tipped to lead this coalition. But Prakasam had been nursing a serious grudge against the Congress, and Kamaraj in particular, for the manner in which he was ousted from Chief Ministership a few years earlier. He insisted that he should be the Chief Ministerial nominee, though he had lost this election. The Communists finally gave in to this demand to save the coalition.

The leaders of these parties met in Madras and with anti-Congressism binding them, formed themselves into a United Democratic Front (UDF) and drafted a common minimum programme. UDF claimed to comprise 166 MLAs: CPI and CPI backed independents - 70, KMPP - 36, Tamil Nadu Toilers Party - 19, Commonweal party - 6, FBL (MG) - 3, SCF - 1, JUSP -1 and Independents - 30. Though the Communists constituted the single largest party within the UDF, senior CPI leaders like Ramamurthi agreed to accept Prakasam as their leader of this post-poll alliance. Prakasam, it was proposed, would get himself elected either to the Assembly or the Upper House, the Legislative Council, as provided under the new Constitution.

As the leader of the single largest political formation in the Assembly, Prakasam staked his claim to form the government. The stage seemed all set for the first ever coalition government, and that too one with Communists as major constituents.

Prakasam’s move set off alarm bells in the Congress high command. More than the loss in the elections, the very possibility of the Communists coming to power, even if only as a coalition partner, had them in jitters. Panic buttons were being pressed.

Kumarsinhji, whose tenure as Governor was due to come to an end soon, decided to play it safe and referred the matter to President Rajendra Prasad. Under the Constitution, Rajen Babu, however, could not take a decision on his own and was bound to act only on the advice of Prime Minister Nehru and his Council of Ministers.  Nehru sought the advice of the Congress High Command, which despite two rounds of meetings in February and March that year, could not take a decision. With the party remaining indecisive, Nehru too could not offer any advice to the President. And in turn the President could not give his decision on the reference made by the Governor of Madras.

With the Congress nowhere near majority, Kamaraj was in favour of the Governor accepting the claim put forward by the United Democratic Front and inviting T Prakasam to form the government.

Kamaraj was confident that the coalition would collapse within a short period, under the weight of its contradictions. And then a spell of Governor’s rule would ensue, during which some political realignment could be tried, failing which there could be another election.

But not all were in agreement with Kamaraj. A group within the Congress, which included not just local leaders but also people in the High Command, was appalled at the idea of the Communists seizing power in any state, even as a coalition partner. It was very evident that though Prakasam was the one who led the UDF, it would only be the Communists who would call the shots. They were also apprehensive of the long-term consequences of a dissolved Assembly and fresh elections.

Some members of this group, led by C Subramaniam and Ramnath Goenka had other ideas. Fired by their antipathy towards Communists, and also to some extent their animosity towards Kamaraj, they looked to the one person who firmly believed that the Communists were the greatest threat to the fledgling democratic republic of India - Rajaji.

Rajaji with Nehru and Rajendra Prasad

Rajaji was by then 73 and in retirement. He had been the last Governor General and had then been a part of Jawaharlal Nehru’s interim government. As the Home Minister in the interim government, he had ordered the crackdown on the Communists in Hyderabad-Andhra region, much to the chagrin of Nehru. With Nehru often interfering with the crackdown, even overturning Rajaji’s orders on a few occasions, Rajaji had quit in a huff and gone back into retirement.

What happened next is best described in the words of Rajaji’s own grandson Rajmohan Gandhi in Rajaji Story—1937-72 (published by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan):

“The truth was that he (Rajaji) was terribly torn. The proposition was more than appealing; it was exciting. The wound of his rejection by Madras six years earlier had been healed by the sunlight surrounding him thereafter, but, present in memory, it could not but add a sweet irony to the appeals he was now receiving ... (But) Acceptance would seem undignified … he would be acutely embarrassed if he showed willingness but Nehru was cool. So far Jawaharlal had not said a word in support of the move to draft him. Almost equally important was Kamaraj’s attitude…”

Kamaraj was acutely aware of the impact that Rajaji becoming the Chief Minister would have on the socio-political scene in Madras. He had, with great difficulty, tried to consolidate the non-Brahmins within the Congress in an attempt to overcome the party’s image as a Brahmin-dominated party to counter the growth of the DK, and also to prevent its progeny DMK to gain any ground politically.

Rajaji’s re-entry, he felt, and rightly so, would be a major setback to his attempts to prevent the backward classes from being weaned away by the Dravidian movement. (DMK, founded in 1949, did not contest this election, but supported the Vanniyar community parties - Tamil Nadu Toilers Party and Commonweal Party; and Periyar EV Ramaswami and his DK supported the Communists)

Back in Delhi, Nehru too was lukewarm to the idea of bringing Rajaji back into active politics, but did not actively oppose it. When a delegation of Congressmen met him to get his consent, he merely “expressed his ‘no objection’ rather than keenness”, as Rajmohan Gandhi put it. This was the final nudge that Rajaji needed to accept the Subramaniam-Goenka-Kumarasamy Raja troika’s proposal.

The interim Chief Minister Kumarasamy Raja had also got a missive from Nehru, which besides expressing his reluctant acceptance of Rajaji’s name, had suggested early steps be taken to ensure election of Rajaji to the state Assembly.

But then Rajaji bowled a googly. He made it plain that he would, under no circumstance, contest an election. Rajaji believed that after having been the Governor General of the country, it was beneath his stature to contest elections to a state Assembly. Now even his own supporters were appalled, and had to run back to the drawing board. It was C Subramaniam who came up with a solution.

The Constitution, it was pointed out, insisted that a Chief Minister or a Minister should be a member of either Houses of the Legislature, and that in case he/she was not already a member, he should become one within six months of his/her being sworn in to the post. The Constitution also provided for the Governor of a state to nominate as members to the upper house - Legislative Council - persons who had ‘special knowledge or practical experience in such matters as literature, science, art and social service.’ Rajaji definitely qualified under two counts - literature and social service - and, it was argued that there would be nothing wrong in nominating him to the Legislative Council.

With the only chance of a Congress government threatening to slip away, the pro-Rajaji group proceeded to operationalise their plan. In the interim Chief Minister Kumarasamy Raja, and the new governor Sri Prakasa, they had more than willing collaborators. Their roles were crucial to the plan as, under the Constitution, the Governor made the nominations to the Upper House only on the recommendations of the Chief Minister. Raja duly made the recommendation, and Sri Prakasa promptly accepted it, and nominated Rajaji to the Legislative Council.

Such was the haste with which it was done that even Nehru was not kept in the loop. The Prime Minister had specifically suggested that Rajaji be elected to the Assembly, and what the Madras mafia had done ran counter to Nehru’s wishes.

As Rajmohan Gandhi observed, “The clause was not really conceived for accommodating a Chief Minister-to-be who thought poorly of elections. The spirit of democracy had been violated.”

Ironically, Sri Prakasa, who had by then succeeded Krishna Kumarsinhji as the state Governor, invited Rajaji to form the government on April 1 (Fools’ Day) and 10 days later he was sworn in as the first Chief Minister of Madras State under the new Constitution.

And the Rajaji government was asked to prove its majority on the floor of the newly elected Legislative Assembly. Yet another precedent, of a minority government being sworn-in and asked to prove its majority, was set in Madras. And along with it also came the political horse-trading that would become a part of the Indian polity later.

With only 152 members in the 375-member Assembly, the Congress government was nowhere near the half-way mark and had to cobble together a majority. And this it proceeded to do by engineering defections from the UDF and enticing the support of some of the smaller parties which had stayed out of UDF, and some independents.

Among the prime targets for the horse-trading were the two Vanniyar parties—Commonweal Party led by Manickavel Naicker, which had six members, and the Tamil Nadu Toilers Party of Ramaswamy Padayachi, with 19 members. Commonweal Party was rewarded for this by being included in the ministry, but Ramasamy Padayachi preferred to lend only outside support to the Government. Outside support also came from the Madras State Muslim League led by Qaid-e-Millat, who was as keen as Rajaji to prevent the Communists from coming to power, even as a coalition partner.

Thirteen independent members were lured into joining the Congress, taking the party strength to 165 by May that year (two more would join later to take the strength to 167). Congress also managed to split NG Ranga’s Krishikar Lok Party, which was part of the UDF, by engineering the defection of three of its MLAs.

Another precedent had been set. The very first election had resulted in a coalition government, set in place by engineered defections and horse-trading, a government that also had more than 30 members supporting it from outside.

And on July 3, more than three months after he was invited to form the government, Rajaji proved his government’s majority in the Assembly with the support of 200 members.

Postscript: Communist Party leader P Ramamurthi, who had missed out on the chance of becoming the first ever elected Communist Chief Minister in history, challenged Rajaji’s nomination to the Legislative Council and thus becoming Chief Minister, on the grounds that the Governor did not have the powers under the Constitution to nominate any person to the Upper House without the advice of the government, and that at that time there was no elected government in the state to make such a recommendation. But the Supreme Court dismissed the petition later arguing that it did not have the powers to interfere in electoral matters.

(Source: The News Minute)

The DA case fact file: All you need to know about the 20-yr-long legal battle

Registered in 1997 against Jayalalithaa after her term as chief minister from 1991 to 1996, the charges were regarding a disproportionate jump in her wealth from Rs. 2.01 crore in 1991 to Rs. 66.65 crore in 1996, not comparable to her declared sources of income.

The chargesheet in the case was filed in 1997 and trial began in Chennai in 2000. But the case was moved to Bangalore in 2003 on a plea by the DMK, that claimed that a trial in Chennai would be “unfair” as Jayalalithaa had become the Chief Minister again in 2001. During that period, Jayalalithaa had declared her monthly salary to be Re. 1, which highlighted the point that her income was not proportionate to her assets.

Major allegations in chargesheet
The chargesheet filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act said that the accused in the case, Jayalalithaa, her aide Sasikala, Sasikala’s nephew and Jayalalithaa’s foster son Sudhakaran and Sasikala’s sister-in-law Ilavarasi, had opened over 32 shell companies, some in benami names. Sasikala, Ilaivarasai and Sudhakaran were made directors in many of these companies.

The chargesheet says that several crore rupees were deposited through cheques, demand drafts and sometimes cash into accounts of these companies and was later transferred to accounts of Namadu MGR (a publication run by AIADMK) and a cable company called Super Duper.

One of the main witnesses questioned in the case was a man named Rama Vijayan, who used to work at Jayalalithaa’s residence in Poes Garden and was apparently in-charge of depositing money. The investigators had recovered pay-in slips and details of bank transactions, which were later confirmed by Rama Vijayan.

The chargesheet also mentions Jayalalithaa’s foster son Sudhakaran’s wedding in Chennai, on which an estimated Rs 6 crores was splurged. (Jayalalithaa’s defense has said in court that these expenses were borne by the bride’s side.)

Jayalalithaa is also accused of building and renovating three posh residences at Kodanadu (Ooty), Siruthavur (Kancheepuram) and Poes Garden (Chennai).

PWD estimated that renovation costs at her Poes Garden residence cost an estimated Rs. 5 crore and was included in the chargesheet.

The properties bought by companies owned by her from Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation (TANSI) were said to have cost Rs 1 crore.

In addition to this, Sudhakaran was accused of purchasing many properties along with Sasikala and Ilaivarasi that included Ramraj Agro Mills (Coimbatore), Maha Subbalakshmi Wedding hall (Chennai), a chemical company in Chennai, 1000 acres of land in Tirunelveli and an agro farm in addition to other properties.

Some properties bought in Chennai including a building in Mylapore, a plot at Guindy Industrial estate and two apartments, which were also included in the chargesheet.

Jayalalithaa’s defense
Jayalalithaa’s lawyers have maintained throughout the trial that:

a. She, being an actress of yesteryears, had enough wealth to make some of the purchases.
b. She and others had no connection with many of the companies mentioned in case.
c. The money collected and deposited into Namadu MGR account was legitimate and were subscription deposits paid by crores of AIADMK workers across state.
d. The DMK government-led investigation has deliberately over valued all the assets in their possession.
e. The investigating officer Nallama Naidu had not done his job effectively as a preliminary enquiry had not been conducted in the case.

What the prosecution said
a. Investigating officer for the case Nallama Naidu had got all sale deeds for all properties and made enquiries with people who sold the properties. There were 259 witnesses of which many were people who sold properties.
b. Jayalalithaa had not filed IT returns for this term and the ones filed later also did not show this much wealth.
c. Subscription deposits collected by Namadu MGR was illegal as it had no RBI sanction.
d. Sasikala, Ilaivarasi and Sudhakaran had no means of income to justify the wealth amassed.
e. Shell companies were purchased to divert money easily.

Conviction by Special Court in 2014
In September 2014, Jayalalithaa was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. A fine of Rs 100 crore was imposed on her. Her co-accused, VK Sasikala, V Sudhakaran and Ilavarasi, were also sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, and a fine of Rs 10 crore each.

In October 2014, the Supreme Court suspended the four-year sentence granted bail to all the four accused.

Acquittal by High Court in 2015
In May 2015, Justice CR Kumaraswamy of the Karnataka high court acquitted Jayalalithaa and three others in the case, stating that when there is disproportionate asset to the extent of 10%, the accused are entitled for acquittal. He calculated that the assets were disproportional only to the extent of 8%.

This verdict was then appealed against at the Supreme Court.

(Source: TNM)

Why Jayalalithaa and MGR must be blamed for the ongoing crisis in TN politics

Jayalalithaa was suspicious of the vaulting ambitions of everyone around her, especially Sasikala’s clan, who are known for their rapacity.

The current turmoil within the ruling AIADMK is certainly a legacy of the recently deceased Jayalalithaa.

She didn’t care to designate anyone as her heir apparent, though she should have been fully aware of the fragility of her health.

One is only reminded of “Après moi le deluge,” that is, “after me the deluge”. The statement, generally attributed to King Louis XVI, could be interpreted to mean either that he wanted disaster to follow his death, or that the man didn’t care one bit for what was in store.

World over, leaders seldom bother to groom a successor – a most obvious reason being the fear that the chosen one could upstage the mentor themselves. Was Jawaharlal Nehru himself not guilty on that score? To be charitable, he couldn’t find one or, to lambast him, he was too megalomaniacal.

Clearly, Jayalalithaa was suspicious of the vaulting ambitions of everyone around her, especially Sasikala’s clan, who are known for their rapacity.

Right from the time she was inducted into the AIADMK by MGR, she smelt conspiracy in every development to checkmate her own growth. She kept nagging him to declare her the future leader. Though he had dragged her out of hibernation with the hope that her glamour could help the party at the hustings when his health was becoming worrisome, he was equally worried of her arrogant ways, and her delusions of grandeur. He would keep chopping and changing the party executive to please her now and then, but she didn’t have everything her way.

At the All World MGR Fans’ conference (yeah, he had one such event, seriously!) at Madurai in 1986, MGR was expected to make the historic announcement, but she had to content herself with the honour of presenting a scepter to the party leader, though later on she would make it look as if it was MGR who was presenting it to her, thus in effect passing on the baton.

Anyway, MGR disappointed her and the media at large by studiously refusing to name her at all in his concluding speech, and Ammu (as Jayalalithaa was fondly called by him) left Madurai in a huff, instead of accompanying him as originally planned.

The inner party tussle continued when MGR died, after which, thanks to a series of remarkable turn of events, she succeeded in capturing the party leadership.

At the time, I remember asking a senior commentator close to MGR, “Why was it that he left things like this? In a limbo, as it were? He could have easily announced either Jayalalithaa, RM Veerappan or Kalimuthu, anyone, anyone as his heir, not many would have protested… But he didn’t. Why was it so?”

Pat came the response, “Simple, he didn’t want to nominate anyone because he didn’t t want the party to survive him at all. He died and with him the party, he wanted history to say…”

He said so in all seriousness, not cracking jokes as was the commentator’s wont. I couldn’t pursue the conversation as we were interrupted by something. But the narcissistic streak was not a sufficient rationale in itself, after all it was MGR who had brought in an unwilling Jayalalithaa. Simply, he should have been dismayed by her quirks - his were fine, but not hers!

As for the disciple herself, even though she was a novice and was desperately dependent on seniors to plot her moves in the initial days of the AIADMK split after MGR’s death, she didn’t trust anyone, her mind possibly poisoned by the wily M Natarajan (Sasikala’s husband and her advisor at the time). When four veterans quit in disgust, she dubbed them “fallen hair.” (sic)

Yet again, when a Tamil magazine survey named Thirunavukkarasu, a close associate of hers and who had played a key role in consolidating her position, as the most popular leader in the party, next only to Jayalalithaa herself, he was promptly expelled. He was never rehabilitated. (He is presently heading the Tamil Nadu Congress, but is said to be close to Sasikala’s husband.)

As her confidence in herself increased and she kept winning elections, Natarajan too was thrown out, and she would hurl scurrilous abuse at him, even while his wife continued to be her aide at Veda Nilayam.

Sasikala being exiled twice, her undertaking not to let her extended family damage the party’s reputation and return to favour, is all recent history. Much as she depended on Sasikala for a whole host of things, they indeed enjoyed a special chemistry.

She never allowed her any position in the party, and her clan had to satisfy themselves with whatever they could extract through their crafty maneuvers.

Jayalalithaa’s health issues - knee-related problems, diabetes and cholesterol - were all widely known, and so was her inability to stick to a healthy regimen. Predictably the end was swift. Could be the astrologers she trusted, including a senior journo who is gushing in a Tamil series these days, gave her false hopes.

Nothing else can explain her failure to draw up a will, assuming she didn’t. If she had, and if it is being suppressed, clearly Sasikala and co have a lot to hide. Either way her position becomes that much problematic.

One can’t be sure whether in their after-life the French king, chacha Nehru or even of MGR himself would have gloated, but one can plausibly hear, “Oh, the deluge after me, after all,” from beneath the Marina sands.

(Source: TNM)

Ripples in Tamil Nadu after Rajinikanth speaks about 'power'

Superstar Rajinikanth's recent statement about liking "power" sent ripples through Tamil Nadu - till he clarified that he had spoken in context of spiritualism. There has been speculation that Rajinikanth might launch his own political party, reportedly with support from the BJP, which wants to make inroads in the south Indian state. Many believed that the actor, who has stayed away from politics, was unhappy with the current state of affairs in Tamil Nadu politics.

On social media, many clubbed this with the void left by former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, who died in December last year, after spending months in hospital. Fans even sent him SOS messages after Jayalalithaa's long-time friend and companion, VK Sasikala, was picked for the Chief Minister's post by the ruling AIADMK.

Though Rajinikanth's appreciation for Jayalalithaa grew over the years, in 1996, the superstar's famous statement, that "even god can't save Tamil Nadu if Jayalalithaa was voted to power" led to her defeat. A decade later, his views took a 180-degree turn, when he praised her as "the reincarnation of (goddess) ashtalakshmi". He lives near Jayalalithaa's upscale Poes Garden residence. But the actor has managed to keep his distance from politics.

Even during the campaign for Lok Sabha elections in 2014, when Narendra Modi had met Rajinikanth, the superstar refrained from being actively involved in politics.

The BJP, which does not have much of a presence Tamil Nadu, has been looking an opportunity to make inroads in the state, convincing the 66-year-old actor to join politics. Sources in the party say that efforts in this regard have increased significantly in the wake of the void left by Jayalalithaa after her death.

Rajinikanth, however, clarified later that when he spoke of "power", he meant it in a spiritual sense. "If money and fame are kept on one side and if I am asked whether I would want spirituality instead, I would pick spirituality because it has so much power. I am someone who likes power. Don't mistake me," he added.

(Source: NDTV)

Why exactly do you hate Sasikala?

People’s political dissent is imperative, but for it to be effective – in a political landscape like Tamil Nadu – it has to more than just blind hatred.

The popular response to Sasikala being elected the leader of the AIADMK Legislature Party, paving the way for her to be appointed the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, has been rooted in characterising her as a ‘maid’, ‘servant’, ‘household help’ and ‘aayah’. Even DMK leader MK Stalin said that people did not vote for anyone from Jayalalithaa's ‘household’. Further, the criticism is largely centered on her assumed inability to govern and, more importantly, that she has not been elected to office, ever.

Fresh from the Marina uprising which stormed the state, Chennai city is already witnessing dissent, and there is a good possibility this grows stronger.

But what exactly is the reason for our anger against her?

That she, a ‘maid’ or a 'servant', is becoming the CM?

That she is not elected?

Or that she is corrupt, and unaccountable?

The state is no doubt at a juncture where public discourse needs to play an active role in deciding the future course of its democracy, but the discourse must not be born out of blind hatred or class bias.

Let’s first understand who Sasikala is.

The most accurate, journalistic characterisation of Sasikala is perhaps that she is ‘Jayalalithaa’s aide’ – but we all know she was more than that.

Veda Nilayam in Poes Garden was the command centre for both the AIADMK and Tamil Nadu government when Jayalalithaa was in power, and Sasikala ran Veda Nilayam with the blessings of Amma.

As has been detailed several times earlier, Sasikala and her family have for long been effectively running every layer of government. They ran the state. Most, if not all, MLAs are their loyalists whom the family helped get elected.

Agreed, that Sasikala has been a backchannel operator so far and that her role was limited to protecting vested interests and not those of the state, but her image of being a novice ‘servant’ does no justice to the truth.

It would not be wrong to say that much of the derision directed at Sasikala is rooted in class bias. If she was an English-speaking, appropriate-looking, upper-class woman, we could very well be talking about how she has had other accomplishments in ‘public life’ and that it was only a matter of time before she learns governance, too.

Calling her a ‘maid’ and ‘servant’ further betray that classism.

It is crucial that the opposition against Sasikala is for the right reasons.

When Jayalalithaa became CM for the first time, she did not have any experience in governance. She was however a politician who had been Propaganda Secretary of the AIADMK and a Rajya Sabha MP.

Sasikala has no such experience, except for being a back channel operator.

She and her family have a list of cases against them, and she needs to be opposed for the corruption (both alleged and proven).

It is also true that our vote was not for Sasikala. We voted for Jayalalithaa – but whom we really voted for was an AIADMK MLA who elected Jayalalithaa as the CM.

That leader died, and now another leader has been elected. She will now have to get voted in from any one constituency within the next six months. Her anointment points to the failure of the political class, and our anger has to be directed at our elected MLAs and the opposition. Whatever has happened so far is entirely legal, and has precedence.

And if she does get elected from a constituency soon, will it suddenly be OK that she took over in such a fashion? So, do we then have enough of an understanding of what exactly our demands must be?

What we take away from this is not that we must not just show dissent, but that we need a better understanding of what we need.

Whether Sasikala will become and remain the CM of TN till the next elections depends on only two things now – the Supreme Court verdict and her election in any one constituency, within the next six months. The first one isn’t in our control; the second too might not be if she chooses to contest from an AIADMK-strong seat in the Thevar belt.

There are calls for the government to be dissolved, and the petition is getting high traction online. But this is not a simple task and is fraught with its own risks such as letting the Centre remote control the state.

What we could call for now is more accountability in the Chief Minister’s office. If she does take office and remains the CM for the next 4 years, what are the ways in which we can ensure transparency in government? How can we keep in check the influence of her family’s vested interests? Her ascent to the CM’s chair must not go down as a victory, but as the beginning of a long and arduous journey of governance amidst a tough opposition and a demanding public.

The focus therefore must be on monitoring her governance and the role her family plays in it. The risk with an impulsive outburst is that it will recede as fast as it appeared – and then, it will be business as usual for the Mannargudi clan.

So, don’t hate Sasikala, hold her accountable.

(Source: The News Minute)