Jayalalithaa: an enigma?

Jayalalithaa had claimed many times that she wanted to be a lawyer. Her mother forced her to be an actress. Jayalalithaa never wanted to be a politician. MGR compelled her to enter politics. In her entire life, she was what she did not want to be.

There was no pattern to her actions either. She propped up a ministry at the centre and then destabilised it. She supported some central governments and opposed some. Nobody could read her mind. Perhaps she herself couldn't.

She opened many liquor shops. In her final days, she ordered closure of a few. Her order was not executed during her life. She selected a few deserving persons to become MPs and MLAs. She chose many riff-raff elements also. She banished some undesirable elements from her party. At the same time, she consorted with the most undesirable of all.

She was apparently authoritarian, but was controlled by others. Now the chief minister says he is only ensuring Jaya-raj in the state. Edappadi Palaniswamy can do anything and yet claim he is following the Jayalalithaa path (of course under the guidance of Sasikala) since Jayalalithaa was a bundle of contradictions.

Like her life, her death also was planned by somebody else.

Madras High Court wakes up

A Division Bench of the Madras HC consisting of Justices S.Vaidyanathan and V.Parthiban has noted that there is suspicion about the cause of Jayalalithaa's death in Apollo Hospital. The court has castigated the central government also for not coming clean about the treatment given to the former chief minister.

Justice Vaidyanathan has bemoaned that he also has doubts about the mysterious death. A petition was filed in the High Court when Jayalalithaa was supposedly alive demanding more information from the government. That petition was dismissed by the court. Is the court waking up when it is too late?

If the judge strongly feels that there are suspicious circumstances, the judge ought to have suo-moto ordered an investigation instead of waiting for a PIL. The court's response is too little, too late.

With both state and central governments anxious to bury the suspicions about the demise, it is very likely that the court will also soft pedal the issue. Even otherwise, this is a typical case of justice delayed, justice denied.

Jayalalithaa

Behind every demise, there is a mystery. The mystique of 'Mannargudi mafia' is behind the life and death of Jayalalithaa.

The mafia has acted as the sole protector of Jayalalithaa particularly after the latter was admitted to the Apollo hospital in September. That no one was allowed to meet Jayalalithaa had added to the mystery.

Hypothetically, it is worth analysing if the passing away of the former chief minister could help the mafia in any way. As co-accused in the criminal case pending in the Supreme Court, the case against them abates with the death of the main accused. It is also rumoured that Jayalalithaa's properties are set to devolve to the mafia.

The grip of the mafia was so strong that even the priest attending the household ('VEDA NILAYAM') is from Mannargudi. Jayalalithaa alias Komalavalli would have preferred someone from Srirangam!

It is ironic that Cho has left his mortal coils so soon after Jayalalithaa's exit that one wonders if he would advise her in the other world also. What if someone from the mafia also is there?

How did AIADMK win?

Jayalalithaa was under a serious handicap. There was no second line leadership even to address political meetings to enthuse the voters. Her mobility was severely affected by her ill-health. Stalin had toured virtually every nook and corner of the state to seek people's support and all his meetings were largely attended. Karunanidhi desperately desired to become chief minister for just one more time. M.K.Alagiri had been effectively silenced so that he could not create domestic trouble for the party. Final word in Jayalalithaa's corruption case was not yet said by the Supreme Court and therefore this was creating a lot of tension for her. Anti-incumbency was looming large.

Despite all these challenges, how did she make it?

She acted smart both tactically and strategically. She released AIADMK's manifesto only after DMK had released its and this ensured that no item of interest to the public was left out. She out-freebied the DMK. She insisted on the same symbol for her allies also. So, the Two Leaves was fluttering everywhere. This certainly was a better tactic than having the Rising Sun in some places and the Hand etc. in other places. There was no diffusion of propaganda for the AIADMK.

Strategically, Jayalalithaa took care of interests of the poor. Amma canteen was deservedly a roaring success in sustaining her popularity. DMK's allegations of corruption did not stick because the pot was calling the kettle black. Cash for votes was a game both parties indulged in. If the DMK cries foul on this score, it is only sour-grapism. However, DMK's and particularly Stalin's relentless campaign deserves appreciation.

"Live and let live" judiciary

In September, 2014, a special court in Bangalore sentenced Jayalalithaa to four years of rigorous imprisonment and levied a fine of Rs.100 crore. The Hindu claimed  'Despite the protracted and tortuous course that the legal process took in this case, justice seems to have been finally done.' 

In May 2015, the Karnataka High Court upholds Jayalalithaa's appeal against the judgement of the special court. Evidence is the same. Two judges reach diametrically opposite conclusions. Judges are human and therefore are pliable. Judgements depend on prejudices, ideological / political predilections and, sad to add, venality of judges. It is no wonder that the common man has lost confidence in the judiciary as a bulwark of justice.

Only one thing is clear. A poor unfortunate person is a victim of judicial vagaries whereas the rich can exploit the same vagaries till they get relief. Salman Khan and Jayalalithaa will be protected by the court whatever be their infraction; the poor will be punished even if they are law-compliant. Indian judiciary has been captured by the rich and the powerful.

Jaya's padhuka

The Hindu reports:

""'Since he is now a Chief Minister, he should not visit the jail, and that he should focus on administration'

Former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, who has been convicted in the disproportionate assets case, on Tuesday refused to meet the newly sworn-in Chief Minister O Panneersevalm, when he went to meet her at the Central Jail in Parappana Agrahara, where she is lodged since September 27.

A prison official said: “Ms. Jayalalithaa conveyed the message through prison staff that as he was the Chief Minister he should not visit the jail, and that he should focus on administration…. This message was conveyed to him by the prison staff.” "

When Bharata went to forest to meet his brother Lord Rama during Rama's exile, the latter advised him to concentrate on administration instead of spending time with Him. Bharata pleaded with Rama atleast to give him His 'padhuka' so that he would administer Ayodya under the aegis of Lord's padhuka.

Similarly, if Panneerselvam had requested Jayalalithaa for her 'padhuka', she would have asked him, " Of 750 pairs of footwear, which one do you want?" Panneerselvam would have been flummoxed. I hasten to add that this conversation is only imaginary, the former chief minister's response only hypothetical and therefore does not warrant a defamation suit.

Jayalalithaa's deft decision?

TamilNadu government, aka Jayalalithaa, took a snap decision to release the killers of Rajiv Gandhi by issuing a three-day notice to the central government. In the absence of the specific deadline, the central government would have followed its usual practice of procrastination.

Jayalalithaa is criticised for the decision as well as for issuing a deadline. The deadline was inevitable in the light of central government's core competence of drift.

How about the decision? Is she justified in releasing the killers of a prime minister? Rahul Gandhi has commented that if even a prime minister's assassins are released from jail, how can a common man get justice? His personal grief is understandable but his comment denotes his understanding that punishment for a killer is commensurate with the position of the victim. This betrays a feudal tendency. All killers of human beings must be treated alike if the gravity of offence is similar. Gravity of the offence is not determined by the social status of the victim.

Manmohan Singh with atypical celerity has questioned the legality of the decision to release the killers. Apparently he has not studied the Supreme Court's decision which specifically ruled in the possibility of release by appropriate authorities.

The decision may be legal, but it is difficult to comment on its morality. What does Jayalalithaa gain by this decision? She must have foreseen the central government's objection which would pit the Congress party once again against the DMK thereby making an alliance between these two unholy partners even more remote. If the Congress and DMK fight the ensuing polls together, AIADMK's scale of victory might have been diminished. Jayalalithaa's deft move preempts this.