AP HC warns secular media to behave themselves on Shankracharya case

[Guest guest]

Namaste members,

 

I forward this message only for all of us to see how the so-called

"secular" media misused their influence to disrepute our beloved Vedic

institution.

 

May Sri Vishnu bless Mr. Reddy for his display of courage.

 

Reema.

 

=============================

 

Newsletter at: http://www.indiacause.com

-----------------

 

Finally, the SC intervened in the Shankaracharya case, slapped the TN

govt for

not providing any worthwhile proof.

 

More important is another judgment by the Andhra Pradesh High Court on

this

issue, THAT WAS SUPRESSED BY OUR MEDIA (AND THEREFORE MUST BE

DISTRIBUTED TO

ALL). This judgment virtually indicted the `secular' media in which

Justice

Reddy has warned "If they still pursue the same path (of unprecedented

denigration of the religious institution that is being targeted and

persecuted

in an organised manner), the day would not be too far when they would

be shown

their place in the society.''

 

Can we show these Secular Pimps `their place in our society'…...before

this

country is consumed by the `Hate/destroy Hinduism' campaign unleashed

by the

pseudo-seculars??

 

Please circulate far and wide…….

-------------------------

 

Will the `secular' media heed Justice Reddy's warning?.....Gurumurthy

 

Finally, the highest court intervened in the Shankaracharya case

effectively,

and soothingly too. The media had to highlight the Supreme Court

judgment, and

did it well too.

 

But it kept out of print an earlier and profound judgment of the

Andhra Pradesh

High Court on the very Shankaracharya issue. Since the High Court had

indicted

the `secular' media, the judgment was effectively censored by the media,

understandably. The Shankaracharya was arrested at Mehboobnagar in Andhra

Pradesh where he was camping at a textile mill premises. With his arrest,

commenced an unprecedented avalanche of yellow journalism in all

media. Two

leading newspapers of Andhra Pradesh published a series of articles

linking the

acharya's name to the death of two young girls in the mill premises.

 

When? Some six years back. The media reports were to this effect: ``No

action

was taken by the police. Relatives of the management were involved.

Also, at the

same time, Jayendra Saraswati came to the mill and performed pujas and

yagnas.

There were rumours that the girls were killed as `bali' (sacrifice).''

 

The media also foretold that the labour union would file a writ

petition in the

High Court. And, indeed, it was filed forthwith. The High Court found

the press

clippings of the `secular' media as the material basis for the writ plea.

 

Justice Narasimha Reddy, before whom the petition came up, asked the

counsel for

the petitioner what was the basis for referring to Jayendra Saraswati

in the

writ petition. The counsel apologised and agreed to delete a part of

the writ

plea. Still, the court found the acharya's name elsewhere. This forced the

petitioner's counsel to further apologise and also ask for the court's

permission to withdraw the petition.

 

The court did allow him to withdraw the petition, but not before

declaring what

is `dharma'. But neither the withdrawal of the writ petition nor how

Justice

Narasimha Reddy gently and with great dignity reprimanded the media

and wisely

counselled them as to their dharma found place in print. Why did the media

suppress it? Read on.

 

Justice Reddy says that the ``only provocation for the petitioner

appears to be

the recent unfortunate happenings in relation to a seer'' of Kanchi

mutt. The

judge describes the Matt as ``an ancient, prestigious, glorious and

reputed

institution with almost 2500 years' history.'' He says that the

petitioner was

`swayed' by the media and ``did not want to lag behind in the

unprecedented

process of denigration of the religious institution.'' That is, the

denigrating

petition was provoked by the media.

 

The judge says further it is ``sad and sorrowful that an institution

of such

glory that withstood foreign invasions and social revolutions'' over

the past

2500 years ``is virtually targeted and persecuted in an organised

manner in an

independent country.''

 

Who are all involved in the process of denigration? Justice Reddy

answers. ``Not

only individuals, but also a section of the institutions, such as the

State and

the Press, appears to be determined to belittle and besmirch the Peetam.''

Justice Reddy also says ``the role of courts, though indirect, is by

no means

insignificant.''

 

He notes that ``the proponents of human rights, fair play and dignity

to the

individuals and institutions have maintained stoic silence.'' He goes

on to say

that ``a powerful section is celebrating it or watching it with

indifference.''

Justice Reddy says this `perfidy' against the mutt has `shocked' the

country and

beyond.

 

The judge says that in every country `certain institutions', like the

Kanchi

mutt, constitute `their conscience and pride' and irrespective of the

form of

government, `they are respected and revered'. What should be done when

aberrations occur in such revered institution? Says the judge, ``Wise and

prudent men make all attempts to address them in isolation and try to

protect

the institution,'' and unwise and short-sighted men ``protect the

system, not

the institution.''

 

By this short-sighted approach in the long run, the society will head

toward

self-destruction. The situation will be more serious ``when the targeted

institution is the conscious-keeper of the country,'' warned Justice

Reddy.

 

Then Justice Reddy alludes to the sensitive subject of the judiciary

itself. He

recalls that some time ago, the Chief Justice of India said that the

`reputation' of a `considerable number of judges' is `not above

board'. He says

that it is `a matter of concern for everyone', but that can never

``constitute a

justification to denounce the judiciary as a whole.''

 

He says, ``the amount of disrepute and sacrilege inflicted upon Sri

Jayendra

Saraswati, as of now, is so enormous that it has hardly any comparables,''

adding that ``harshest possible words were used directly or in innuendo''

against him. ``Today he is subjected to similar treatment as was

Draupati in the

court of Kauravas.'' The ``importance of spiritual institutions can by

no means

be underestimated'' in `building and shaping' a `country' or

`society', the

judge added.

 

On the expression ``law taking its course'' which has gained considerable

currency these days, Justice Reddy says, ``with due respect, it is not

true at

least in part.'' For this to be true, says the judge, ``the

prosecuting agency

should present the case honestly, the witnesses depose truly, the

provisions of

the law are clear, and the adjudicator is efficient and honest.''

 

If the prosecution depends on the ``whims of the agency or the

government of the

day, if the law is framed keeping certain individuals in view, if the

witnesses

keep changing their versions and if the adjudicator is not up to expected

standards, the law will not take its own course, ''the judge courageously

pointed out. ``The way in which the cases are foisted or withdrawn,

particularly

with the change of governments,'' and ``the manner in which the

witnesses come

forward with conflicting versions'' illustrate why law will not take

its own

course.

 

Emphasising the role of the media in criminal justice, the judge says ``in

recent times, the freedom of the prosecuting agency and that of the

courts in

dealing with the cases before them freely and objectively has been

substantially

eroded by the overactive and pro-active stances in the presentations

made by the

print and electronic media. Of late, Justice Reddy points out, it has

assumed

dangerous proportions.

 

The freedom of expression is, he says, ``subject to gross misuse.''

Pointing out

how the petition against the acharya was a product of press clippings,

Justice

Reddy says that it ``indicates the miserable levels to which the glorious

profession of journalism has been brought to.''

 

At one stage, Justice Reddy says, the court thought of issuing notices

to the

newspapers and the TV channels. But thinking that if proper message is

conveyed,

effective results can be expected, it was not pursued, says the judge. But

warned Justice Reddy, ``If they still pursue the same path, the day

would not be

too far when they would be shown their place in the society.''

 

Understand why the `secular' media have not spoken a word about

Justice Reddy?

Because, it would shame them. That is the reason why. Will the

`secular' media

heed Justice Reddy's warning, at least in future? Whether it does or not,

Justice Reddy's judgment should be embossed in gold.

 

Writer's email: comment

The url of this article is:

http://www.newindpress.com/Newsitems.asp?ID=IEH20050113115554&Title=Top+Stories&\

Topic=-97&Finally,~the~highest~court~intervened~in~the~Shankaracharya~case~effec\

tively,~and~soothingly~too.~The~media~had~to~highlight~the~Supreme~Court~judgmen\

t,~and~did~it~well~too.~But~it~kept~out~of...

 

 

 

--------------- End of message ----------------

 

Thanks

Mahendra Joshi

 

To receive IndiaCause NewsLetter visit:

http://www.indiacause.com/IC_JML.htm

 

Is this email going to your junk/bulk folder? Add IndiaCause

to your

address book to ensure that you receive all future newsletters in your

Inbox.

 

DO NOT Reply to this message. All replies go to the 'JUNK' folder and are

deleted without reading. To send a reply you need to compose a new

message, if

you want me to read it.

 

To :

http://www.yourmailinglistprovider.com/.php?indiacause

(Only if the above link does not work, send a separate message with

subject

'Remove', to the address - indiacause. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS

MESSAGE)

-----------------------------