It is easy to be wise after the event. But for the governments of Tamilnadu and Karnataka, it has been the most difficult exercise. Veerappan has been a prolific offender and both governments need no introduction to his methods. Only a month and a half back there was a gripping hostage crisis, though cynics like us doubted its genuineness, and the government sent its emissary to rescue the victims and also to negotiate surrender. What happened then is history, at least to the Veerappan fans and the emissary’s fans , who have still not stopped felicitating the latter for his heroism and lauding the former for his humanitarian gesture. It is a different matter that there was no need for the brigand to be humanitarian and the emissary has been heroic nor was there a necessity for the emissary to be heroic if the brigand had really melted down. But this contradiction notwithstanding, the story that was sold and also bought was that the brigand had a change of head, engineered by the emissary, did not press on his demands much and released the hostages as a goodwill gesture. We only have the emissary’s word for it, as the government itself preferred to languish in blissful ignorance, not bothering to use its own agencies to take the initiative.
And now Veerappan has demonstrated that he is a consistent performer by walking away with a few unsuspecting sitting ducks. But can the government now claim that it was caught unawares? How many more events does the government need to become really wise – wise enough to realise that killers and smugglers will have to be brought to book first and not to the mainstream?
The brigand had given the non brigands thirty days time to accede to his ‘requests’, when he released the hostages. Did not the Veerappan experts in power and in the media, who sing the praise of the brigand at every opportunity advise the government on the brigand’s virtue of keeping his appointments?
The present kidnapping has exposed that the government is not only guilty of calling off its offensive against the brigand but also of downing its defences in the vulnerable forest areas. It is painful to note that the kidnapping has not taken place in the thickets of the jungle, but in the more inhabited areas of the wildlife sanctuary, a so-called protected area. No doubt the Karnataka government, having declared that they do not mind if Veerappan operates within Tamilnadu, did not expect the brigand to trouble them. But did they not realise that the brigand is no respecter of boundaries, or simply, he may not possess a map on his person? Are not these heads of the two States directly responsible for allowing the brigand to, have his way in the jungles to feel free to roam about and do what he pleases?
Does not their inaction during the last one month make them also culpable, for what has happened? Of the Central Minister who hailed Veerappan as a true hero who killed only in self defence, the less said the better!
The two Chief Ministers now give the impression that after all their gestures of goodwill Veerappan should do this to them. Pray, what made them believe that the brigand will not go back to his old ways again? What was it that Veerappan said that drove the two governments into a state of complacency? Or was it an unflinching faith in the brigand’s ‘word’, whatever it was, conveyed through the emissary that made the government call off its hounds from the bandit chase. Or will the self-respecting champions of rationalism for once concede their naivete? Was the government also carried away by the euphoria over the success of the pen over the sword? In any case, there can be no defence for the government’s inaction in the last one month following the earlier drama.
Veerappan on his part laments that he has been let down by the TN government, which failed on the promises made to him. Can we, like his fan club, rely on the brigand’s words now, see his side of the story and come to the conclusion that there were more promises than those listed by the Chief Minister? We cannot be faulted for such a line of thought as the new dispensation, which had benefited out of the brigand’s earlier revelations, cannot be expected to cry wolf now. If Veerappan was speaking the truth then, he must be doing so now too.
So, it becomes quite difficult to decide whom to believe. While the brigand appears to hold all the aces, the government has always concealed its cards, not even bothering to give the impression that it has something up its sleeve, if only to throw the brigand off guard. But one thing appears to be certain and that is there is more to the earlier episode than what was paraded before the eye. When both parties make an unwritten contract claim that the other had betrayed, it is certainly of interest to know what was really the agreement between the parties – of the first and second parts. Of course the only emissary, who has been privy to the contract, can throw light on this, if not to us at least to the authorities concerned. He can also be made to explain the genesis of his longstanding association with the brigand. Veerappan has in his message stated that the emissary will be able to track him down. We also know the emissary’s record on this score, from earlier demonstrations. We wonder what prevents the authorities from establishing a nexus, and taking appropriate action, for we do remember a law that says that ‘hiding’ a criminal is a crime too. We are not, however, sure if concealing the whereabouts of a wanted criminal comes under the umbrella of press freedom.
The Tamilnadu CM has been quick to rule out sending the emissary for negotiations despite the brigand demanding the latter’s good offices. The obvious inference is that the emissary is also reluctant to take up the errand. Why? The present situation is same as the last time, the lives of hostages are at peril, the lure of more felicitations is also there. He is the only person who has access to the brigand at will. Surely his heroism has not evaporated. Nor are there indications of the brigand hardening on the humanitarian front; he may still be ready for yet another change of heart. And above all the video cameras are always there to record for posterity the routine. Why then the ‘hesitation? Why does the government hastily rule out the role of the emissary again? Why is the emissary now shying away from the limelight which he had learnt to bask under? Why does he now shun the centrestage and refuses to reenact the tricks of the trade that had held so many in awe? Is he not sure of success this time? Then was he so sure of success last time? Or does he want to avoid meeting the brigand for fear of recriminations for going back on the words given to him?
The emissary we are told is piqued by the refusal of the black sheep media to acknowledge his greatness and so refuses to go. Instead of feigning hurt, we advise him to, go, but come clean on the entire issue, besides snaking his foray a transparent affair.
After all; it is not worth protecting a news source at the risk of endangering national security. No doubt, the government and the emissary appear to be holding a tiger by the tail, while the tiger in turn is holding them by the throat. Pardon the glorification.
The Centre has assured ‘all help’, we hear. Probably, it thinks it is talking to an Ugandan delegation come for some aid! Gentlemen, the Centre should have intervened long back, for this menace is as potent as the LITE or the ULFA, having dangerous portents for the security itself. And with nine Ministers from the State in the UF cabinet, and the issue having multi-State ramifications, with both the States having expressed their abject helplessness, we wonder what is preventing it from taking charge of the situation. But then what else can be expected of a government which harbours in its Cabinet a Minister who goes hammer and tongs in praise of the brigand while at the same time deriding the officers who did their best to nab this’ hero?
e-mail the writer at [email protected]