Intent vs Evidence

A ruling party worthy in the State has come out with a fantastic defence for his party and its leader. His argument runs thus: The Jain panel report indictment does not amount to a judgement and are just opinions. Also, those indicted cannot be prosecuted based on the panel’s findings for the simple reason that it does not have legal sanctity.

The Central rulers who are now jittery of their survival as the damning revelations have the potential to render them unemployed, are now veering round to the specious logic that there is really no evidence and what is reported is purely opinion.

We now know why a party whose leaders boast of being the paragons of rationalism could ‘deliberately’ slip up on such a simple thing as national security. Curse our ignorance, we should have known it long back. The modus operandi and the underlying principle (or the lack of it) is quite simple. Gifted as they are with pens mightier than the sword, they unleash a deluge of rhetoric, marked by a singular tack of substance, on the unsuspecting masses, who are told through powerful mediums (then, cinema, now, satellite) of their genuine identity. Their ethnic and linguistic superiority is real unlike the historically propped up dominance of the other so called superior race. It is just that the superiority had to be highlighted and propagated by some ‘Big Man’ and then there was no stopping them.

Once they gained the acceptance of the masses through the ballot then sky became the limit for their propaganda. It does not matter that the voters voted for them for entirely different reasons which no where resembled the projected ones. The victors will still claim it as a victory for their ideology and would wax eloquent on the resounding success of self-respect and rationalism over oppression and superstition.

These rationalists in a way have a global vision. Their counterparts, who are basically those who answer to their linguistic calling, world over become their brothers for whom they are ready to shed blood. Of course just as whatever they preach is only for the others. This group world over drafts grand plans for a ‘Greater home’ for its protagonists which extends beyond geographical boundaries. Anyone who dares question them can easily be shot down by the power of their pen and any survivors of the literary onslaught can always be liquidated through the guns which are available aplenty in their dispensation. So, for these men who have achieved macro levels of thinking it becomes difficult to relate in terms of a nation or its interests. They are consumers of a heady wine called ethnicity which makes them blind to the laws of the sovereign land to which they still unfortunately belong. They feel restricted by the narrow domestic walls of nationalism, a concept to which they were never reconciled to from the start. It was a consolation that the achieved secession at least in their minds which explains the Jekyll and Hyde syndrome vis-a-vis a neighbouring state where their bretheren were butchered by a majority group. It was only natural for them to express their solidarity with their cause which actually meant active patronage, in whatever form possible.

Power came in handy, by a stroke of luck. The ‘Greater home’ could now become a reality. The ethnic wine still had its effect. The pen was there and so were the guns. Gun totters, therefore strode the land in gay abandon killing at will but careful not to leave evidence, for the law of the sovereign land was still potent. The powers that be looked the other way in utter disregard and only looked back to appreciate, but once again careful to keep themselves within the law, The trick was to ever remain the hidden brain white the militant hand went about its job. The latter could always be made to escape only to come back to hunt down more ‘betrayers’.

The porous laws cannot really filter the perpetrators for punishment. There is no blood on their hands; only their unseen brains are drenched by the vital fluid of the victims. So any enquiry can only reveal the intent, which is after all old wine, tested and tasted. But where is the evidence? Point taken, sirs. It is just that we need not have indulged Mr. Jain into much of brain storming to come out with such a voluminous report full of useless but enlightened ‘opinion’ while tacking in clinching evidence, Waste!

email the writer to [email protected]

Jawahar T R