Tuesday, May 24, 2011

A season of confessions.


The famous saying that "tough times do not last, but tough people do" – seems not applicable in the case of politicians caught in tough situations. Revelations and realizations are reeled out when they find the going tough for them, little realizing how such revelations can turn against them. Here are some revelations which are actually in the nature of confessions heard in the last few days.


(1)   Karunanidhi takes the lead among others by his confession on who is actually calling the shots in the Kalaignar TV. Not long ago, he distanced himself from the Kaliagnar TV saying that the only thing that is common with him and the TV is the name 'Kalaignar' and that he has no connection with the TV. But with the CBI having caught Kanimozhi in the net for her connection with the Kalignar TV, Karunanidhi is out in the open with the confession that "Only I compelled Kanimozhi to become a shareholder in Kalaignar TV. She did so only to satisfy me even though she did not relish that idea herself. She did no other crime" (From Karunanidhi's statement released on May 21, 2011).


So he has admitted that Kanimozhi joined the board due to his insistence. What will he say for the inclusion of his wife Dayalu Ammaal in the TV? Obviously that was also due to his insistence. That means they became major shareholders controlling 80%, because he had wanted them to be there. Is this not a proof of his ownership of the TV?  If Kani and Dayalu joined because he wanted it to be so, for whose sake money was given by Balwa? Why the CBI is not taking his statement on Kanimozhi as his admission of his ownership of the TV?



(2)   The second most interesting confession is the one told by Dayanidhi Maran – now known through wikileaks and published by The Hindu. Generally the Marans have a penchant for speaking the truth. One such truthful revelation resulted in the burning of their Magazine office (Dinakaran). When not in good terms with Karunanidhi, truth and nothing but truth seems to flow out of their mouth. Dayanidhi Maran had 'confessed' to the US official that Karunanidhi's resignation threat on the Srilankan issue was a 'drama' and that his party men are experts in looting public money as soon as they get into power.

For details:-





(3)   It seems people have been influenced enough by the Dravidian school of Karunanidhi only to deliver it in action. One such action was the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi.  This confession comes from Kumaran Pathmanthan of LTTE that the DMK ideology of anti Brahmanism influenced Prabhakaran and that was perhaps the reason for the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. Rajiv Gandhi fulfills the slot as a Brahmin (really?) and an Aryan as well. The Dravidian ideology of Karunanidhi  demands that such persons need to be liquidated.   Perhaps this is the perfect description of what the DMK 'ideology' stands for.

On Pathmanathan's confession:-




No one needs to worry whether this confession by Pathmanathan would upset the bond between DMK and Congress. Even as this confession was being read by millions of people, we also heard a simultaneous assurance from Sonia Gandhi (as told by her emissary) that she is sad about Kanimozhi in jail. She had been quiet all these days but suddenly wanted to express her feelings for Kanimozhi after Karunnaidhi went all the way to Tihar jail to talk to his daughter.


What he would have told to Kani is Sonia's guess and that perhaps led her to express her feelings for Kanimozhi.



What did Karunanidhi convey to his daughter?

Did he ask her to become an approver?

Is Karunanidhi a kind of person who will allow the other to go scot-free at his own expense?

If he knows that his house is going to fall, will he fall simply like that?

Will he not see to it that his co-looter's house also is brought down along with his own?

Would we see such a day when Kanimizhi makes a Confession on the combined loot of the 2 G case – so that it would satisfy Karunanidhi's ideology - " together we loot, together we are caught"



If it becomes certain that Karunanidhi's family can not escape the noose, he would not spare Sonia Gandhi.

Sonia seems to have sensed it in his camping in New Delhi.

Every time MK goes to Delhi, he goes with a personal agenda.

This time it is a very crucial agenda of do or die.

He will do and if faced with the choice of death, he will also pull down Sonia along with him.

Otherwise why should Sonia send an olive branch very late,

after MK visited Tihar jail (of all the places on earth!)



Let us wait and see if the Ultimate Confession would come out through Kanimozhi.  




BK Chowla, said...

On a serious note. In case Kani decides to turn approver, country may get into serious situation as we all know who are the beneficiarirs of the loot.

vedamgopal said...

When JJ is going to confess for her indecent act of arresting Achariya due to Christian influence and subsequent fabrication of dirty yellow stories in the media simply to satisfy her selfish goals

jayasree said...

//When JJ is going to confess for her indecent act of arresting Achariya due to Christian influence and subsequent fabrication of dirty yellow stories in the media simply to satisfy her selfish goals//

I don't concur with this view. Read my view in the comment section of the article titled "Don't underestimate Jayalalithaa".

nutwit said...

Namaste, I read ur take on the Kanchi Acharya arrest. However, its times like these that test the strength of character. She should not have buckled under pressure - she could have placed him under house arrest. She allowed SP Premkumar to make derogatory comments on him. I remember the insults he heaped on him. One hopes Jayalalitha would do better in future. Its good to see her taking inspiration from Modi. I just hope she doesnt join hands with CON party.

ASHISH said...

Jayasree Madam,
We lack the erudition due to our lack of wisdom & learning. However, we follow your blog & various writers to learn. In respect of Tamil Nadu Election, Radha Rajan has come with an article “Tamil Nadu Election Results:Draupadi's Defeat” at “www.vijayvaani.com” in which she puts forth her orthodox Sanatani Dharmi perspective. The vivid recount of Tamil Nadu police hounding the Acharya is mind numbing.
I think Radha Rajan article succinctly puts the vengeance with which Tamil Nadu JJ Government went against Kanchi Acharya and also the nature of the TN verdict.

ASHISH said...

I have reread your article and comments at "Don't underestimate Jayalalithaa".
You have tried to explain Kanchi Acharya predicament due to his "Prarabhdha." However, the acts of JJ Government are mind numbing.
I recollect your one statement “If Jayalalitha has had any personal vendetta, she will definitely reap the results of that – but not immediately as Mr Jayaraman thinks”.
Assuming JJ had to act under extraneous compulsion, and essentially homo sapiens being hapless victims of Karma & millions suffer more terribly than what Kanchi Acharya underwent, we as sons of Bharat have suffered in silence the millions of humiliations heaped on Bharatmata without much ado.
Radha Rajan gives a wake up call for the sons of India in her article. I wish you go through it and enlighten us.
Ashish Raje

vedamgopal said...

தங்கள் பதிலுக்கு நன்றி. சுட்டிகாட்டிய தங்கள் கருத்துகளை படித்தேன் ஆனால் அதை நான் ஏற்கவில்லை. நான் உங்களிடம் பின்வரும் கேள்விகளுக்கு ஒத்தை வரி பதிலைமாத்திரம் எதிர்பார்கிறேன். (சரி, தவறு, தெரியாது) – கேள்விகள்
1. ஆச்சாரியாரை கைது செய்ய அனுசரிக்கபட்ட அநாகரிகமான அணுகுமுறை, (தாங்கள் கருனாநிதியை கைது செய்த போது நடந்த வற்றையும் – இந்து பத்திரிகை அலுவலகத்தில் புகுந்து நடத்திய அத்துமீறலையும் நினைத்துப் பார்கவும்)
2. கைதுக்குபின் ஆச்சாரியாரை பற்றியும் மடத்தைபற்றியும் அநாகரிகமான அவதூறு பிராசாரத்தை தொடர்ந்து பத்திரிகைகளிலும் டீ.வி சேனல்களிலும் அரங்கேற்றியது.
3. இந்த அத்துமீறல் செயல்களால் அவமானப்பட்டது ஆச்சாரியார் மடம் தவிற இந்து மதத்திற்க்கும் ஒரு பெரிய களங்கம் அதுவும் ஒரு பிராமிண பெண்மணியால்.
4. மேற் சொன்னவை சரி என்றால் அவர் பாவ மன்னிப்பு கோர வேண்டாமா

jayasree said...

Thanks for all who have placed their comments on this issue.

I wish the readers to see 2 things.
One is that once law comes into the picture, no one can have control on the proceedings that take place after that. There is no point in blaming the ruler for what happens as a chain reaction.

Second, put oneself in the shoes of a ruler. As a devotee, a person has the right to do as per his wish. But the same devotee as a ruler, is controlled by various parameters which the ruler can not keep aside. Even if you or me becomes the head of the State we will be bound by the demands as the ruler. Rama- Sita- public outwry example I have given in that comment is to highlight the limitations of the ruler, who can not act as he wished even if the person involved is his wife. It was left to Sita to clear her name. I hope readers will ponder deeply and understand the nuances of Dharma and the predicaments vis-a vis the ruler and the acharya / wife/ preceptor who guides the ruler.

Some one said about Modi. Modi knows this very well as seen from his conciliatory posturings towards muslims. When you become the ruler, you have to be equally sensitive to all the sections.

Sheela said...

Dear Madam,

I feel Acharya episode is haunting many which is quite natural as a Hindu. After reading your comments on his prarabhda gave some consolation. If possible can you highlight Acharya's horoscope., happenings of that case is still unbelievable to many.


jayasree said...

I don't want to discuss about Kanchi Acharya's horoscope for obvious reasons.

On issues of Raj dharma and dharma in general, I wish to rely on Rama's advice on Raj neeti to Bharatha who came to meet him, Bhagavad Gita and the danda neeti explained by Bheeshma in Shanthi parva - rather than on the write-ups of Radha Rajan.

In Ramayana (Ayodhya Khand- 100 th chapter) Rama's inquiry on Raj neeti has two verses that have relevance to the present issue under discussion. I have given them here.

The king does not take an instantaneous judgment on the accusation against a person of nobility. He has to discuss with those well versed in law. In monarchy, the king did that way. In democracy, the ruler and the justice system are separated. That is the difference in context. The law takes its course.

The related verse is :-

kaccid aaryo vishuddha aatmaa kShaaritaH cora karmaNaa |
apR^iShTaH shaastra kushalair na lobhaad badhyate shuciH || 2-100-56

56. vishuddhaatmaa= despite his honesty; shuchiH= and integrity; kSaaritaH= is falsely accused; apakarmaNaa= of some offence; achchit= I hope; na vadhyate= he is not is killed lobhaat= impatiently; apR^iSTah= without enquiry; shaastra kushalaiH= by those well-versed in law-books.

"If one of noble work, despite his honesty and integrity, is falsely accused of some offence, I hope he is not killed impatiently, without enquiry by those well-versed in law-books."

The ruler should not abrogate virtue on any account even in the name of Dharma. The word dharma is translated in this verse as virtue religion.

kaccid arthena vaa dharmam dharmam dharmeNa vaa punaH |
ubhau vaa priiti lobhena kaamena na vibaadhase || 2-100-62

62. kachchit= i hope; na baadhase= you do not abrogate; dharmam vaa= virtue; arthe= (by your excessive devotion) to wealth; arthamvaa punaH= or your earthly interests; dharmeNa= by (your over emphasis on) religion; ubhau= or both your religious and secular interests; priiti lobhena= by your self-indulgence in pleasure greed; kaamena= and gratification of the senses.

"I hope you do not abrogate virtue by your excessive devotion to wealth or your excessive devotion to wealth or your earthly interests by your over-emphasis on religion or both your religious and secular interests by your self-indulgence in pleasure, greed and gratification of the senses."

(to be cont'd)

jayasree said...


Another issue that is to be borne in mind is Gita's teachings. Arjuna did not want to fight because it meant fighting against 'achrya, pithrah, puthraah, pithaamaha, mathulaah etc". Ordinary persons like us do not come across such a dilemma faced by Arjuna or those in power as a ruler.

In such a situation, Krishna's advice was to discharge the duty in the capacity that he/ she is in(as warrior / ruler) with no likes and dislikes and in the nature of a nimiththa for Destiny.

The one who discharges his duty in such a mode, does not incur any sin. (refer "sukha dhukke same kruthva verse" in 2nd chapter of Gita). A Vyadha and the Chandala (Viswamitra episode on eating non-veg - that article can be browsed in my blog)also exhibited such an immunity to likes and dislikes in doing their jobs that were averred by others.

If JJ had such a clarity in her role (which I sense that she did have at that time and even improved on that now), she was only a tool of Destiny and nothing else and she acted so knowingly. Even then she would have done appropriate propitiations by now. (Arjuna and others did at Rudra Prayaga even though no sins accrue to one for harming others (including Acharya) in a war.)

If only JJ had her way in that tenure, she would have stopped conversion and animal sacrifice. She promoted the acharya as a Raj guru on the lines of how monarchs did in those days. It was the misfortune of all Hindus that her efforts could not fructify. Such a background of JJ with the acharya and her efforts to promote Hindu interests absolve her of a motive behind her act which she had to do as a ruler.

In the current scenario, the real enemies of Hindusim are MK and Congress under Sonia. If these two are checked, conversion activities can be checked and the evangelic tempo will get a beating. The enemies of Hinduism are these 2 and not JJ.

Some readers have written that by writing like this (in support of JJ), I am not being neutral. According to Hindu Thought, neutrality means not influenced by personal likes and dislikes. I have no likes and dislikes and take a stance on a larger backdrop for larger good.

Also dharma itself is a fluid concept which keeps changing in accordance with the demands of dik, desa, kala and event. That is, to kill a cow is an offense, but to kill a cow that comes to kill you is not an offense. Without clarity of thought about how dharma stands in a given situation and what is one's role and purpose in a given incident, we can not and must not sit judgement on one.

Karthiga said...

Madam,u supported annaji..Can anybody enlighten me wat happened to Anna Hazareji? Like a politician,he seems to be changing tunes regarding the people wit him..he too started worrying abt his 'image' among media and 'intellectuals'..poor..(i'm referring to his speech in gujarat yesterday abt modi)

jayasree said...

@ Anjali,
I support the anti corruption drive for which Annaji gave a platform / scope to speak out. I will look at the cause for which he stands. Thats all.

Radha said...

Ms. Jayashree Saranathan cannot absolve Jayalalithaa of her deeds by attributing what happened to Pujya Kanchi acharyas as their prarabdha karma. That may certainly be so but this is how I understand the laws of karma. All non-human life forms do n ot add karma as non-humans. They live only with 'kshaya' karma. But just because a street dog is born as street dog because of prarabdha, as a human it is my responsibility to make the lives of those who are in pain, in trouble, in suffering, to alleviate it, to make it better. Pujya Kanchi acharya may certainly have been living with his prarabdha karma; but that does not absolve this woman of her aasuric assault. And if it is the prarabdha karma of the matham, then the paramacharya of revered memory whom his bhaktas claim was trikaladarsi, placed the Acharya on the peetham maybe vecause he knew only this Acharya had the fortitude to carry the matham thru these difficult times. Otherwise it makes no sense that the trikaladarsi Paramacharya would have placed an unworthy person on the peetham. people saying toehrwise must ponder over how this reflects on Pujya Paramacharya. And as for comparison with Sri rama, the Valmiki ramayan of the gita press does not say that Srirama took the decision to banish Sita from his kingdom afterconvening any Rajyasabha. He seems to have taken the decision unilaterally because Sita was his wife. It is doubtful if he would have abjured due process in the case of any other woman in his kingdom. Radha Rajan.

jayasree said...


This is the difference between emotionally seeing an issue and seeing an issue as an unperturbed observer of how Destiny works or goes about. By and far I am sticking to the latter category right from the old post in which I have given the explanations at length. It is for the reason -that people see it emotionally - I wrote in the old post-comment that I do not want write on this issue. However for the sake of showing how Karma / kalapurusha works, I have written - as how it would be viewed from Destiny's angle.

Sticking to that stance, I will give the inputs on the issues told in this comment by Ms Radha Rajan, for the sake of those who wish to enhance their perception of the working of Dharma - karma.

# Birth in 4 forms, namely plant life, animal life, human life and Deva life are common for the souls. That means, one who is born as a human being may be born as a tree or a dog in the next life, depending on the karma to be worked out. Readers can browse this blog for my article "Knowing your previous birth astrologically" in which I have written about it. In any of these forms, compassion to fellow beings is a virtue. A soul born as a tree shows such compassion by giving fruits and shelter. There is a story of a bird in Ramayana which offered itself to the hunter who caught its mate, as athithi bhjojan for him. That bird attained higher realms for doing that act. Like this there are many narrations in the epics.

# Prarabhdha binds everyone. I have explained in an old post how Rama - though not bound - used a previous act of Vishnu of killing a rishi's wife as an alibi for losing his wife Sita in Ramavathara.

Another incident is quoted by sage Parashara. While writing on Mother's curse and propitiation from it, Sage Parashara says that Rama got back his wife and kingdom after having taken bath at the bund built by Vanaras, (Brihat Parashara Hora sastra). (taking bath in Ramsethu is a propitiation for mother's curse which is manifest by the affliction of moon / kemadruma yoga in one's horoscope.) From that account we deduce what could have been the mother's curse in Rama's case - which I have already explained somewhere in this blog. Beheading of mother in Parashurama avatara is the probable connection which was manifest in the treatment meted out by mother, Kaikeyi to Rama. The affliction of moon was manifest by Mars and Saturn aspecting moon which also happened to be lagna lord in Rama's horoscope.

There is yet another issue in Rama's horoscope which is debated all these ages. Brihat Jataka verse on insanity (23-13) when Jupiter in lagna is aspected by Mars from the 7th was discussed by Bhattotpala with Rama's horoscope. It is deduced that this was manifest after Rama lost Sita in vanavasa. Rama was almost mad asking trees and birds whether they had seen Sita. This has been discussed for ages for understanding how these theories of karma operate (as manifest in horoscope) and not to belittle Rama or anyone. I expect the reader to have such a clarity of mind while reading this.

# Again on prarabhdha, Brahma sutra 3-4-51 has this to say. Even if a person is qualified to attain Liberation (Moksha), if there is an obstruction in the form of a prarabdha karma, the person will not attain moksha at the end of that birth. He will be born again and work out that obstruction and then only attains moksha. This opinion of Brhama sutra runs counter to the schools of thought given by acharyas. But that is for common man's consumption. An evolved being who has almost attained that state for Liberation will understand at that moment and will calmly face the residual prarbdha which acts as an obstruction to his moksha.

(to be cont'd)

jayasree said...


# On Rama- Sita - public triangle, I think I have explained enough in the comment to the old post. Readers can see a similar explanation in this week's Thuglak given by Cho Ramasawamy on how subtleties of Dharma vary. In both events (Agni pareeksha and exile)Rama did not utter a word on what Sita had to do. As a king's wife Sita acted on her own volition.(read my post on Open letter to Srirama which I have given as a 2-way explanation - of seeing it emotionally and impartially - article is titled as "Thoughts on Sri Rama Navami. (open letter to Sri Rama)").

As a king, Rama had to allow Sita prove that she is above suspicion. That is Raj dharma. As a husband he can not allow her to undergo those 2 ordeals. That is the Pati-dharma. But among the 2 roles, he had to stick to raj dharma. If he had to do pati-dharma, he had to relinquish his post as the ruler and support his wife. He didn't do that because he as being anointed as the crown prince can not step down from that responsibility for a personal reason (Bharatha explains this in Pttabhisheka chapter while persuading Rama to accept the crown).

A similar reasoning was cited by Paramacharya in his early years (which was recounted by one Mr Sunderraman who was with him as his aide in those early days. Sunderraman was a student then (now in his 70s and is residing in the US) and he recounted this incident in his book which he published on Paramacharya's 100th Jayanthi.)In those times there was lot of commotion and fights among the inmates for petty reasons such as using fruits that was received from devotees. On many such occasions, Paramacharya had to do madhyastham and solve the issue. His concentration on spiritual acts got a little disturbed during those times. Seeing this, Sunderaraman asked once why the acharya did not go to the Himalayas or some secluded place to pursue his meditation so that he can keep himself away from these mundane fights in the mutt. For that Paramacharya replied, that he has been given the responsibility by his acharya to manage the mutt. He can not run away from that responsibility. He had to do that also and concentrate on his spiritual progress also.

This is the same rationale in Rama's case. His crown has been given to him as the eldest son of the family who has to shoulder the burden of running the country. He can not run away from that. That responsibility is first and takes precedence over his responsibility as husband. So Rama had to 'endure' the sight of Sita undergoing the troubles.

Suppose a citizen of his country does the same thing to his wife, Rama will not accept it. He as a king would have interfered and seen to it that the citizen conducted his pati dharma well.

But Rama did not enjoy that right since his responsibility as a monarch takes precedence over all other situations. His decision on Sita can not be termed as unilateral but as one dictated by the Raj dharma which was more binding on Rama than pati dharma. Further articulation on how such a script of Ramavathara came about was discussed in my post on Open letter to SriRama.

Such are the intricate nuances of dharma - an understanding of which would be helpful in understanding the issue under discussion.

Radha said...

Jayashree, that emotion and reason are mutually exclusive is a masculine idiom. The same idiom which makes nature and culture as opposites and almost always the negative is associated with the woman. And nothing that you have said has improved upon my understanding of prarabdha karma. If your arguments must hold water then all crimes can be absolved on the ground that the victim is only undergoing his prarabdha karma. And as for Srirama and Sita's exile, once again not convincing. If Sita was his wife she was also a praja of Ayodhya. Just as Srikrishna's last ditch peace proposal raises serious questions, Srirama's method of dealing with accusations against Sita also raises serious questions. And that is why Hindu dharma and Itihasa is unendingly fresh and inspiring. But there is no such profundity to Jayalalithaa's actions except that which Jayashree gives them. And most importantly the iisue of sassault on the Kanchi matham is not some abstract academic discourse on religion, dharma and karma, it is a political issue and it is about gross abuse of political and state power. Radha Rajan

jayasree said...

It is Ms Radha's right to hold on to her opinion. The subtleties of Dharma- karma do not operate in the way she likes or thinks - even in the case of Rama, Sita or Krishna that she has quoted.

Radha said...

Jayashree I am not 'holding' on to any opinion any more than you are 'holding' on to yours. And as for the subtelties of dharma-karma, while they may be subtle, they are not beyond the ken of the intellect because it is in understanding the dynamics of dharma and karma that Hindus formulate their conduct. Let me conclude with this observation. If all conduct is governed, directed and therefore predetermined by prarabdha karma, then an individual contributes to his sanchita karma by the choices he makes in that lifetime. Which means that even the dushkriyas committed by individuals are predetermined by that individual's prarabdha karma. And that is why while the travails of Pujya Kanchio Periava may have been because of his or the matham's prarabdha karma, that this heinous crime will be perpetrated by Jayalalithaa and Premkumar is their prarabdha karma. If dharma-karma subtelties must work as infallible principles then they must permeate a deed in its entirety. Thus the principle of prarabdha karma as fruits of action cannot apply only to Pujya periava must also apply to Jayalalithaa's dushkriya both as prarabdha karma and as karma as action which will acquire its own dynamics of other karmas.Radha Rajan

jayasree said...

@ Radha

I am not 'holding' on to 'my opinion' just like that. Every sentence written so far is impregnated with views supported by vedic wisdom of karma- dharma understood through scriptures, through the numerous life-problems which I am constantly exposed to for 3 decades through people who come to me for counseling by means of astrology and through the wisdom of nadi astrology on karma and its manifestation in three births of past, present and future - which I am fortunate or rather destined by my fate to know (knowledge and education of Hindu dharma is predestined)through the assignments I am doing for translating them and interpreting them from original texts.

Whatever I have written so far is written in such a way that it must be probed by one seeking to know the answers for the issue at hand or any related issue. In a public forum like this is the maximum I can do.

I have written in the old post- comment itself, how 'my opinion' on prarabhdha karma was formulated.

I have explained what things come inevitably as prarabhdha karma - in that old post- comment. It is reproduced here:-

"A quick look at Jyothisha to explain this. The 5th house pertains to one’s poorva punya. The 6th, 8th and 12th houses to poorvapunya (of the 5th house) must be laden with benefics and benefic combinations to help in reaping the result of poorva punya or a benefic experience of Prarabhdha karma. These houses pertain to Profession (6th from 5th is 10th house), loss / incarceration, imprisonment/ ignominy (8th from 5th is 12th house) and education & domestic bliss (12th from 5th is 4th house)
These issues are caused by prarabhdha karma."

In short, Profession, loss, incarceration / imprisonment, ignominy, education & domestic bliss come to one by prarabhdha karma.

The 3-some causes that make one undergo prarabhdha karma also were discussed in that old post- comment. JJ by her prarabhdha karma of profession faced a piquant situation / dilemma in the episode. How she acted within the options available had been explained in many ways so far. It is left to the reader to understand it or misunderstand it as per his / her inner mold.

Kala Narasimha said...

Jayasree madam,

There have been a lot of opinions on JJ's action against the Kanchi Acharya.I very much concur with your view that being a ruler is very different from that of a devotee.

Also JJ would not have taken such a strong step without enough evidence. Many evidences were placed before the public. It cannot be definitely believed that everything was faked.

JJ took this step knowing fully well that she will be criticised by a major section of the Hindus.She has taken firm and bold steps in many a situation.JJ also has not denigrated any religion or caste like karunanidhi.Our country definitely needs such leaders with clarity and courage.

Kala Narasimha

Anonymous said...


If you think Acharya's arrest is because of his prarabdha, then brahmins' sufferings at the hands of karunanidhi is also prarabdha. So according to you entering matham with boots on is its prarabdha and calling matham as smasanam as Periyava's bhuta sariram is there is also periyava's prarabdha. Great! Continue the good work