திண்ணை

வெங்கட் சாமிநாதன்

ஒரு பரிமாற்றம்

கீழே தரப்பட்டுள்ள ஒரு பரிமாற்றத்தையும் முன் வைக்கிறேன். இப்பரிமாற்றம், முன்னர் வைக்கப்பட்டுள்ள எனது ‘தார்மீகமிழந்த சாமர்த்தியங்கள் ‘, அதைத் தொடர்ந்த சுந்தர ராமசாமியின் ‘சொல்லப்படுகிறது கொஞ்சம், நம்பப்படுகிறது கொஞ்சம் ‘, பின் எனது ‘காற்றினிலே வந்த கீதங்கள் ‘ ஆகியவற்றின் விளைவும், என் எதிர்வினையும் கொண்டது. எனது கருத்துக்களும், செயல்களும், எழுத்துக்களும் மறைக்க ஏதும் இல்லாதவை. காற்றினிலே மிதக்கும் என் சொற்களும் தான். இவை எல்லாவற்றிற்கும் ஒரு தார்மீக பரிமாணம் உண்டு. எல்லாவற்றிற்கும் நான் பொறுப்பேற்கிறேன். என்னிலிருந்து எவ்வடிவத்தில் கிளர்ந்த எதையும் என்னதல்ல என்று சொல்ல நான் விரும்பமாட்டேன். அது எனக்கு அவமானம் தரும் செயல். எனவே இப்பரிமாற்றமும் வெளியுலகின் முன். இவையும் தான் நான். இவற்றின் பலமும் பலவீனமும் நான் தான். இவற்றை ஆங்கில மூலத்திலேயே தருகிறேன், த்வனி, பொருள் மாற்றங்கள் செய்து விட்டேன் என்று ஏது குற்றச்சாட்டு எழக்கூடாதல்லவா ?

வெங்கட் சாமிநாதன்

28.12.04

G.R.SWAMINATHAN 20- Thiruvalluvar Street,

Advocate Opp.Bhuvaneshwari Amman Temple,

S.S.Colony, Madurai

625 010

Mr.Venkat Saminathan

5/181,Gopal Street,

Madippakkam,

Chennai

Sir,

On instructions from my clients Mr. Kalachuvadu and Mr. S. R.Kannan, having office at No. 669, K.P.Road, Nagercoil 629 001, I issue this legal notice to you.

My clients state that you have, by publishing the article ‘THARMEEGAM EZHANTGHA SAMARTHIYARGAL ‘ in the October 2004 issue Amudhasurabhi, committed the act of defamation. You have, by your words, caused an imputation concerning my clients, knowing fully well that the said imputation would harm my clients ‘ reputation. ‘Kalachuvadu ‘ is a prestigious literary magazine being published by my client, S.R.Kannan. You have, in the aforesaid Article, accused that they have procured an article from Thiru M.A.Nooqman. A clear imputation has been made that it was a mercenary effort on the part of the said M.A.Nooqman. You have further alleged that Thiru Kannan lacks the creative element and that the articles appearing in ‘Kalachuvadu ‘ are ghost written by his illustrious father, Thiru Surendra (Sundara ?) Ramaswami. The overall tone and tenor of your article is such that the imputation caused therein would directly lower the credit and reputation of my clients in the estimation of fellow writers and intellectuals working in the Tamil literary field. In fact, following the publication of your article, several anxious enquiries were made, calling for explanations from my clients.

My clients state that you have published such an article with a malafide intention. The same was not made in good faith. ‘Kalachuvadu ‘ had published a letter written by Thiru M.A.Nooqman criticizing the conferment of a literary award by my clients( ?), you, angered by such a publication, have chosen to heap scorn and ridicule on my clients. ‘Kalachuvadu ‘ is a magazine and it has to lend its space to legitimate criticism in order to uphold certain values. You have entertained an erroneous impression that Thiru Surendra (Sundara ?) Ramaswamy and my client Kannan have instigated the writing of such a letter by Thiru Nooqman. Though you impression is factually baseless, you continue to nurture such an impression and it is this, which ventilated itself in the form of the aforesaid article.

In your aforesaid article, you have also quoted Thiru Manushiya Puthran as having said that many articles appearing in ‘Kalachuvadu ‘ are jointly authored. You are called upon to set out the basis for making such a statement.

In view of what has been stated above, I here by call upon you to express your unconditional apology within 14 days of the date of receipt of this notice, failing which, my clients would have no option but to institute Criminal Prosecution under Sec. 500 IPC before the competent Magistrate Court in Kanyakumari, and hold you responsible for all the ensuing consequences.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/- G.R.Swaminathan.

—-

Venkat Swaminathan 5/181,Gopal Street, Madippakkam, Chennai-91

Dec. 20, 2004

Sri G.R.Swaminathan

Advocate

20-C, Thiruvalluvar Street,

Opp. Ghuvaneshwari Amman Temple,

S.S.Colony, Madurai-625 010

Sir,

This is in response to your notice dated 2.12.04 posted from Madurai on 9.12.04.

2. I am a little surprised by this notice. The plane of discourse between your clients and me thus far was, I believe, different from the one to which it has now been shifted. The present plane of action is quite alien to my interests and functions which are in the fields of literature, arts and ideas where opinions expressed and values cherished are entirely subjective and hence laws and legalities do not have a place there. The opinions expressed and statements made by me were derived from what had already appeared in Pathivukal, an Internet magazine and observations

made at some length by Manushyaputran and Jayamohan who have had long years of association with your clients and Mr. Sundara Ramaswami. The observations of Manushyaputra and Jayamohan recount their past experiences with your clients and the statements of these two have remained unchallenged till this day. As a distant observer of the scene, my writings were naturally based on all these unquestioned statements. Needless to say, Mr. Sundara Ramaswami had his say in Thinnai and Amudhasurabhi in reply to my statements in the article you have referred to.

3. As I stated as a person functioning in the fields of arts, letters and ideas, opinions and statements made by me are wholly subjective. They are valid only as value judgments emanating from my person. They are to be accepted or thrown out depending on the respect I command or fail to command. They don ‘t have to be and cannot be proved in a court of law, as they don ‘t derive their authority from law but from my personality. No literary person worth his salt will question my authority raising a point of law. No sir, I cannot substantiate any of my expressed opinions or conclusions in a court of law. I will be scared to death if your client Mr. Kannan decides to settle a literary dispute in a boxing or wrestling bout, I will have no other recourse but to take to my heels that very moment to save my life. Court of law is as alien as a boxing ring in these matters.

4 I had also drawn attention to the facts that Mrs. and Mr. Sundara Ramaswami expressed their happiness at the conferment of the award on me and also offered advice to make easy my travel to Canada. Mr. Sundara Ramaswami had also offered to make arrangements to record an interview with me on the eve of this award, in response to requests from friends in Canada. My friends in Canada also had conveyed to me that Mr. Sundara Ramaswami expressed his appreciation of the award being given to me, a person who had suffered neglect and remained unrecognized even after all these four decades of sustained work. All these were of course telephonic talks. When I referred to these talks, Mr. Sundara Ramaswami chose not to acknowledge these and kept mum. If I am asked to prove this truth in a court of law, I will miserably fail to do that. The truth and validity of these will depend on the measure of the credibility and respect I command and not on any documentary evidence, when the person at the other end chooses to disown and remain mum.

5. Many have indulged in slanderous campaign against me alleging that I am a CIA agent, a running dog of American Imperialism and so on. This vicious propaganda continued for several decades. I was hurt by their enmity, not by the propaganda. I did not choose this weapon of legal notice. I was strong enough to ignore them. Your clients are perfectly aware of this.

6. My statements that are said to have defamed your clients were in fact drawn from what had already appeared in Pathivukal and from the statements published by Manushyaputra and Jayamohan. I had only drawn from already published materials, which have remained unchallenged.

7. If Manushyaputran, Jayamohan and Pathivukal had not hurt the name of your clients and only repetition of them after a period of time had defamed your clients, I do not know whether the power of my writing is being unduly flattered or I am being singled out for other reasons. Significantly, neither Thinnai, the internet magazine, nor Amudhasurabhi, both of which carried my articles and Mr. Sundara Ramaswami ‘s response, or Shree Ram Chit Funds who are the publishers of Amudhasurabhi, have been served this notice, asking them to apologize or face legal action. I am the only person, it seems, picked out from this crowd.

8. If your clients consider that my apologies would restore the reputation which according to them, has been tarnished by my repetition of what had already been expressed by others, well, I have no problems in doing that. I will be and am only too happy to offer my apologies in a generous measure to restore their reputation, they believe to have been tarnished. Please convey this to your clients. I believe I was a friend of this family for over three decades and hence I feel I am obliged to do this. Please also convey my apologies to Mrs. and Mr. Sundara Ramaswami both of whom were gracious enough then, to express their happiness at my getting this award.

Yours faithfully

Sd/- Venkat Swaminathan

Copy for advance information to

1. Mr. S.R.Kannan, Kalachuvadu,

2. Mrs. and Mr. Sundara Ramaswami

669, K.Road, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, 629 001