´Õ
ÀâÁ¡üÈõ!
¦Åí¸ð º¡Á¢¿¡¾ý
¸£§Æ
¾ÃôÀðÎûÇ ´Õ ÀâÁ¡üÈò¨¾Ôõ Óý ¨Å츢§Èý. þôÀâÁ¡üÈõ, ÓýÉ÷ ¨Åì¸ôÀðÎûÇ ±ÉÐ '¾¡÷Á£¸Á¢Æó¾
º¡Á÷ò¾¢Âí¸û', «¨¾ò ¦¾¡¼÷ó¾ Íó¾Ã áÁº¡Á¢Â¢ý '¦º¡øÄôÀθ¢ÈÐ' ¦¸¡ïºõ, ' ¿õÀôÀθ¢ÈÐ'
¦¸¡ïºõ', À¢ý ±ÉÐ '¸¡üȢɢ§Ä Åó¾ ¸£¾í¸û" ¬¸¢ÂÅüÈ¢ý Å¢¨Ç×õ, ±ý ±¾¢÷Å¢¨ÉÔõ
¦¸¡ñ¼Ð. ±ÉÐ ¸ÕòÐì¸Ùõ, ¦ºÂø¸Ùõ, ±ØòÐì¸Ùõ Á¨Èì¸ ²Ðõ þøÄ¡¾¨Å. ¸¡üȢɢ§Ä Á¢¾ìÌõ
±ý ¦º¡ü¸Ùõ ¾¡ý. þ¨Å ±øÄ¡ÅüÈ¢üÌõ ´Õ ¾¡÷Á£¸ ÀâÁ¡½õ ¯ñÎ. ±øÄ¡ÅüÈ¢üÌõ ¿¡ý
¦À¡Úô§Àü¸¢§Èý. ±ýɢĢÕóÐ ±ùÅÊÅò¾¢ø ¸¢Ç÷ó¾ ±¨¾Ôõ ±ýɾøÄ ±ýÚ ¦º¡øÄ ¿¡ý Å¢ÕõÀÁ¡ð§¼ý.
«Ð ±ÉìÌ «ÅÁ¡Éõ ¾Õõ ¦ºÂø. ±É§Å þôÀâÁ¡üÈÓõ ¦ÅÇ¢Ôĸ¢ý Óý. þ¨ÅÔõ ¾¡ý ¿¡ý.
þÅüÈ¢ý ÀÄÓõ ÀÄÅ£ÉÓõ ¿¡ý ¾¡ý. þÅü¨È ¬í¸¢Ä ãÄò¾¢§Ä§Â ¾Õ¸¢§Èý, òÅÉ¢, ¦À¡Õû
Á¡üÈí¸û ¦ºöРŢð§¼ý ±ýÚ ²Ð ÌüÈðÎ ±Æìܼ¡¾øÄÅ¡?
¦Åí¸ð º¡Á¢¿¡¾ý
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
swaminathan_venkat@rediffmail.com |
|