Ranganath was arrested on August 18, 1991, for sheltering Sivarasan and Shubha. Ironically, it was Ranganath who informed the police about the fugitives in his house and is the only witness to the CBI's break-in operation. And he and his estranged wife are the only ones to have heard Sivarasan and Shubha speak about the crime.
Ranganath's recent affidavit filed before the Jain Commission accuses the CBI of deliberately hiding key facts and shielding several culprits. His major contention is that his information that Sivarasan and his team were promised a safe passage to the West by Chandraswami and details pertaining to the god -man and some Congress leaders were not recorded by the CBI. According to him, the CBI was determined not to widen the net beyond the role of the LTTE in the plot to kill Rajiv. "As the only living witness and the only one with no political axe to grind, my words should be taken seriously," he declares.
As a key witness, the information he has is important, to say the least.
A.S. Panneerselvan sought an interview through Ranganath's lawyers. The questions were sent to him at the high security Poonamallee sub-jail located within the designated court complex where the Rajiv assassination case is being heard in Chennai. Ranganath's answers have been duly attested by the additional superintendent of the jail. Excerpts:
Did Sivarasan and Shubha tell you about their connections with
Chandraswami and an AICC functionary?
They did speak about their connections with Chandraswami and also with a Congress leader from Karnataka who was a member of Rajiv Gandhi's cabinet. They used to say that it was through this leader that they got the details of Rajiv Gandhi's election tour programme. They talked about the AICC functionary as their close associate. During his stay with me, Sivarasan also informed me that Chandraswami was his godfather.
(In his affidavit submitted to the Jain Commission on November 4, Ranganath speaks of Sivarasan and Shubha naming Aswath Narayan, a local Congress leader, as one of their friends. Both Shubha and Sivarasan pointed out that Narayan was close to the AICC functionary in Delhi who helped them with Rajiv's tour
What was the safe passage promised to Sivarasan by Chandraswami?
Sivarasan wanted to go abroad directly from Bangalore. This was the reason why he came to Bangalore. But he said that if he went to Jaffna he could be killed and that the 'Jain Muni' (The godman's real name is Nemichand Jain) would arrange for his
safe passage to a foreign country.
(In his affidavit to the commission, Ranganath declares that Sivarasan told him the godman planned to first bring him to Delhi and then sneak him out to a foreign destination.)
Did the CBI prevent you from telling the whole truth?
The CBI threatened me. Barring the LTTE, they did not want me to mention the involvement of the others in the crime. Since they fixed the LTTE as the only offenders, they wanted evidence to accuse it—and not against those who commissioned the offence.
What are the truths the CBI refused to record or act
Then CBI chief Karthikeyan warned me not to speak anything about the AICC functionary or any other Congress people, and Chandraswami. Karthikeyan seemed to know the facts about the assassination and also the powers behind Rajiv's killing. He warned me of serious consequences if I gave the information to a magistrate or others. From what he told me it was clear that he was shielding Chandraswami and some key Congress people. Even after my request, CBI (SIT) failed to record my statement.
I took DCP Kempiah (Karnataka police) to the Bangalore hideout where Sivarasan and Shubha were hiding. But his statement has not been produced before the designated court.
How do you know that the CBI was reluctant to arrest Sivarasan and
On the morning of July 30, 1991, a person called Vicky was arrested at Coimbatore. He gave specific information about Sivarasan's hideout in Bangalore (this was before Sivarasan and the others forcibly entered Ranganath's house on August 6). But for 24 hours, the CBI made no effort to search the hideout. On August 2, 1991, the CBI questioned one Jaganathan, who arranged four safehouses for the LTTE workers. He gave details of the locations of these houses and the hospitals in which the injured LTTE men were admitted. But the CBI did not make any effort to arrest Sivarasan. Perhaps because if he were caught alive, Sivarasan would squeal about those who conspired to kill Rajiv and also of his (Sivarasan's) connections with Congressmen. This is perhaps why even on August 18, 1991, the CBI did not allow the local police to catch them.
If I get an opportunity to depose before the Jain Commission, then I will prove the fact that there are other persons involved in Rajiv Gandhi's assassination. I am the only one alive who stayed with Sivarasan and Shubha (after the assassination) and heard what they had to say about the killing.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT