The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 31 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part31.

htm

The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon

Part 31

Sachi Sri Kantha

[12 January 2002]

Rajiv Gandhi Assassination: Jigsaw puzzles in

the judicial angle
‘In the Computer Age we still live by the law of the Stone Age: the
man with the bigger club is right. But we pretend this isn’t so. We
don’t notice or even suspect it – why, surely our morality progresses
together with our civilization. Professional politicians, meanwhile,
have deftly covered certain vices with a civilized veneer.’
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, in his 1997 essay ‘Hypocrisy Today’
[Daily Yomiuri, Aug.7, 1997]

Front Note
Contrary to the previous 30 chapters, this chapter and the forthcoming
chapter on the espionage angle of Rajiv Gandhi assassination do not contain
any direct information on Pirabhakaran. But this does not mean that the
information provided in these chapters are irrelevant to the theme of
Pirabhakaran Phenomenon.

Anti-Pirabhakaran literature generated by half-baked analysts (which

includes books by Rohan Gunaratna and commentaries by the journalists
representing the ‘Chicken Little Circuit’ from Chennai) before May 1999
portray an erroneous view that Pirabhakaran had killed Rajiv Gandhi. This
was strongly based on conjectures and the news releases from the Indian
Intelligence agencies. But the presented evidence by the prosecution team at
the assassination trial (as indicated in the Supreme Court verdicts of
Justice Wadhwa, Justice Thomas and Justice Quadri) shows conspicuous
lack of solid information linking Pirabhakaran to the assassination. Thus,
some of the chapters dealing with Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination have to be
without any information on Pirabhakaran.

Defence Lawyer Duraisamy’s Interview

Now that I have presented my analysis on the Supreme Court appeal

1 of 19 12/15/2008 11:29 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 31 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part31.htm

verdicts delivered by Justice Quadri, Justice Thomas and Justice Wadhwa

(see, The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon – parts 28, 29 and 30), it is more than
appropriate to study the impressions of defence lawyer S.Duraisamy on the
final verdict delivered in 1999 – almost 8 years after the tragic event.

Duraisamy became the Bill Kunstler of Tamil Nadu. For those who don’t
know, Bill Kunstler was the Jewish-American attorney who appeared for
‘harassed innocents’ (which included Martin Luther King Jr., Chicago Seven
etc.) and gained victories in court against all odds. Luckily, Duraisamy’s
impressions are available from an illuminating interview he granted to
A.G.Nadar for the Rediff On the Net website and presented on October 13,
1999. It deserves reading (since he knew better on what aspects were
ignored by the adjudicators of justice) and I reproduce it below.

The introduction of Duraisamy mentions,

“…Typical, you can say, of the man who saw the Rajiv Gandhi
assassination accused in a different light. When the world condemned
them, Duraisamy was among the few who sympathized at their plight.
Unshaken by a frightening volley of hate mail and threats, he stood
his ground to defend what seemed indefensible then. And succeeded.
By snatching life for 22 of the 26 accused from the jaws of death: 19
acquitted and the sentence of three reduced to life. [Italics added for
emphasis by me.] In his modest apartment in Madras, the soft-spoken
lawyer spoke to A.G.Nadar about his defence.”

Note of explanation: the italics within parentheses are as in the original

interview. Other descriptions within parentheses have been added by me, for
clarification purposes.

Q: Since when you have been practising law?

A: 1970.

Q: You have always been a criminal defence lawyer?

A: Yes.

Q: When did you become a member of the Dravida Kazhagam?

A: Since my school days I have been a follower of Periyar

[E.V.Ramasamy Naicker, founder of the Dravida movement]. Even
today I am a follower. We have formed a separate party called Periyar
Dravida Kazhagam three years back.

Q: When did you get involved with the Sri Lanka Tamil issue?

2 of 19 12/15/2008 11:29 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 31 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part31.htm

A: Since the issue started we have been involved in it – 1983. After the
massacres in the northern parts, around Jaffna, all of India sympathised
with them. We in the Dravida Kazhagam supported them
wholeheartedly.

Q: Before this case [i.e, Rajiv assassination trial], have you handled
anything that involved so much publicity?

A: During the Emergency [of 1975-77] there were a lot of excesses in

jail. I was in jail for a year under the MISA [Maintenance of Internal
Security Act]. People were tortured, some were beaten to death. After
the Emergency a commission was appointed under Justice Ismail. I
represented the victims. We examined the prison officials, jailers and
superintendents. From their mouth I was able to get the answer that
they had exceeded their authority. That was my first brush with the
government.

Q: And then this case.

A: Yes!

Q: When the court sentenced the accused to die, were you

disappointed?

A: Of course, I was disappointed. The outcome of the arguments

looked like they were in our favour. They should have been acquitted
there [by the trial court] itself. Even the Supreme Court judgment
shocked me. I don’ think they will hang four of them. There is no
evidence at all.

Q: Do you expect all of them to be acquitted?

A: Definitely. They have not committed any offence at all.

Q: Not committed any offence at all, or not committed any offence

that can be proved in court?

A: They have not committed any offence.

Q: You believe that.

A: Yes!

Q: What were they doing in Sriperumbudur?

A: Sivarasan and the others?

3 of 19 12/15/2008 11:29 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 31 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part31.htm

Q: Yes.

A: They committed [the crime]. These people are innocent.

Q: So you are not talking about the LTTE. Only these accused.

A: Yes! Only these.

Q: You pleaded in the trial court and then you pleaded in the
Supreme Court. They have handed death sentences to four of your
clients.

A: The Terrorist and Disruptive (Prevention) Act expired in 1996. Now

the Supreme Court itself has said that in this case TADA is not
applicable. They have acquitted the charges under TADA. Then the
proceedings in the TADA court have to go. The court says there is no
terrorist activity in Rajiv Gandhi’s case. If there is no terrorist activity,
then the TADA court has no jurisdiction. So the proceedings in the
TADA court will not be applicable in this case.

The case has to be reopened. Statements and confessions recorded

under TADA cannot be, should not be, considered. When you take
away those statements and the confessions, there is no case at all.
There is no evidence.

Q: You mean they have to be tried by a regular court now.

A: Only then should it be relied upon.

Q: What about the photographs retrieved from the dead

photographer’s camera?

A: Sivarasan, Subha and Dhanu were seen there. We are not denying
that.

Q: Even Nalini was there.

A: We are not denying that. Other than Nalini, there were thousands of
people there. [now Tamil Rajiv Congress leader] Vazhapadi
[Ramamurthy] was there. [now Tamil Maanila Congress leader]
Karuppaiah Moopanar was there.

Q: They were Indians involved in the election campaign. Not Sri

Lankans, who has nothing to do with the election.

A: Nalini is an Indian.

4 of 19 12/15/2008 11:29 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 31 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part31.htm

Q: The other three? [referring to Sivarasan, Dhanu and Subha]

A: The other three came only for killing Rajiv Gandhi.

Q: Not these four accused?

A: No! Not these four accused. None of them were there.

Q: They were elsewhere?

A: They were elsewhere. Actually, at that time according to the police,

Perarivalan [18th accused] was seeing a cinema at the Devi theatre.

Q: So your entire argument is that because the Supreme Court did

not uphold the TADA act in this case, the entire case becomes
invalid?

A: Not only that. There are other certain points.

Q: Please tell us.

A: There are so many contradictory statements in the confession.

According to one, Sivarasan was taken to Bangalore from Madras on
28th June and he was left in Bangalore on the 29th morning.

Q: Inside a petrol tanker?

A: Yes. This is in the confession statement of three accused. Another

statement says that on the 30th of June, Sivarasan asked Santhan to
come over to the Ashok Nagar cinema theatre. They were staying with
a party in Madras. Now which confession has to be relied on? The
court says we believe both confessions. This is not proper or possible.
Like this there are so many contradictions.

Q: There is Ranganath, your client, coming out with stories that the
Special Investigation Team’s D.R.Kartikeyan says he never told him.
In one of the affidavits before the Jain Commission he had said the
same thing. Also, in one of your petitions before the trial court, he
gave the same facts.

A: In this case we used the statement because Ranganath’s statement

said only about this case.

Q: Apart from the LTTE, is there somebody else involved?

A: Already he has said that in an affidavit to the Jain Commission when

5 of 19 12/15/2008 11:29 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 31 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part31.htm

he was in Poonamalle jail. We have filed many petitions too. Now he is

revealing it to the press that Chandra Swami and others are involved.
We do not know why the Jain Commission didn’t act.

Q: The Jain Commission did not say anything. It is Karthikeyan who

is denying it now.

A: Even before, they were told that Sivarasan used to talk about
Chandra Swami and help from some other quarters in Delhi. They were
threatened by the investigating authorities and beaten up by the police.
He has lost his front teeth because of that.

Q: Does it look like they were protecting somebody?

A: They want to throw the whole accusation against the LTTE only.
They don’t want to see anything beyond that.

Q: Internationally, did somebody finance the LTTE?

A: We do not know if the LTTE was financed or where they picked up

the people. They could have been engaged by the real conspirators, of
course. That part we do not know.

Q: There are rumours that the LTTE is targeting Sonia Gandhi. Is

there any substance to it?

A: Even the Supreme Court says the LTTE must have known that if
they kill an Indian leader in India they will lose support of the people.
Can we expect that at this stage they will do something like that? It is a
rumour started by the CBI or some others who are frustrated because
they lost in the Supreme Court.

Q: Rajiv Gandhi was killed. Seventeen others died. You feel you did
justice by defending the accused?

A: Of course, I feel sorry. The real culprits should be punished.

Q: Not these people.

A: Definitely not.

Q: What was the public reaction like when you took up this case?

A: Everybody was afraid. All the advocates were scared. I did not find
any reason not to appear for them. The public reaction was against me.
There were so many threatening calls. Congressmen attacked my office,
my house. Even then I did not ask for protection. Even now I do not
ask for protection. I thought I will appear for the innocent. I have to

6 of 19 12/15/2008 11:29 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 31 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part31.htm

defend the innocent.

Q: Guilty or innocent, everybody deserves a lawyer. What about your

wife and children? Your child must have been in school then.

A: My family was proud of me.

Q: They supported you. So are all the people in your house members
of the Dravida Kazhagam?

A: [Laughs]

Q: Do you think this case will affect your future?

A: Yes! Definitely.

Q: All the ‘wrong’ cases will come to you.

A: Wrong cases or right cases, rowdies and goondas will not come to
me. This kind of political cases will come. In the RSS office bomb
blasts, I am defending some of the accused.

Q: We heard that P.Nedumaran of the Tamil Desiya Iyakam collected

Rs. 3.4 crore [Rs.34 million] for this case. How come you are living
in this house?

A: [Laughs] We did not collect so much. Of course, we had to spend a

lot of money. The defence consists of a team of lawyers. We had to
stay in Delhi.

Q: For that you got people. Juniors and seniors?

A: Yes.

Q: So nobody wanted to be the main defence counsel, but they didn’t

mind assisting you.

A: After two or three years everybody was willing to come out openly.

Q: Who is the senior advocate in Delhi?

A: N.Natarajan.

Q: Anything you would like to tell us?

A: No.” [source: the website of Rediff on the Net, accessed on Nov.9,

2001]

Justice Wadhwa, towards the end of his lengthy verdict had identified the

7 of 19 12/15/2008 11:29 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 31 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part31.htm

other lawyers of the defence team as follows:

“Mr.Natarajan, senior advocate, led the team for all the accused except
one. He was ably assisted by Mr.Sunder Mohan, Mr.B.Gopikrishnan,
Mr.S.Duraisamy, Mr.V.Elangovan, Mr.N.Chandrasekharan,
Mr.T.Ramdass and Mr.R.Jayaseelan. A heavy burden lay on the
shoulders of Mr.Natarajan. He carried it with aplomb. His presentation
of the case showed his complete mastery on facts and law. It was a
pleasure to hear him, not losing his poise even for once. He was fair in
his submissions conceding where it was unnecessary to contest.
Mr.Siva Subramanium, senior advocate assisted by Mr.Thanan, who
represented the remaining one accused, rendered his bit to support
Mr.Natarajan.” [p.201 of the verdict]

I mention that Mr. Siva Subramanium appeared for Shanmugavadivelu, the

15th accused. In his interview, the defense lawyer Duraisamy pointed out
only one example of the contradiction, with an added note, “Like this, there
are so many contradictions”. Having studied the verdicts of Justice Wadhwa
and Justice Thomas, I present below two contradictions (relating to the
arrest records of accused Ravi and Nalini) which puzzles me.

Contradiction 1: Puzzling arrest records of Ravi, the 16th Accused

Ravi, the 16th accused was identified as an Indian citizen. First I quote
directly from the verdicts of Justice Wadhwa and Justice Thomas. Within
parenthesis of each cited date, I cite the appropriate date with month noted
in alphabetical form in italics.

“Ravi (A-16), Suseendran (A-17), Sivarasan, Subha, Kanthan and

Murugesan collected at the seashore to take a boat for Sri Lanka. That
was 10.6.1991 [i.e, June 10, 1991]. A message was, however received
that the boat got hit in the sea near Jaffna and all 11 persons who were
coming to India died.” [p.108 of Wadhwa’s verdict]

“In his confession Ravi (A-16) had shown his various attempts for him
and others to leave the country and his being in constant touch with
Pottu Amman through wireless set installed at Dindigul. On 28.7.1991
[i.e, July 28, 1991], Ravi (A-16) along with Kanthan and Ramanan
went to Sri Lanka and met Pottu Amman.” [p.109 of Wadhwa’s
verdict]

“Ultimately Ravi (A-16) stated that he returned to India. He left Sri

Lanka on 10.8.1991 [i.e, Aug.10, 1991] with various weapons, 12 gold
biscuits and 15 code sheets.” [p.109 of Wadhwa’s verdict]

“On 21.8.1991 [i.e, Aug.21, 1991] Ravi (A-16) was arrested by the

8 of 19 12/15/2008 11:29 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 31 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part31.htm

police. [p.109 of Wadhwa’s verdict]

“In the confession made on 12.12.1991 [i.e, Dec.12, 1991] by Ravi

(A-16) in that case, he said as under:… Then he again went to Sri
Lanka on 23.8.1991 [i.e, Aug.23, 1991] when boat arrived from there.
Suseendran (A-17) did not accompany him. He met Pottu Amman on
28.8.1991 [i.e,Aug.28, 1991]. He gave him further arms and
ammunition and also 12 gold biscuits weighing 10 tolas each. He
returned to India on 10.9.1991 [i.e, Sept.10, 1991]…He was arrested
on 23.10.1991 [i.e, Oct.23, 1991] [pp.183-184 of Wadhwa’s verdict]

However, Justice Thomas in his verdict, makes Ravi as a Sri Lankan citizen,
and records that, “A-16 (Ravichandran) is a Sri Lankan citizen. He was
arrested on 20-10-1991 [i.e, Oct.20, 1991] in connection with Rajiv Gandhi
murder case.” [p.49 of Thomas’s verdict]. The difference in this arrest date,
Oct.20 or Oct.23, 1991, could be a legitimate clerical error. But, the table
providing the dates of arrest, confession and nationality in Justice Wadhwa’s
verdict, state,

“nationality Indian; date of arrest 6.1.92 [i.e, Jan.6, 1992]; date of

confession 14.2.92 [i.e, Feb.14, 1992].” [pp.45-46 of Wadhwa’s
verdict].

If these dates are to be believed, Jan.6, 1992 arrest was Ravi’s third arrest!

To chronologically recapitulate this messy schedule underwent by Ravi, the

16th accused: he left Sri Lanka on Aug.10, 1991. He was first arrested on
Aug.21, 1991. Then, he went to Sri Lanka on Aug.23, 1991. He returned to
India on Sept.10, 1991. He was arrested for the second time (?) on Oct.20,
1991 [according to Justice Thomas] or Oct.23, 1991 [according to Justice
Wadhwa]. He made a confession on Dec.12, 1991.

Then, Ravi was arrested again on Jan.6, 1992. He made a second confession
on Feb.14, 1992.

My opinion on Ravi’s arrest record

This postulation is derived from the travel records, as culled from the verdict
of Justice Wadhwa. One wonders whether Ravi was released on bail after
his first arrest on Aug.21, 1991? If not, how come he could move to Sri
Lanka two days later on Aug.23, 1991? These two dates have some
significance. Sivarasan, Subha and five other associates were reported
committing suicide in Bangalore on Aug.20, 1991 [see below, the statement
of S.B.Chavan, the then Minister of Home Affairs, in Lok Sabha on Aug.21,
1991]. Assuming Ravi was arrested on the following day, one can even
postulate whether he was used by the Indian Intelligence wallahs as a

9 of 19 12/15/2008 11:29 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 31 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part31.htm

‘reluctant mole’ to receive ‘intelligence’ about the activities of LTTE

leadership in Jaffna. Thus, he could have been requested to travel to Jaffna
(with that purpose) on Aug.23, 1991, following his first arrest. Then, after
Ravi’s return to India on Sept.10, 1991, he was arrested for the second time
on Oct.20 or Oct.23, 1991. This postulation may become credible (I
repeat, credible), if the dates of Ravi’s arrest recorded in the verdict of
Justice Wadhwa are indeed true.

Contradiction 2: Puzzling arrest record of Nalini, the 1st accused

Justice Wadhwa’s descriptions on the arrest record of Nalini in one page of
his verdict also contradict his own information presented in two other pages
of his verdict.

In page 73 of his verdict, Justice Wadhwa has glaringly written as follows:

“There is a wireless message dated 12.6.1991 [i.e, June 12, 1991] sent
by Sivarasan from Wireless Station 910 to Station 91 of Pottu Amman
which reads ‘the brother of officer-girl, her mother were arrested’.
Reference to office-girl is to Nalini (A-1).”

But four pages before that, in page 69, Justice Wadhwa has noted in one
sentence,

“It was on 14.6.1991 [i.e, June 14, 1991] when they [referring to
Nalini and Murugan] at Saidapet bus stand, Madras they were
arrested.”

This information corroborates with the information he has provided in the

table of arrest and confession record, in page 45, where it is recorded the
date of arrest for Nalini was 14.6.91 [i.e, June 14, 1991].

My opinion on Nalini’s arrest record:

If information provided in page 45 and page 69 of Justice Wadhwa’s
verdict is correct, Nalini was arrested on June 14, 1991. Then, the
purported wireless message dated 12.6.1991 sent by Sivarasan from
Wireless Station 910 to Pottu Amman in Station 91 has to be a fake. This
purported message itself reads, ‘the brother of officer-girl, her mother were
arrested’ and Justice Wadhwa had annotated that “reference to office-girl is
to Nalini (A-1).” Isn’t it funny?

If the supreme court verdict itself is riddled with such consequential

contradictions (unattributable to clerical error, which abounds in the
spelling of names), what confidence one could have in the submitted
confessions of accused and the recorded evidence during the hearing of the
trial. My proposal is that, it becomes imperative that the impressions of
defence lawyer Duraisamy on the contradictions which existed in Rajiv

10 of 19 12/15/2008 11:29 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 31 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part31.htm

Gandhi assassination trial deserve to be recorded in full for posterity [in

whatever means available such as videotape, audio tape, transcribed book]
before his memory fails.

Untouched Jig-saw Puzzles

(1) Unusual Death of Shanmugam
If Rajiv Gandhi assassination trial, prosecuted by the SIT personnel with
their Procrustean data-torturing mindset, is full of mysteries, the
disappearance and unusual death of one of the deceased accused
N.Shanmugam, aged 40, on the night of July 19, 1991 deserves an
exceptional ranking. This tragedy occurred before the reported suicides of
Sivarasan and Subha in Bangalore. In the original charge sheet prepared by
the SIT in May 1992, Shanmugam was listed as the 35th accused. According
to this charge sheet,

“Shanmugam (A-35) with long association with LTTE help to smuggle

arms and explosives between Jaffna and Kodiakkarai. In the area
around his house he had got buried under the sand 121 cases of high
explosives, wireless communication equipment and petrol in cans for
the use of the conspirators. He arranged for the reception of the group
of nine persons and other and actively assisted them in carrying out the
object of the conspiracy. When he was arrested and recoveries of the
aforesaid materials were effected at his instance, he escaped from
custody and committed suicide.” [source: Lanka Guardian, Nov.1,
1992, pp.21-22]

Some kind of suicide that should have been! Facts pertaining to the unusual
death of Shanmugam remain hidden. But, for record, I would like to
reproduce the impressions expressed by some of the Indian MPs in the floor
of Lok Sabha, ten days following this unusual death. Though every one of
them had their own perceptions and biases (Some criticising LTTE for their
activities in the Indian soil), in retrospect, one can judge that in totality they
doubted the credibility of the law enforcement personnel in India, even
before the SIT prepared the original charge-sheet for the Rajiv
assassination trial. I provide excerpts from the speeches made by four
Tamil Nadu MPs in Lok Sabha on July 29, 1991. Among the four,
Thangkabalu, Padma and Tindivanam Ramamurthee belonged to the
Congress Party and Raja Ravivarma was from the Anna DMK Party.

Shri.K.V.Thangkabalu (representing Dharmapuri)

“…Today’s discussion is pertaining to the incident which had taken

11 of 19 12/15/2008 11:29 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 31 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part31.htm

place in Tamil Nadu. We know that there was an announcement of the

CBI’s investigation particularly under the dynamic leadership of Shri
Kartikeyan, a well-known disciplined and outstanding officer of the
police cadre. After his induction and stewardship, we heard and we are
also knowing that effective steps are taken to get the culprits of the
[Rajiv Gandhi] assassination. What was surprising Madam, with regard
to Shanmugam’s case is that, as many honourable colleague also has
said, a person was in police custody and he was allowed to go out and
the next morning, he was seen hanging near the guest house where he
was interrogated. This is a strange incident. Madam, I would ask the
hon. Home Minister as to how was it possible for him to escape. We
want to know whether the officers who were involved in this incident
belong to the CBI or the State Police. Under whose custody was he
able to go out of the tourist bungalow?

Secondly, the police and the CBI version say, that in the next 24
hours, they were searching for him. He had escaped and they were
searching him. Who was on the search? Who is responsible for this and
what was their responsibility? And they are saying that the next
morning, he was found hanging near the same premises of 50 meters.

This is not only mysterious but the people who were having lot of hope
in the CBI are now losing hope. That very hope is destroyed. I would
like to know whether such kind of officers who were involved in the
incident are a party to the conspirators or the persons who made
Shanmugam to be killed. Who was the real instrumental behind this
scenario? This is to be found out.

Madam, another point is that, which appeared in the press,

Shanmugam was supposed to go out of the house to wash his hands
after having food. When there was a wash basin within the guest house,
where was the necessity for him to go out and wash his hands? It
means that somebody, in connivance with the Police or the officers in
charge, allowed him to go out of the guest house. This point is very
clear. Only the Home Minister will be knowing as to what happened
truly. The investigating agencies, the vigilance agencies and so many
other officers are also trying to find out the truth. But so far no
information is known to the public or the people concerned.

Another point is that he went out at night and in the next morning, he
was hanged to death or supposed to be hanging. Everybody’s
understanding is that while one is hanging to death, his feet will
certainly be above the ground level. But Shanmugam’s feet was
touching the ground. So, certainly he must not have hanged himself.
Certainly, he was made to die and after he was dead he was brought to

12 of 19 12/15/2008 11:29 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 31 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part31.htm

the tree and was hanged down. That must have happened. The
common sense says that if someone hangs himself to death then his
body will always be hanging above the earth. But the photo clearly
shows that he was hanging with his feet touching the ground. I think
the Home Minister knows it and we wish him to clarify this point.

Then there is another news in the Tamil Nadu newspaper. I would like
to quote from a Tamil Nadu evening daily, the Makkal Kural. It says
that one Superintendent of Police was not allowed to go inside the
bungalow where the investigation was going on and also that the police
authorities are supposed to help them to coordinate with the CBI. So,
the S.P. was not allowed to go into the guest house. The CBI
authorities now say that the two police constables who are now
suspended clearly shows that they are responsible for the escape of
Shri Shanmugam. If that is so then the action is right but the State
Police says that the two constables were responsible to help the CBI
and they were not responsible to guard Shri Shanmugam.

SIT, that is the Special Investigating Team, consisting of the CBI

officers, the I.B. officer and the State Police. The Hon. Home Minister
may be knowing the composition of this team exactly. Contradictory
versions are being given to the press and public and this shows that
they are not going in the right direction; that there is some confusion
and they are thus accusing each other. It appears that they are not
going in the right direction in which they are assigned to go.

I would like to ask the hon. Home Minister that if this is the fate of the
case of a leader of the great stature like Shri Rajiv Gandhi then what
will happen to the case of an ordinary common man of this country. I
remember that when Shri Rajiv Gandhi died everybody in this country
wept as if he was their own brother or a family member. The way this
case is being handled, I very much doubt whether we will be able to do
justice or whether we will be able to reach to the culprit who was
behind his assassination. Whosoever he may be, whomsoever they may
be supported by, the Government’s duty is to bring them to light and
punish them. This is the duty of the Government.”

Shri B.Raja Ravivarma (representing Pollachi)

“Mr.Chairman, the statement of the hon. Home Minister made in the
House on the issue of the death of Shri Shanmugam is totally
unbelievable. Shanmugam, an accused in the assassination of the
former Prime Minister, Shri Rajiv Gandhi and he surrendered
voluntarily to the police on 17-7-1991 [i.e, July 17, 1991]. It was not
that the CBI or SIT caught him. Therefore, it is not at all believable
that he escaped on 19-7-1991 [i.e, July 19, 1991] and committed

13 of 19 12/15/2008 11:29 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 31 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part31.htm

suicide just two days after surrender. If he wanted to escape from the
issue, there was no question of his voluntary surrender and then
escaping and committing suicide. So, we want to know whether it is a
suicide or homicide.

When Shanmugam was washing his hands, the constables were not
around him. They were supplying food for the CBI and SIT officials. I
would like to know that the State Police who had been posted there
were meant to keep a watch on Shanmugam or to serve food for the
CBI and SIT officials. The services of our State Police had been
misused by the CBI and SIT officials.

It is stated that Shanmugam escaped under the cover of darkness. The

question of darkness could come only after Shanmugam escaping from
the building. Therefore, I strongly suspect the role played by the CBI
and SIT officials behind this issue. The Tourist Bungalow at
Vedaranyam in Thanjavur district where the accused Shanmugam was
under arrest is having all facilities like wash basin and bathrooms
within the premises. Then, how had Shanmugam been allowed to go
outside to wash his hands?

We feel surprised that how an accused under the custody could have a
15 feet rope with him with which he was reported to have hanged
himself? By and by, he was not accustomed to wearing lungi, even then
how lungi was found at the site? Sir, is it true that his feet were
touching the ground while hanging? If so, how can anybody hang
himself like that? I want to ask the hon. Home Minister, through you,
why the postmortem was done at Nagapattinam General Hospital
instead of teaching medical institution at the Tanjavur Medical College
which is equidistant from Vedaranyam and where there are latest
sophisticated instruments and forensic experts available to pronounce
an expert opinion? Has the postmortem concluded that asphyxiation is
due to hanging or otherwise? Moreover, is it true that the place in
which he was found also belongs to a private individual who is in
anyway connected with the smuggling activities? The Home Minister
says that he himself is not satisfied with the replies and the reports
furnished by the officials of SIT. What is the nature of the suspicion?
Will you take this House in confidence by informing the same? The
officials who are responsible for this incident should be identified and
they must be enquired first, before Shivarajan. With this I conclude.”

Dr.(Smt) Padma (representing Nagapattinam)

“Mr.Chairman Sir, … As a doctor, I would like to say that it would

have been better if the body of Shanmugam would have been sent to a

14 of 19 12/15/2008 11:29 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 31 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part31.htm

teaching institution for post-mortem. So far as the post-mortem report

is concerned, to know whether it is homicide or suicide, have they
taken the X-ray of the hyoid bone or preserved the hyoid bone? These
are the points on which I would like to know.”

Shri.K.Ramamurthee Tindivanam (representing Tindivanam)

“Sir, I will make a very brief speech… Shanmugam had surrendered

himself through a lawyer in the High Court. When he had surrendered
himself through a lawyer, it means that he wanted to live and he
wanted protection also. The importance of Shanmugam was felt more
by the investigation team than anybody else because when he was
taken to Vedaranyam, he was not taken by road or rail but he was
taken by a helicopter. And such a person, after reaching Vedaranyam,
did not have that much of protection and was not guarded. He escaped
from the place where he had been kept. And after the escape, a case
was registered against him for escaping from police custody. Then
suicide or murder, whatever it may be, came to the notice of the
investigation team. After that, a case was registered against Shanmugam
for suicide. But there is no case against the police for having allowed
him to escape. There is no case against the police for having allowed
him to commit suicide or for having allowed the murder to take place.

When he escaped a very few police men were guarding the place who
say that they were not in a position to run after him to catch him or to
find him out. But immediately after he escaped, within hours, several
hundreds of men were put on duty to search him out. Wherever the
person was kept, whether in Vedaranyam or Kodikarai, police should
have been guarding the bungalow or the guest house where he was
kept. I do not know as to why the investigation was not pushed in that
direction and why action was not taken in that regard. Shanmugam, as
is revealed by the SIT, was a very well-known smuggler in that very
area and the sea coast is known for several smugglers. There must have
been a competition among these smugglers. As my other friend had put
it, there are other people in that area who are involved with the LTTE
or the Sri Lankan terrorists who came there.

There was a report in the press also that there may be very many
politicians there who were on the payrolls of Shanmugam. Who knows
that they were not afraid of Shri Shanmugam’s revealing the facts
which may give some new clues to Shri Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination
case…”

The India Today magazine of Aug.15, 1991 carried a grotesque photo of

Shanmugam’s body hanging by a rope, where his feet were almost touching

15 of 19 12/15/2008 11:29 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 31 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part31.htm

the ground (page 28). Anirudhya Mitra reporting the story from Madras had
observed:

“…The post-mortem was conducted the same day at Nagapatnam, 40

km from Vedaranyam. The report, taking note of the saliva, emission of
semen and stools, declared it suicide. But the SIT story and
post-mortem are riddled with loopholes that militate against forensic
wisdom:

(a) There was no rope mark or bruise on the victim’s neck which the
rope would have positively left if he was alive at the time of hanging.

(b) The tongue wasn’t protruding.

(c) The face was not congested with a rush of blood. And the eyes had
not popped out if he was hanged.

(d) The saliva, stool and semen discharges could have happened in the
event of his being strangulated too.

(e) No scratch marks on his thighs – for in the last minute struggle and
pain, the hands, unless tied, instinctively scratch the thighs. If
Shanmugam was tied up, how could he commit suicide? Neither were
skin particles found in his nails.

(f) The only way he could have hanged himself was by climbing the
tree, putting a noose around his neck and jumping. The impact would
have broken the neck bones or ruptured the arteries which was not the
case.

(g) The rope from which he was hanging was 14 feet long. Where did
he get it in the dead of night?

These were clear pointers that Shanmugam’s death did not occur due
to hanging. The evidence suggests the death took place in custody as
even the escape story sounds dubious…” [excerpts from the feature:
Assassination Probe – A dubious twist, India Today magazine, Aug.15,
1991, pp.27-28]

Even with all these contra-indications presented in the Lok Sabha and the
news magazines of India within a month of the tragedy, for the SIT to record
in its charge sheet, prepared in May 1992, that Shanmugam committed
suicide was audacious indeed! Subramanian Swamy, in his 2000 book on
Rajiv assassination, has reproduced a doctored version of the grotesque
photo of Shanmugam’s body – where the feet touching the ground have
been clipped off. If this doctoring of the photo was intentional, it provides a
proof for Swamy’s perfidy. On the other hand, if Swamy had used the photo

16 of 19 12/15/2008 11:29 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 31 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part31.htm

unintentionally (without checking the original photo, published in the India

Today magazine in 1991), then it again proves Swamy’s lackadaisical
research and care-free attitude for facts. Following a six page description of
Shanmugam’s death, Swamy also evades this issue with a statement,
“Mr.Shanmugam’s mysterious death, whether by suicide or murder is
immaterial to the SIT’s case especially since even the LTTE defence counsel
did not make an issue of it.” [Book: The Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi:
Unanswered Questions and Unasked Queries, p.198]

(2) Unusual Death of Sivarasan

In the original charge sheet prepared by the SIT in May 1992,
S.Packiachandran @ Raghuvaran @ Sivarasan was listed as the 4th accused.
The then Minister of Home Affairs, Shri S.B.Chavan, presented the official
version of the death of Sivarasan via a statement made at the floor of the Lok
Sabha on Aug.21, 1991. First, I reproduce this statement, which was entitled
as,

Encounter with LTTE militants on 20th August 1991 at

Konanakunte near Bangalore

“I rise to apprise this August House on the details of the incident at

Konanakunte near Bangalore in which Sivarasan, one of the main
accused in Shri Rajiv Gandhi assassination case and six others were
found dead.

In pursuance of the consent given by the Government of Tamil Nadu to

investigate the case of Shri Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination, a Special
Investigation Team was formed. The SIT has examined 346 witnesses
and conducted searches at 49 places seizing incriminating material. 14
accused persons were also arrested. As you are all aware, the most
important accused who had remained to be arrested were Sivarasan and
Subha. A nation-wide manhunt was launched and efforts were being
made to locate the hide-out of these main conspirators.

Suspecting that some LTTE militants were hiding in Muttati and

Beroota villages of Madya District, raids, in all 12 LTTE cadres were
taken by police on 17/18-8-91 [i.e, Aug.17-18, 1991]. In these raids, in
all, 12 LTTE cadres were found dead after committing suicide by
consuming cyanide and five suspect who were apprehended were
admitted in Bowring Hospital, Bangalore.

During investigation, it was ascertained that a person by name

Anjanappa of Puttenhalli had helped the LTTE militants to find houses
in Muttati and Beroota. Further, a diary containing a list of 26 militants
was also found at Muttati. Based on this information, another person

17 of 19 12/15/2008 11:29 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 31 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part31.htm

by name Ranganath was also apprehended by Bangalore City Police.

This person gave information about a house in Konanakunte which was
arranged by him for six militants. The City Police along with SIT
surrounded this house on the night of 18-8-1991 [i.e, Aug.18, 1991]
and kept a continuous watch on the house. Further, one person by
name Prem Kumar was apprehended at Konanakunte crossing. He was
the man who was supplying food etc. to the LTTE militants hiding in
Konanakunte house. Further enquiries revealed the presence of LTTE
militants including Sivarasan and perhaps Subha in the above house.

To try and capture Sivarasan and others alive, watch was continued
throughout the 19th and the entire area was encircled and guarded by
plain clothes men and NSG commando positioned strategically.
Additional reinforcement of NSG commandos and medical expert with
latest anticyanide antidote were requisitioned from Delhi. It was
decided not to storm the place as similar action earlier on several
occasions had resulted in even minor LTTE functionaries committing
suicide. On 19th, around 7:00 pm, the LTTE militants holed up inside
the house, opened fire indiscriminately without any apparent reason.
The NSG returned the fire. This exchange of fire continued for about
30 minutes and three police personnel (one of NSG and two of
Karnataka Police) sustained injuries. The injured are out of danger. The
militants opened fire either because they were wanting to escape under
the cover of fire or because of some movements close to the house
where local residents were trying to move a broken down lorry. Two
militants who came out, perhaps in a bid to escape ran back inside the
house. Later at around 8:00 pm, about 7-8 more rounds were fired by
the militants for about half a minute.

After the arrival of the additional reinforcements and the medical team
with the latest anticyanide antidote from Delhi, in the early house of
20th August, the house was stormed at about 6:30 am. The NSG
commandos blasted the door and entered the house. They found the
dead bodies of 7 LTTE militants. They included the wanted Sivarasan
and a woman who is obviously Subha but whose identity requires
evidential confirmation. Efforts are on to identify all the other bodies.
One AK 47 rifle and a 9 mm pistol and several rounds of ammunition
were recovered. Sivarasan was found with a bullet injury in the temple
of his head. All others obviously died due to cyanide poisoning. It is
being ascertained whether Sivarasan also consumed cyanide capsule.
The bodies were shifted to Victoria Hospital for post-mortem
examination. The whole operation was supervised by CBI Director, SIT
Chief and the City Police Commissioner of Bangalore and the NSG
officers.

18 of 19 12/15/2008 11:29 AM
The Pirabhakaran Phenomenon Part 31 http://www.sangam.org/PIRABAKARAN/Part31.htm

Meanwhile, the SIT will continue investigation of case relentlessly

with the objective of unraveling the entire conspiracy behind the
assassination, identifying and arresting the remaining accused person
and eventually charge sheeting the case in court.”

Criticism of Subramanian Swamy

Subramanian Swamy is not a credible politician in India. However, he
becomes quotable, considering the fact that he is currently one of the
voluble anti-LTTE campaigners who barks frequently to hog the limelight,
and he scores a point for LTTE. Even Swamy has raised doubts about the
death of Sivarasan, in his recent book. To quote,

“Sivarasan, for whom a massive manhunt was mounted by SIT, was

finally tracked down to a house on the outskirts of Bangalore. He was
admittedly the leader of the killer squad and should have been aware
of the highlights of the conspiracy. But the intriguing point was that,
while eight others of the squad were found dead by consuming cyanide
(in accordance with the LTTE dictum) Sivarasan was found dead with
bullet injuries. Sivarasan’s mortal remains were quickly cremated,
while belt-bomb girl Dhanu’s remains had been preserved in Chennai
as a prosecution exhibit. Why the difference?” [Book: The
Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi: Unanswered Questions and Unasked
Queries, 2000, p.198]

One cannot accuse Swamy to be a sympathizer of Pirabhakaran. Thus, even

Swamy finds it difficult to gulp the presented official version of Sivarasan’s
death and the quick cremation of his mortal remains. Question arises that if
there was no hanky-panky on Sivarasan’s death, why were his mortal
remains were hurriedly cremated? Rajeev Sharma, the journalist who wrote
another book on the assassination, informs that

“Sivarasan and Subha were cremated amid tight security at Bangalore’s

Wilon Garden crematorium on September 3, 1991” [Book: Beyond the
Tigers, 1998, p.104]

As informed by defence lawyer Duraisamy, what Sivarasan revealed to

Ranganath, the 26th accused who harbored him during the final three weeks
of fugitive’s life, about his links to controversial Chandra Swamy falls into
the espionage angle of the Rajiv assassination. [Continued].

19 of 19 12/15/2008 11:29 AM