Net, Bait ...and What A Catch?!

We at 108 Sullu H.Q. like Mr.Bhat's columns very much. Without any doubt his columns are the inspiration for us. Strike that. Actually, his columns are the raison d'etre for this web-log. At least at this time. So, we find it very difficult to pick a favourite among his gems of journalism.

But, we are not all that hardy a bunch. It does not take too much of a persuasion to pick one. And we pick this one. It's not because this one has any more factual errors than others. We do not even know whether there are any factual errors here or not. In fact we are fairly certain Mr.Bhat himself would not be able to confirm or deny the central fact of his column.

The central story here is not that complicated. Jayalakshmi, a 32 year old woman from Sivakasi went missing. Her father sent a telegram to Tamilnadu High Court alleging that his daughter had been illegally detained (or mudered) by Tamilnadu police. The court deemed that telegram as an habeas corpus petition. From The Hindu:

"The court took up the petition following a telegram sent by Jayalakshmi's father to the Chief Justice. He alleged murder of his daughter by policemen. Subsequently, she was produced before the Bench by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sivakasi, on court directions. The DSP filed an affidavit stating that she was secured from a lodge at Vellore and that several petitions on charges of cheating were pending against her in Madurai and Karur districts."

After she was produced before the court, Jayalakshmi herself produced an affidavit alleging various abuses including sexual exploitation. Again from The Hindu:

"In her affidavit, Jayalakshmi listed the names of several police officers in the ranks of Superintendent of Police to constable who allegedly harassed her. She also alleged sexual exploitation, cheating, wrongful confinement and bigamy against these officers."

While there have been other allegations against Jayalakshmi including cheating, what caught the eye of Tamil media was the sexual angle. Overnight Jayalakshmi was made into a seductress of sensational abilities. (Please read Krithika Ramalingam's analysis in The Hoot)

Dear readers, if you thought only tabloids would be interested in such a story involving a seductress of unimaginable prowess you know not Mr.Bhat and his Vijaya Karnataka. Mr.Bhat had to write an article. Write, he did:

"...kAnsTEbalniMda hiDidu, es.pi. ai.ji.pi maTTada adhikArigaLella Ikeya tekkeyalliddAreMdare...adeMta hikmattiniMda bale bIsirabahudu, gALa hAkirabahudu eMbudannu Uhisabahudu."

("... when officers from constables, SP to IGP were under her spell ... one could imagine with what cunning she must have cast her net, set her bait.")

We at 108 Sullu H.Q. do not know whether Jayalakshmi was a seductress or not. All we know, based on more reputable sources -- like for example The Hindu, Rediff -- is that in her affidavit she named 22 officials as her abusers. Out of the 22, she specifically alleged that 6 officials sexually abused her. The six included a DSP. Was she romantically/sexually involved with many police officers including an I.G.P? We have no idea.

Mr.Bhat continues:

"... sumAru 38 polIsaru Akeya saKya beLesi, dEha suKavuMDiddAre. IkeyU polIsara saKya suKa anubhavisi, avarannu dALagaLannAgi upayOgisikoMDu mADabArada kelasa mADiddALe."
("...around 38 police [men] have been intimate with her enjoying her body. Even she has enjoyed the intimate friendship with police to do things that shouldn't be done")

We at 108 Sullu H.Q. have no idea whether Jayalakshmi bedded one, zero or 380 policemen. Without any DNA evidence or eye witness accounts, we believe it is sleazy to write what Mr.Bhat has written. Then again we are just a blog and not the number one selling Kannada newspaper. Obviously our standards are a bit higher.

Mr.Bhat has written as though he was an eye witness to these Jayalakshmi-police trysts. If he indeed is an eye witness, why write "about (sumAru) 38"? Did he lose count before 38? Or after 38? Where did he get this number? Why doesn't he ever name his sources? Is it because he doesn't have any? Or, is it because the source is not trust worthy? Or, is it because Mr.Bhat wants the full credit for this earth shattering revelation?

A marginally educated woman accuses police officers including at least one DSP of abusing her. The police officers contend that she is a cheat and of loose moral character. The courts order investigations into the accusations and counter-accusations. We at 108 Sullu H.Q. really have no idea whether one or both of them right or wrong here. But, some in the media, including Mr.Bhat, in their haste to peddle sleaze jump to conclusions even before all the facts are in.(What will you do if the facts will never be in? - Editor. We still refuse to jump.)

We have no intention of further delving in this sleaze. But while researching for the original source, we accidentally found this particular report in a web site called India Daily. Other than a few minor changes (embellishments?) all the claims made in Mr.Bhat's column seem to be present here. Is this Mr.Bhat's source? We are unashamed to say, we have no idea.

By the way, this "India Daily" seems to be a classy web site for news. On the day we checked, the front page had such important topics (among others) as:

"Claire Forlani caught off guard topless in the beach",
Negar dropped her pants during rain dance in Dubai to the music played by Ryan Beck and his band Brandish
Did Miss Universe Jennifer Hawkins intentionally stumble and drop her dress in the fashion show?"

Mr.Bhat ends his column with a sigh of relief that Karnataka police are better than the Tamilnadu police force. According to him, they have not stooped to the level of associating themselves with a woman of loose morals like Jayalakshmi.

How we wish we could also say that the number one newpaper in Karnataka does not stoop to the same level as some sleazy newspapers in Tamilnadu!