*
Prof. D.SAMUEL LAWRENCE
*
It
was shocking to read the news report of the press meet of the so-called
Action Committee for protecting American College Constitution (ACPACC)
in some leading newspapers, particularly in Dhinamani on 16-10-2012:
not only because of the strange suggestions made but also because of the
person who made it. How and when did Prof.Chinnaraj Joseph become the
Vice-President of this Committee? This question naturally arises because
in the list of office-bearers found in the hand-out given at the time
of formation of this Committee in March, 2011, his name doesn't find a
place, either as an office-bearer
or as a member. Also, according to the list, the Vice-president is Dr.
R.K.Alagesan,Head,P.G.Dept.of Tamil but I understand that he was not
even consulted about this meeting. Many members , including Prof.Sam
George and and myself were conveniently forgotten but, Prof.Solomon
Pappiah, whose name is not on the list, found a prominent place in the
meeting. I also understand that the President Prof.P.T.Chellappa was
only informed of this, that too a few hours before the meeting. I have
to mention all these because everybody should know what is what and who
is who. This is not the time to worry about friend or foe, when the very
foundation of the College is sought to be shattered and the sacred
Constitution is sought to be demolished in the name of protecting it.
Truth ought to be told, however unpleasant the consequences might be.
This we have to do for the sake of the College we hold dear to our
heart. When individual
idiosyncrasies and personal prejudices gain the upper hand, we tend to
overlook the goal for which we have been struggling for all these four
years. And power and position seem to have blinded our eyes to the principles we have been fighting for.
And,
what did the self-appointed Vice-President of this Committee, Former
Principal, Dr. Chinnaraj Joseph suggest in this arbitrarily decided and
hurriedly convened meeting? They are (1) The Moderator should convene (?)
the Governing Council meeting and initiate the due constitutional
process of promoting the present Vice-Principal as Principal-in-Charge
and (2) properly qualified person should be appointed as Principal.
Pray, when did the truth of the Moderator having the power to appoint
the Principal dawn upon him? To refresh his memory and to make him
understand that what he is suggesting is utterly unconstitutional,
the following facts found in the hand-out given in the first press meet
held on Wednesday, 23-03-2011 in the King Metro Hall are given.
a.
The Bishop is not the official Correspondent of the College
b. He is not
the appointing authority for any post in the College
c. The Bishop
cannot make any direct appointment to the post of the Principal (Note
that the Moderator at present is functioning as the Bishop of
Madurai-Ramnad Diocese and hence is also Chairman of the Governing
Council and
he is more unscrupulous than the late Bishop Asir)
d. The Principal
is also the Secretary of the American College
e. He is the only person
authorised to call the meetings of the Governing Council
.
The suggestions given by the self-appointed Vice-President are not
only unconstitutional but outrageous. When there is already a
Principal-in-Charge duly appointed by the then Principal (who is none
other than the one who has given the suggestion) he should have been
asked to continue to be so. The fact that Dr.Anbudurai continues to be
so, legally as per the Constitution has been conveniently overlooked.
(Swiftly acting on the suggestions given, the Moderator has made
the present illegal vice-principal, Principal-in-Charge)
The kind of spontaneous support, help, encouragement and strength given to the former Principal Dr..Chinnaraj Joseph by
the present and former faculty and non-teaching staff and several other
friends and supporters of the College in various ways when he gallantly
led the struggle against the onslaught on the College by the late
Bishop, Christopher Asir was only for saving the College and not for
saving his power and position. The entire struggle, right from the
beginning, was to protect the College from the devilish attempt
of the Bishop to make it a Diocesan institution? Probably, he has
forgotten the number of meetings held, fasts and dharnas conducted, the
prayer meetings convened and the violence endured - all with the sole purpose of the
College retaining its unique identity and individuality- as a Christian
College with a secular outlook and having mutually beneficial cordial
ties with the church and not subservient to it.
The
College is definitely passing through difficult times. It is the
bounden duty of everyone interested in it, surviving as a Christian
institution with a secular outlook, to fight resolutely till the end.
*
If I remember correct I am also member of that committee and I was not aware of the press meet. I wonder whether Prof. A. Winfred who was elected an office bearer of the same committee was aware of that press meet. The press meet was just a meeting of a few friends who wanted to keep away some "sane" persons out. Long live American College in spite of evil designs of some "insane people".
ReplyDeleteIt has been brought to my notice that there has been a mix up. I am sorry. However the two committees one formed first to Save The American College and another formed much later to save the constitution of the College both have the same objective - to let the College have the same freedom it had enjoyed for more than a century. I would say all those who were part of one should be considered as part of the second and should not be excluded till the WAR is over. We have won a few battles and the war is not over yet. Let us not disintegrate or exclude one another.
ReplyDeleteSome echoes on this post are there in FACEBOOK.
ReplyDeleteThe following is the chain of reactions.
John Sekar
ReplyDeleteI don't know what is wrong with the present and the retired faculty members of the College who call on the Moderator to discuss the college issues first and then lament his role in the college through the blogs maintained by two different individuals who equally maintain that they are interested in protecting the 'sacred' Constitution of the College!! The very membership of the present Moderator as a representative in the Council which elected the new principal has been questioned in the court of law. Hence, the present and the past members of the faculty, instead of airing their grievances in public through the social media, can very well agitate over the illegality of the Council before competent court of law. All those who extended cooperation to the stewardship of Dr T. Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar when the College faced turmoil have every moral right to seek clarification from him whose residence is known to all friends of the college. I know personally that many of the leaders who now find fault with him were his beneficiaries and sycophants once. Let's not forget the past and the contribution made to the noble cause of the struggle by great leaders who these blog writers/respondents might choose to deride now. A divided house will always strengthen the hands of the enemy!!
•
ReplyDeleteSam George // A divided house will always strengthen the hands of the enemy!!// இது புரிஞ்சா சரி ...!
Saturday at 3:31pm • Like • 1
•
Sam George //...can very well agitate over the illegality of the Council before competent court of law.// do it, please.
// Let's not forget the past and the contribution made to the noble cause....//
so nice to remember the past; but reality of this day is so different. that pains.
Saturday at 3:45pm • Like • 2
•
John Sekar I have done. Please verify the records and facts with Dr Anbudurai before asking me "to do it, please."
Saturday at 8:40pm • Like • 1
•
Elango Natesan Mothathil, engalukum "ishk, ishk" endrudhaan kaetkiradhu. Adhuvum Pathu Thalai konda Pakutharivu Paasarai kalloori valaagathil elundharuli iruppadhai kandum kaanaadha paavi aagi vitaenae endru en idhayam vimmi alugiradhu. Aanaalum en paavi moolaikko ishk, ishk enrudhaan kaetkiradhu. Adhilum kudumba aatchiyai muriyadithu, vaagai soodi oru blog pulangaakitham, oru thalaivar oru desia pathirikayil, moderater ai vaalthiyadhum, enaku mattumalla,innum nootrukanakkaana perukum "ishk ishk " endrudhaan kaettadhaam.
Sunday at 8:57am via mobile • Like
•
Sam George ’பத்து தலை’யைப் பார்க்கலைன்னு இப்படி நீங்க கஷ்டப்படுறதைப் பார்க்கிறப்போ எனக்கும் en idhayam vimmi alugiradhu!
Yesterday at 10:00am • Like
•
Sam George oru thalaivar moderater ai vaalthiyadhum,எனக்கும் இஷ்க் இஷ்க் என்று தான் கேட்டுக்கிட்டே இருக்கு!
Yesterday at 10:02am • Like
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“BACKGROUND CASUALLY”
ReplyDeleteRAJENDRA PANDIAN
Polemic on a portal as ‘facebook’ is not a pleasant proposition: particularly if of a lesser variety, open for the consumption of the young. Nevertheless, you may excuse it on the ground that it traps folks into declaring their convictions—if any. None can say at a later date: ‘I didn’t mean it’; ‘I didn’t say it’; ‘It wasn’t me’ and stuff. Well, even if many have been less sanguine about the outcome of the Most Rev. Moderator’s intervention in the crisis I can’t squarely blame the leaders for meeting with him as there was desperation on every face to end the stalemate. Even then, just because they called on him it doesn’t entail that they should unquestioningly accept what all he says and should not criticize his role in the college affairs. By the way, where was Dr.John Sekar when the struggle reached this phase? Where did he go—way ahead of all this—absconding in the thick of the fight and ditching it so long? When did he return with his musings on the house divided?
Not everyone can move the court — however willing and prepared they are. It involves technical issues that we—not all our student friends who read the piece of tricky sophism—may know. I presume the writer moved the court by virtue of his office as an elected member of the council representing the whole faculty; it was his duty to do so when the interest of the college / council was at stake. Even that, is done by signing relevant papers and leaving the rest to the lawyers. I, as a GC member earlier, along with some of my council colleagues underwent similar routine. It’s a simple procedure—as I know; there is nothing for one to talk like scaling the Himalayas.
Well, even for that, I know how Dr.Anbudurai, the Principal-in-Charge along with our team at the court who were in a fidgety hurry to file papers before noon were made to wait an hour—if I’m right—for getting such a simple detail from our good friend—as his dad’s name—to be mentioned in the aforesaid papers. He, standing a few meters away from us, kept saying that the papers could wait as he was ‘talking to friends’. Anyone in the struggle can vouch for how this endowed organizer and excellent fighter once; then ‘the governor’ during this phase [as his was the only valid membership then] kept the whole movement on tender hooks for two years—and beyond! Do we deserve this anxiety and humiliation for the simple reason that we readily granted his request to vote him to the council?
RAJENDRA PANDIAN continues .....
ReplyDeleteYea; I will always respect and admire Dr. Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar—not surely for his work as the Principal or anything—but most certainly for “gallantly” helming the struggle without office. I also know—as Dr.John Sekar rightly reminds—the Principal maintained a ‘standing army’ of “sycophants and beneficiaries”. Even if one of them—as accused—has turned into a treacherous fault-finder against their former patron, Dr.John Sekar [whose ‘Freudian projection’ is hard to hide] can charge them not of ‘disloyalty to the institution’ but only of ‘ingratitude to an individual’. Thanks to the writer’s holy curse, those ‘diabolical ungratefuls’ may find themselves in the lowest pit of Inferno –as do Brutus and Judas in Dante’s Divine Comedy! But, how come our friend—with his self-deluding moralism—feels so indignant at the very imagination of an individual beneficiary’s ingratitude to an individual benefactor, but, conveniently covers the mass ingratitude and treachery meted out to the master benefactor namely “The American College”? What is the writer’s “grievance” if people point out—with evidence—that Dr.Chinnaraj Joseph is acting against the very institution that reared him from student to teacher and then the Principal and Secretary?
Did Dr.John Sekar, who believes that the whistle blowers should go to Dr. Chinnaraj Joseph’s house and meet with him instead of recoursing to social media to air their views, go to Prof. Samuel Lawrence’s house—which is near his—before writing this? I always bow down in reverence to our “great leaders” whose support to the struggle was immense and will be remembered with gratitude; but how can we accept if they change their stand –in painfully uncanny ways—and join hands with the enemy by hailing their “Kangaroo Council” [as Dr. Chinnaraj Joseph used to call it until the day before his ‘conversion’] as the Governing Council and appealing to it for future action? Are they not waging war on this great institution? Is that heresy to point it out?
P.S: These are the folks who wore Dr.TCJ the ‘Emperor’s new clothes’ that he fondly wears—until now!
ReplyDeleteJohn Sekar 6:39pm Oct 30
I appreciate the efforts of 'whistle-blowers,' 'fighters,' paper tigers,' 'script writers,' 'sympathizers,' and 'name-lenders'' Mr Sam George. Long live cacophony of these motley crowd!!!
thank you, mr sekar. nevertheless i don't need the list of your nom de plume.
ReplyDeleteHonestly I admit I don't the substance in the above long essays. But I would say and say in loud and clear that only Dr. Anbudurai can save the College at the present stage. God save the College
ReplyDeleteCONTINUATION OF THE INTERACTIONS IN THE FB:
ReplyDeleteJohn Sekar: Thanks, Mr Sam. I don't need your pontification, either!
Sam George: welcome, mr. shekar. who said it was offered to you!
John Sekar: Read your comments or ask them who wrote it for you. You will understand who offered what to whom!
CONTINUATION OF THE INTERACTIONS IN THE FB:
ReplyDeleteJohn Sekar "BACKGROUND CASUALTY" can expose the self-styled saints if it doesn't amount washing dirty linen in social media. Commentator should have thought twice before sitting in judgment over others unfairly. Love for a person can be blind, but NOT loyalty. Value assumptions & judgments can only lead to self-righteousness!
John Sekar Thanks, Mr Sam for acknowledging the identity of the commentator after having indulged in cut-and-page his comment against your name initially! Now it is my turn to give a rejoinder to him:
John Sekar BACKGROUND CASUALTY: Mr Pandian, your epistle has two parts: one, you have justified your leader(s) calling on the Moderator. I have nothing more to say than to quote what my colleague Prof Elango has posted on the wall two days ago: "Man is the only animal who justifies his action and he has to." Second, for reasons known to you and your co., you have freely indulged in ad hominem attack while I have addressed an issue. Now my turn, so that you will feel its impact. You asked me where I was the struggle reached this phase. No one asked me to lead the struggle on the street from April 2008 and no one asked me to withdraw it from 5 Jan 2012. It's my volition. Absolutely, you and your co., have no locus standi to question my wisdom in both instances. Moreover, I never imagined that my withdrawal would make your group feel impotent, orphaned, maimed, leadership deficit, and trust deficit in others. I am not your paid employees in the struggle. My participation cost me academically, financially, & physically. I never took shelter academic exercise under the guise of FDP during your struggle period and hobnobbed with the members of the Bishop group day in and day out. May I ask you where you were when the college faced one of the worst scams in the multi-crore land deal? Were you not busy running after Mr Sudanandha singing paean with a fond hope that you would get a chance to go to Oberlin? Where were you during the first phase of the struggle that reached its peak in July-August 2009? Didn't you go into your hide out when you came to know that Dr Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar had plans to propose Dr Vijayan and Mr Prabhakar Vedamanicakm to some America programmes? Couldn't you hide your unhappiness when Dr Premila Paul and Dr Shyamala were sent to the US? leave it. Where are you now? Aren't you sharing your anti-Chinnaraj rhetoric with poor characters from the Christopher group? Aren't your group leader(s) and members busy shaking hands with Mr Christober over his getting approval from the govt? Are they not exchanging pleasantries with him over the phone? Is it not an act of treachery and betrayal on your part? Aren't you a renegade? I never claimed that I ever climbed the Himalayas by filing a case in the court. If you can romanticize your being with your leader for an hour at the court, don't you think Mr Anbunathan can write a ballad (why not epic?) on his experiences for months together in the corridors of the court and the offices of the advocates?
ReplyDeleteCONTINUED .......
ReplyDeleteIs Dr Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar not going to the lower court every month and stand among the worst criminals in the PCR case? Do you think such a case will never be slapped against you? If lawyers find trust deficit in your leaders, what can I do? I know your role as a GC member: you attacked the individuals and never discussed policy matters. You used to call the bishop "Ayya" "how are you? How's Amma?" or Andavar in your RC culture (a bad habit that educated people should avoid!) and still you will attack him in the Council. You will call Mr chrisober mapla just a few minutes before the Council, but you will attack him in the Council. You will admire Dr Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar in his chamber at his residence, still you will attack him in the Council!!! You can attend the meetings including the condolence conducted by Mr Christober, the one at B1 by Dr Anbudruai, and partake the conference in the dept attacking the other two parties!!! If you can lead an amphibious life, you should go to the right place and not indulge in personal attack, Mr Pandian. It only exposes a chink in your armour. My withdrawal from the struggle in Jan 2011 cannot be a factor for the kind of psychopathology symptoms many of your army suffer from. Don't link me with Dr Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar. If I have any grievance, I will straight ask him and not through any open or closed letters or through social media. Sorry, Mr Rajendran Pandian. You have only made me express my views.
John Sekar Mr Sam, the text is ready; now you can cut and paste it on to your blog! happy reading!!
“BACKGROUND CASUALLY”-CONTINUED
ReplyDeleteby Rajendra Pandian
I keep it unconditional and obligatory on my part to freely extend to anyone: be it my courtesy to individuals or cooperation to my organization. It doesn’t really matter who those individuals are or who at the helm of the organization is. However, I also take caution to ensure that such quality doesn’t confuse my clarity that the interest of the college is paramount. Even as I was part of the opposition, most faculty might have seen me in the then Principal’s office or the MCA lab busy proof reading; editing; drafting or translating heaps of papers: whether an MBA / MCA brochure; Academic Council Book; UBCHEA report; UGC stuff; committee report; Principal’s college day / candle lighting day address; or even Police document —for which Dr. Sudanandha heavily—if not fully—depended on me [I think I can say that] for over five consecutive years. If anyone could read it as simply “running after him singing paean” for an abroad fellowship it could not be correct.
I have held—and I do hold—that selections for abroad programs didn’t always reflect the merit of the candidates selected or their contribution to the college. And I have also opined that rare opportunities as these could be democratized and made available to more members of the faculty than being reserved for some who get chosen under different programs repeatedly. However, I know it’s a different case if someone goes as a speaker / professor to campuses abroad on name-specific invites. These have been my views on abroad programs at large and to project them like a personal grudge against individuals is false and mala fide.
ReplyDelete
CONTINUED ....
ReplyDeleteTwo simple things such as: 1) my failure to get the abroad fellowships or even the research fellowship [offered by our own government wherein the fellowships usually outnumber the applicants] and, 2) my landside victories in the faculty elections as Senatus Member; Faculty Secretary and as Governor [unopposed] over the pro-management candidates—all in Dr.Sudanandha’s time, will disprove your charge I was one as you said. Doesn’t it also tell you where I was during the land purchase controversy that you have mentioned?
On the other hand, Dr.John Sekar: this characteristic “Freudian projection” of yours—as mentioned earlier—will only remind people of how you were “singing paean” to Dr.TCJ with the “fond hope” of getting the Bursarship for yourself—right after the first part of the struggle; but the once-smitten leadership who wouldn’t want to ‘act in haste with no leisure to repent’ safely conferred ‘deanhood’ on you [like knighthood: a decoration— in most cases--devised to replace ‘deanship’, a responsibility] and dumped you as one among the truckload of deans! While you were seeking solace in belittling the new Bursar at every drop of a hat Justice Nagamuthu’s land mark verdict restored Dr.TCJ to office. You touted that you would never assume office as [a] dean and crossed over to the opposite base in the Economics department. Perhaps, the strong rumor that Bishop Asir was sure to become the Moderator hastened your departure from Dr.TCJ, didn’t it? Subsequently, who expressed remorse to leaders of the other group that he was “ashamed” to have been on the “wrong side” [Dr.TCJ’s side] in the issue? Was it I who sent email to the other camp that Dr.TCJ had simply used my lung power to his own advantage? Who did that and why—after fighting a real good fight and getting elected governor on the combined floor of the faculty? Bingo! Before anyone could reason it out Bishop Asir lost his election; Dr.TCJ regained his governor-‘court poet’-cum-‘intelligence chief’ to the rest of his tenure!!
Dr.John Sekar’s singing paean to Dr.TCJ grew louder than before, centered on the singular theme of: “no retirement for Dr.TCJ!” / “Dr.TCJ would be the Permanent Principal!” / “Dr.TCJ would continue in office for at least another five years” / “Dr.TCJ alone can save this college, etc!” It was not just another act of innocuous sycophancy but something ‘very injurious’ to the welfare of the college when you unleashed a campaign with the same slogans; floating the same idea in staff meetings. Some of our former professors, and I—on sabbatical—wrote on the blog that Dr.TCJ should tie up loose ends and get ready to leave the place gracefully. Your full throated rhetoric of the “Permanent Principal” in the last months of Dr.TCJ’s rule—when every pair of lips was murmuring prayers for the smooth change of guard that was due—stunned the majority with new fears and widened the schism with distrust and hate. It eventually unfolded that you were enacting this ‘absurd play’ not for nothing!! Dr.TCJ—letting down his own Vice-Principal—started telling that you would be the right person to save this college after him —while in fact he just ignored the very prospect of transition and the challenges in wait. Dr.John Sekar: you pursued the policy of deepening the divide between 1 and 2 and pushing your luck at once. The first half of your game plan produced success; the rest your disappearance—thereafter.
Elango Natesan from FB ...........
ReplyDeleteA collective murmur is louder than a lone full-throated cry. Like the sad song of sea kept in a shell, certain memories keep haunting my mind: the starved faces of non- teaching staff, the women who braved rowdyism on campus and pressures from domestic premises, the innocent children , the children of heaven, who sacrificed even their simple pleasures of festival seasons, (one should know how painful it is to ask your children to sacrifice,), the face of the small kid who would accompany his father...how r we going to apologize, r v going to say that their learned parent was goofed by band of sophists & demogogues? Oh, my God, what should i say? Where should i resume my journey from? Lead kindly
Light!