Dear Editor,
You have just re-published KML's
report dated 9.5.2015, released by him admittedly before he saw the official copy of Supreme Court's Order dated
7.5.2015. After the order was officially released by the SC, I do not recall
having come across any corrected/revised report from him. Consequently we had to live with the glaring
variations between his version and the eventual official version on what
exactly happened on the fateful day - May 7.
You and your readers know that there
were others in the Court on that day and if there were contradictions between
different reports, credibility of individuals apart, what is finally in the
Order, in black & white, matters and is final and binding. My version of
what actually happened is also in your archives. It was dated 9 May 2015 and was
in considerable detail.
In the above background, I was
somewhat amused when I first read what you re-published and chose to call it
KMLA's 'strategy'. On seeing your cartoon later, I got my answer and am at
peace with myself.
Mr Mahadevan, as is his wont, took
the 'strategy note' seriously at its face value and also took pains to explain
to KML, what SC order of 7 May actually meant according to him. I hope after
reading KML's latest mail on the subject to the effect that 20% withdrawal is not for payment, Mr Mahdevan would
have been sufficiently enlightened as to what is the understanding of KML on
the 7th May Order. I wish to close the topic here with an assertion that each
of us is entitled to our respective opinions and none is infallible.
For me the developments in Chandigarh
are quite promising and naturally my further action plan unfolds after 28th.
In the meantime there are excellent
inputs via LIC PC, from Sri SN (a 1992 pensioner) & Sri M V Venugopalan. I am thankful to you
and to them. Going to study both the Posts again and will revert with my
thoughts later today.
M.Sreenivasa Murty