State as supplicant

The tragedy lies in the state’s unresisting collusion with Veerappan to elevate a Nedumaran to the position of power he is in today. This effete abdication of responsibility by the concerned governments has been best chronicled in the Supreme Court’s deservedly harsh pronouncements. Denouncing the government’s "package deal" and "unholy barter", the apex court has ruled out dropping charges under TADA/NSA against certain detenus as demanded by the brigand and the granting of bail to them. The bench has questioned whether the whole affair was a "ploy adopted by them to keep Veerappan out of the clutches of the law". The tragedy also is that despite the court’s ire, and in spite of being so unambiguously halted in their tracks, the state governments show no signs of a rethink.

There is no evidence that the strategy of negotiation through "third party emissaries" pursued so far one that has not only been questionable in intent but has also completely failed to deliver is being discarded and a new one is being thought out. Basically, the queue of supplicants outside Veerappan’s chosen emissary’s door reveals that the state governments continue to rely on the brigand’s goodwill to resolve the ongoing crisis. As the drama stretches on, it is displaced now and then from the media spotlight by other issues. But this lull must not be allowed to detract from the horror of a thief thumbing his nose at the law of the land so successfully and for so long. The photographs of the wan-looking sons of Rajkumar in Nedumaran’s home do not merely capture a family’s moment of distress and tribulation. They speak also of a nation’s shame.