127. The Star Speaker

The television channel had arranged for a debate program to be telecast on the festival day of Deepavali.

Deviating from the channel's practice of conducting debates on light-hearted or inane topics, it had chosen the literary topic, 'Who was more responsible for wrecking Kannagi's marital life - Kovalan or Madhavi?'  

The recording of the debate was held in the presence of audience, as the channel always did.

Each side was represented by three popular speakers, two men and a woman. The hall was filled with audience who relished the jibes usually made in such debates, by speakers on each side on those of the other side. 

Parimala Selvakumar, who was the last speaker on the side holding Kovalan more responsible, said, "Madhavi didn't love anyone except Kovalan. In spite of having been born in the family of dasis, who by tradition, were required to provide company to many men, she remained chaste. But, Kovalan, who was married to Kannagi, abandoned her and went after Madhavi. Both Kannagi and Madhavi were abandoned by Kovalan, at different times. In a way, Madhavi was also a victim. So, it is not fair to hold her responsible for Kannagi's suffering."

Her speech was received with a loud applause, by the audience.

Subbiah, the judge, in keeping with his practice of adding pep to the debate, remarked, "Ms Parimala, through her strong arguments, has sought to establish that Kovalan was more responsible for Kannagi's sufferings. It is difficult to counter her arguments. Let us see how Mr. Ilankumaran is going to do it!" and invited Ilankumaran to speak for the other side.

As soon as Ilankumaran got up to speak, there was a big ovation. 

Ilankumaran was considered a star speaker in TV debates. He would always find a place in the debates organized by that channel. His record of customarily coming as the last speaker in all the debates and countering the points made by the speakers from the other side, through his clever and humorous remarks, had earned him a lot of popularity.

The popularity earned by him through his participation in the debates of that channel opened up opportunities for him to speak in several literary and spiritual platforms. 

Buoyed by the flood of offers received by him various forms, he quit his job and took up speaking as his full-time profession. He was getting invites from various places in the country, as well as from foreign countries, keeping him busy throughout the year.

Ilamkumaran began his speech:

"My sister Parmala painted Madhavi as an innocent lady. I am surprised that three people have chosen to defend Madhavi, who was a prostitute. Only people without character can speak in support of Madhavi."

For a moment, complete silence pervaded the hall. Ilankumaran, who expected an ovation for his "clever" remarks, looked around, perplexed.

Subbiah threw a reproachful look at him. Parimala was keeping her chin down and looking at the floor. The other two members of her side looked at him with an expression of shock. The head speaker of Ilankumaran's side nodded his head sideways in disapproval, while the woman speaker of his side looked at him sharply, as if trying to scorch him through the heat of her gaze.

Even as Ilankumaran was wondering whether a thoughtless word could have escaped his mouth, the judge pressed the bell, signaling him to end his speech.  Ilankumaran looked at the judge, felling confused why the judge was asking him to end the speech, when he had only just begun his speech.

The judge, by waving his hand frantically, signaled him to sit down. 

Even before Ilankumaran went back to his seat, the judge began to speak. "It is time for me to deliver my judgement. Some years back, there used to be debates on 'who was more chaste, Kannagi or Madhavi.'  After some time, they realized that talking about who was chaste was a waste of time and abandoned this topic."

The judge's attempt at humour, by using rhyming words 'chaste' and 'waste,' had only a mild effect, by creating gentle waves of laughter in the audience. 

Usually, even a mildly humorous remark made in this kind of debates will evoke a big laughter in the audience. But the disquiet created by Ilankumaran's remarks made the audience response subdued. Further attempts at humour made by the judge to dispel the unease didn't meet with much success. 

An official from the television channel approached Ilankumaran and took him behind the stage. The television cameras were focused on some other direction, so that this incident was not captured on video.

Ilankumaran was taken home in a car belonging to the television channel.

That night, Subbiah rang him up and said, "What have you done Kumaran? How could you have talked like that? Shouldn't you have been careful with your tongue?" in a tone of reprimand.

"No, sir. I said that in a lighter vein..." Ilankumaran struggled to explain. 

"It was not funny. Parimala spoke defending Madhavi. Then you said only people without character could defend Madhavi. What did it mean? Won't your remark have been construed as portraying Parimala as a person without character? The CEO of the television channel is furious. When the program will be telecast on the day of Deepavali, your remark will be cut. But, more than one thousand people watched the program today. Won't they talk about it and spread the details to others? Some media persons might also have been present. I don't know what they will do."

Ilankumaran realized the severity of the impact created by his thoughtless remark, only after Subbiah pointed it out to him. He decided to call up Parimala and apologize to her. He got her phone through one of his friends and called her. But, the moment he said, "This is Ilankumaran," she disconnected the call.

That evening, some television channels carried the news of his remark. They telecast the interviews of a few people, who had attended the program and heard Ilankumaan's remarks.

A person, who had surreptitiously recorded the event, shared the clipping of Ilankumaran's speech in social media. The post went viral and within a few hours, Ilankumaran's speech became a topic of discussion over the entire social media. 

lankumaran expressed his apology for his remark, explaining that it was inadvertent, unintended and thoughtless. But no one seemed to have taken notice of his apology. 

Ilankumaran's controversial remark remained a topic of discussion in the print, electronic and social media for the next few days. The suggestion by a few people that the issue should be put to rest, since Ilankumaran had tendered an apology, went unheeded.

Some people demanded that Ilankumaran should be arrested and prosecuted. Complaints were filed against him in courts and police stations at various places. Feminist forums conveyed their protest through statements and demonstrations.

In the telecast of the program made on Deepavali day, Ilankumaran was blacked out, for most part. Careful editing ensured that Ilankumaran was not shown as a participant in the program, except for his appearance on the stage in a few shots, which could not have been avoided,

By the time the controversy subsided after a few weeks, Ilankumran's engagements in India and abroad booked earlier had been cancelled. 

Thirukkural

Section 1
The Path of Virtue

Chapter 13
Restraint

Verse 127 (In Tamil)

yA kAvAr Ayinum nA kAkka kAvAkkAl
sOkAppar sol izhukkup pattu.

Meaning:

Even if nothing else can be restrained, one must control his tongue; if not, he will suffer because of the harm inflicted by his words.

(This is the English version of the Tamil story 'pattimanRap pEchchALan' by the same author)

Verse 128 (Soon)
Verse 126