Friday, June 15, 2012

Dr London chidambarams second letter to pankalies

Dr M. Chidambaram                                                                        Nerkuppai,

                                                                                                            5th June 2012

Dear Pangali, 

At this juncture, I have to tell a little more about these three signatories, namely, Mr Thirunavukkarasu, Mr Muthupalaniappan and Mr Chockalingam, as they have committed this fraud, - singly or together - of removing the funds, unlawfully: 

1. Mr Thirunavukkarasu : Long time ago, in the late 60s, I remember my father telling me that Mr Muthuraman chettiar came to Nerkuppai from Pariamaruthapatti, begging our pangalis to take them in, as they were poor and did not find much joy in living in Pariyamaruthappatti alone. (Why did they not go to Vegupatti or Poolankurichi?) Only Mr Thirunavukkarasu had a small job at that time, and his younger brother was running like a thug, all around Nerkuppai! Look at them now! Even working as a doctor in the UK, it took more than 40 years for me to attain some stability. Does that tell you something about these people, becoming rich overnight! 

Mr Thirunavukkarasu, first came into our house during my daughter's marriage and offered some help; I thought it was genuine but later I understood that the motive was different. I offered a donation of Rs.25,000 to Nerkuppai Old people's home, as part of a donation for my daughter's wedding and also arranged an 'annadhanam' to an Iyyappan temple at Madurai, closer to his Madurai house. This probably gave Mr Thirunavukkarasu the impression that I am 'malleable' and would 'dance to his tunes'; He made repeated phone calls to England, asking for various donations. (From whose account, he paid the telephone bills for such long distance calls, God knows!) I had to explain to him that I do not do donations for any Tom, Dick and Harry's wishes. Then, not only the phone calls stopped but his attitude towards me also changed, as he started to show his true colours; he started to take actions in a revengeful manner and he had been showing this to my wife, as she used to visit India frequently. I also wanted to try and find out whether this attitude was real and hence asked his help in my duaghter's divocrce proceedings for some negotiations; he was openly violent to me and became a bit abusive! I managed to settle the case successfully without anybody's help.   

Then, he did something that no one can imagine. He dropped an invitation of his grahapravesam with No Address but with a postal mark, through the letter hole in my Nerkuppai house. He bloody well knew that we had been in England for that year. How did he bribe the postmaster to stamp a Nerkuppai postal seal is still a mistery to me. He wanted to prove that he had invited me for his function! Is that cunningness or cleverness, you make your own decision. 

Finally, as I wrote earlier, he did accept in front of Lord Subramanaya Swami of Nerkuppai and also in front of two pangalis that he and his 'partners in crime' willingly threw the account books to Mr T Ramanathan and that it was a mistake to remove the Rs.13,202 without telling either Mr T Ramanathan or other pangalis.  

2. Mr Muthupalaniappan, who happens to be my own brother: 

He studied economics and worked in a prestigious foreign bank and hence, one would assume that he knew what is right and what is legal. Has he done that in practice? I'm afraid, Not. If he had checked the pangalis' accounts then, he would have noticed that Mr Thirunavukkarasu had not been
accounting properly by crediting the donations into the wrong accounts and also taking money out
 without the permission of the person holding the accounts, namely Mr T Ramanathan. If he did not know, then he is unfit to be a signatory, as we do not want incompetent signatories; if he knew this, then, as I said, he is a partner in the crimes committed by the other two. 

Some of you may not know the true story of what he did to his daughter-in-law.  

When one takes a bride as a daughter-in-law, one promises to treat her like his daughter. Did he do that to his own  daughter-in-law? No. Even before the marriage, his son, Manickam refused to marry anyone and this was due to the fact that he had one of the severe 'Sevvai dhoshams', Mars in the 12th which allows no bed-partners! The parents knew this very well but forced him to marry that girl. When Manickam refused to have anything to do with this girl, the parents, especially the mother-in-law used her as an unpaid slave in Singapore, until Manickam served the divorce notice from Australia. Now, they had no choice but to accept this decision; so decided to throw this poor girl, from Singapore to India, on a single ticket, unaccompanied, like an orphan or a destitute. If Mr Muthupalaniappan, had been a decent honourable man, he should have brought her in person and handed the poor girl to her parents and apologised for his and his wife's mistake and offered a decent negotiation. Instead, he hid like a coward in Singapore, using his foreign nationality. He was afraid that Mrs Pushpa, the mother of his  daughter-in-law would put them in jail; naturally, for what he did to that poor girl. His wonderful wife, for her part, on top of using this poor girl, as her personal unpaid servant, decided to lock the girl's own jewellery in her personal locker and refused to hand over them till the date of the divorce. What a wretched woman, craving for other's properties!

What sort of unthinkable behaviour is this? Mr Muthupalaniappan cannot even respect a helpless poor girl whom he promised to take and treat as his 'own daughter', ditched her in the middle, that too for his own mistake. Would you treat such a despicable person and a coward who cannot face a problem in daily life, as your own relative, leave alone as a pangali? And with such attitude, would you trust him to handle your money? I will not! 

You might also want to know why we both are not in speaking terms? During my daughter's wedding, he was hiding in Singapore for the atrocity he committed to his daughter-in-law and told all my friends and relatives that he was coming to India to attend our wedding; this was a blatant lie. Because he told me he  was not coming to my daughter's wedding, I prepared our wedding invitations with my name as the head of my family. What is wrong in that, as it is my daughter's wedding and I am conducting it? Later, when he came to settle his son's divorce by paying the hefty penalty of 24 laks (Mrs Pushpa should have demanded more!), he refused to talk to us, the reason being that I did not place his name as the head of the  family in the wedding invitation of my daughter! That's all the reason!! Don't you think that this is nothing but his 'ego', that too at his tender age of ¾ of a century. I am ashamed but pleased that he himself relinguished the relationship.  

Can you understand now, that his ego problem must have intervened and prevented him in checking the fraudulent accounts of Mr Thirunavukkarasu. 

Would you trust him to deal with the Pangalis' bank account, in the future? I certainly would not, for that reason, any account with anybody.

3. Mr Chockalingam: I read Mr Mr Chockalingam's letter dated, 21st January 2012 and the following facts emerged loud and clear.
In 2001, he states that he decided to involve all the pangalis for the Bairavar Homam, initially carried out by his father and later by himself. He states that he informed everybody, but not to me! Why not?  

If we come to think of the real reason,  I strongly feel that he wanted to dump this enormous expenses for the Homam on the other innocent pangalis, as most of them could be easily brain-washed; he had been successful so far, until Mr T  Ramanathan raised the issue of refusal to participate in Bairavar Homam. 

[In fact, I raised my objection to Mr Thirunavukkarasu in 2008, when he came to my housewarming in Madurai, of not only my not taking part in the Bairavar Homam but also, not to impose on others who are not willing to participate. He did not even bother to inform any one of you, of my decisions! His wife a witness for this.] 

Therefore, if Mr Chockalingam wanted to do this Bairavar homam, it is his own business and he should either continue or stop it but should not impose on other who are not interested.  

Next, he states that he took the left over funds of Rs.13,202. He himself states that if there was any deficit, he would 'donate' and if any amount was left over, he would accept to leave it in the funds! (The rest of the story he had given is an unbelievable pack of lies to fool everyone!)  Then, why this sudden change of mind? Only one reason: Mr  Chockalingam and his partners in crime found out that the account books had gone to Mr T  Ramanathan and so, they should grab as much as they can while the time is good! It is only greed, greed and nothing but greed. 

Finally, one word of definition to Mr Chockalingam: 

 'Nan kodai' means 'Nalla yennathudan koduppadhu':  when one donates, he gives and there is no room to take any penny out of a donation. Therefore, when he took or accept the Rs 13,202, from the pangalis' funds, it is nothing but stealing, a legally punishable crime. No matter what explantion he gives, will satisfy any decent, honest person. He has stolen the money from public funds, and no further argument about that. He might tell thousand cock and bull stories that he spent for next year's pooja; I will not believe anything he says, as he had stolen the money illegally.  

Let me give you an analogy: if one donates some food to a beggar, the beggar will eat that food; then the donor decides that he had given too much to the beggar, so, he demands the beggar to return the donated food given to him. The beggar can only vomit and the donor seems to be taking 'that' back!! (Mr  Chockalingam: don't assume that the pangali's fund is the beggar, it is your action of taking money from the funds is in question!) 

The final joke is that he was going to give a present to the persons who donated! He takes 1000s of rupees in donations, and he gives peanuts as presents from their own money, taking a good name for himself! How many people he thinks he can fool like this, God knows. 

4. I need to mention about one other person, namely Mr Shanmugam of Pariamaruthapatti: 

I received a letter in 1981 in the UK, from Mr Shanmugam stating that I was his 'annan magan', that he and his family were struggling in poverty, even for a daily meal and that I should lend him some money. So, I took pity on him and sent a foreign cheque worth of Rs 500. this was in 1981. There
was no acknowledgement at all. A few years later, when I returned to India, I met him and asked him why he did not acknowledge the receipt of the cheque his answer was this: he did not know my address and  so, could not acknowledge! When he wanted to beg, he knew my address but not when  he received the same. When I asked him when he was going to return the loan, he replied that he would see!! Does that give you a hint, that we are dealing with a daylight robber who lures people with some charm or begging and then run away with the loot! 

He had met me so many times since 1981, but no word about returning the loan, let alone any interest! 

This thief, Mr  Shanmugam, who can't even return a loan obtained by pleading poverty, apparantly demanded from my wife, a couple of years ago that those who had not given the pulli vari for Karthigai for the previous years should give back all the arrears! What a bastard? One rule for him and a different for others? If he has the decency and honesty, he should return my loan – which was not alms – with interest and an apology. He will not, I know. 

(Mr Shanmugam: don't try to bluff your way stating that you did not take the money from me! I have your letter and a copy of my cheque sent to you!) 

I understand that he is a poojari in Sonaiyan Koil! By being a poojari, how many people he is cheating there, only Mr Sonaiya knows. Would I treat him as a pangali, no way? Should you? You decide for yourselves! 



Those who descended from Pariamaruthapatti:

As mentioned above, both the brothers proved themselves to be nothing but an opportunitst thieves who came to Nerkuppai to swindle our pangalis funds, both collectively and individually.

In addition, I am also told that they do not participate in Moolangudi but go only to Sonaiyan koil, as they used to go there, before joining Nerkuppai pangalis. 

If they want to continue with Sonaiyan koil and only participate with us as and when suits them, they are not full time Soorakudi pangalis of Nerkuppai. If that is the case, I'm sure you would agree with me that we do not want 'part-time- pangalis, in Nerkuppai. They can go whereever they choose but without stealing our money.

(I saw Mr  Thirunavukkarasu couple of times in Moolangudi and now I understand that he came for free food and torture others in the name of donations, so that he can fill his pockets.)

Therefore, it is for these reasons that I would like these 'thieves' from Pariamaruthapatti to be excluded from our pangalis of Nerkuppai. 



Dr London chidambarams letter to Pankalies dt 5th June 2012

Dr M. Chidambaram                                                                        Nerkuppai,

                                                                                                            5th June 2012

Dear Pangali, 

This is to introduce myself, one of your pangalis, Dr Chidambaram, s/o late Sri MP. Muthiah Chettiar and grandson of 'Rajapart' Kathiresea Chettiar aka Muthupalaniappa Chettiar. I moved to the UK in 1974 but before that, from the 1950s to 1970s I used to participate in all the Soorakkudi Pangalis' activities at Nerkuppai Sri Subramanya Swami temple and also at Moolangudi. 

I came from the UK, couple of weeks ago and on my arrival to India, I was told by one of my relatives who is not even our pangali, about various problems and usage of bittter and ugly exchanges between our pangalis. Then gradually, I came to know the full extent of the disputes, and now I have the copies of all the mails. 

I have also noticed that both the parties have conveniently excluded me from informing, even in these days of electronic age, just because I happened to be living in the England. You might be surprised to know that Mr Thirunavukkarasu and Mr Muthupalaniappan have my email ids and so deliberately did this exclusion.  (I will give some of the reasons for this later). 

Going through the letters and mails, I have to accept that words have been spelt beyond acceptance; however, one has to see the serious problems with the Pangalis' funds and accounts which started off the heated exchanges. In my view, if the so-called 'office bearers or signatories' had responded responsibily for the issues raised in the first instance by Mr Thanneermalai aka Mr T Ramanathan, the problem of bad language would not have occurred. Therefore, it is our responsibility to collectively correct such serious problems of fraud and prevent the same happening in the future. 

Let us ignore the unacceptable language and keep it aside for the time being and concentrate on the problems that still exist: 

Fact 1: Mr Thirunavukkarasu, Mr Muthupalaniappan and Mr Chockalingam have literally thrown the account books despite refusal from Mr T Ramanathan.  

            This means that the three 'signatories' have willingly relinguished their office-bearing status, full stop! Therefore, the stop being office-bearers and  have no right to ask for the return of the same. 

Fact 2: They did not hand over the cheque book and the bank pass book for over a year! Why did they not do this and what did they have in their mind? This proves that the three planned to swindle money, as when they wanted; this is what happened subsequently. 

Fact 3: Despite handing over the account books to Mr T Ramanathan, the signatories – either one or two or all the three jointly – have withdrawn Rs.13,202. This was done without prior consent of the person holding the accounts, namely Mr Ramanathan, nor the rest of the pangalis. 

            This is unacceptable and constitutes a crime and fraud; this is punishable by law, as Mr Ramanathan has stated; however, for our purposes, the three 'signatories' have lost our confidence in them and this alone is enough not only to remove them from the position of 'signatories' but they should never be allowed to hold any such positions dealing with public funds. (See later, Mr 
Thirunavukkarasu's acceptance of this fraud!) 

            The reason given was that Mr Chockalingam had given too much money for Bairavar Homam and hence, he was reimbursed! Whether you believe this story as true or not is a different issue,  but I doubt every word of it, as they had different motive. This shows their arrogance to take every one for a free ride.  

Firstly, if someone donates any money, he is not allowed any reimbursement, as donation means giving and not taking back and secondly if Mr Chockalingam is allowed to do this, then why not for everyone for any amount, for whatever donation done in previous years.  Thirdly, if Mr Chockalingam had 'donated' more, why the hell does he want others to contribute further for the Bairavar Homam. 

Fact 4: Later, these three wanted the account books to be returned to them!

            These three have willingly relinguished their office-bearing status and therefore, they should not be asking for the accounts back; for what reason? (This, in fact states that they accept giving the books in the first instance is their own mistake!) Mr T Ramanathan had used bad language only for their refusal to give an account of their malpractices and unlike Mr Thirunavukkarasu, he  has not done anything wrong with the accounts.  

            The letter dated 1st March 2012 states that the pangalis took a decision, 'yegamanadhaga' to get the accounts back from Mr T Ramanathan. This cannot be 'yegamanadhaga' , as they have not informed  each and everyone of the Pangalis, like myself and others, for such an important matter.  

            If you give the accounts to somone why do you want it back, unless they want to cover their mistakes.

Fact 5: Following a complaint from one of the pangalis, Mr MP Ramanathan, Mr T Ramanathan found out that Mr Thirunavukkarasu had entered his deposit into what is known as the interest account and not in the account of Mr MP Ramanathan! Following this, Mr  T Ramanathan also found out that Mr Thirunavukkarasu had been entering a further eight deposits from  eight other pangalis, to the tune of around Rs.12,000, into the interest account and not in their own accounts.! This too is only in the year 2010, as found out by Mr T Ramanathan. How much more did Mr Thirunavukkarasu swindle in the years, 2008, 2009, and 2011?  

            This wrong entry into a different account would be done if someone does not know how to account a particular credit or debit into its own account from the ledger. I do not suspect that that  is the case as  Mr Thirunavukkarasu is very intelligent man; then why this cock-up and was done nine times? There is only one reason. Apparantly, Mr Thirunavukkarasu had allocated himself a loan of Rs 50,000 from the Sooraikkudi Pangalis' account; (who authorised it and is there a system of authorising such loans?) On that kind of loan accounts, there is no proper entry of interests as to who paid interest, how long for and who has defaulted. In such a state, if Mr Thirunavukkarasu had been entereing others' deposits into this interest account, it means that either he is subsidising his own interest payments from such deposits from other people or helping his friends who have taken a loan, to show that they had paid interest. Either way, this is nothing but fradulous malpractice to fool others so that he is the only beneficiary, out of this messed up accounting. Would you allow him and his partners in crime, to continue such malpractices and defraud all thepangalis?

Fact 6: When everythingelse failed, they wanted to exclude Mr T  Ramanathan from the pangali's list! 

            What an atrocity? The three fraudsters bloody well knew that they have commited a crime, which is punishable by law and to cover that mistake of fraud, try to use bad language and counter arguments; when that too failed, they decided to start to play a totally new game of excluding Mr T  Ramanathan. This to me appears mainly to sidetrack the serious issues of their fraud as they could not find any other reason to shut Mr T  Ramanathan. 

            On the 26th of May 2012, the day after the Kumbabishekam, I confronted Mr Thirunavukkarasu and wanted to ask him three straight forwards questions; but he fizzled out after the secod question and wanted to run away as two or three of our pangalis gathered during our discussions.  

I asked him first whether all the three signatories willingly handed over the acount books; he blabbered around initially stating that evey pangali was there, but when I finally pinned him down, he accepted that all the three signatories did hand over the account books, willingly

Secondly, when I asked him whether he withdrew the money after handing over the accounts and that too without informing Mr T Ramanathan, he did accept that; I told him that that act of withdrawing money from the bank, after handing over the accounts and without informing Mr  T Ramanathan, was a serious mistake and amounts to fraud; his answer was acceptance of that as a mistake but wanted to know what to do about it. 

I wanted to ask him the third question of why did the three want the account books back, but he started to run away, as he saw the witnesses gathering behind me. What does this show? You think for yourselves. 

Therefore, I need to tell all of you clearly the following facts: 

1. Mr Thirunavukkarasu had swindled money from the Pangali's account to the tune of around Rs.13,000, by depositing various donations from pangalis into the interest account, with a sole motive of 'helping himself'. This is fraud. The other two,  Mr Muthupalaniappan and Mr Chockalingam had been accessories to this fraud. 

2. Mr Chockalingam has withdrawn Rs. 13,202, by telling a lie that he had overpaid for the Bairavar Homam; this is also a fraud. The other two, Mr Muthupalaniappan and Mr Thirunavukkarasu have bee accessories to this second fraud. 

3. The three had 'thrown' the account books which shows that they had relinguished the position of signatories but now, reaslising that it was a mistake, want the account books and cheque book, back, only to swindle more money out of your funds!  

Should you allow such fraudsters to continue to look after public funds? 

This is what you have to decide rather than excluding Mr T Ramanathan from the Pangali's list. Please look at the facts given above carefully and take the needful action.

I suggest the following actions: 

-        the amount of Rs 13,202 should be returned with immediate effect, with nominal interest and an apology from all the three concerened, for the fraud they had committed.

-        Exclude all the three, the so called signatories, namely,  Mr Thirunavukkarasu, Mr Muthupalaniappan and Mr Chockalingam, from any kind of activities dealing with money, as they not only unfit for such actions but also are daylight robbers

-        Mr Thirunavukkarasu and the other two to explain why the funds of nine or more people have been entered into interest accounts, instead of the proper individual's accounts

-        there is no need to return the accounts books to anybody, as the current priority is to bring these three to account for their frauds. 

If some of you want to comment, criticise, question, add any more facts that I do not know or even appreciate what I am doing, please do not hesitate to contact me and the following are my contact details:

India:  Mobile: 97862 67380 

UK:     Mobile: + 44 (0) 7772 312 794
            Landline: + 44 (0) 20 8423 5130

Chidambaram (Dr).