Sai Baba EXPOSED!: October 2006

26 October 2006

Wheelchair Blues Boogie!

To think that devotees of Sathya Sai Baba hardly know how to react when their Aged Avatar of the Age is consigned to a wheelchair, except of course with the usual brainwashed explanations of "taking on someone else's karma" and whatnot, they are now glorifying these "wheelchair pastimes" of the Lord by playing around with Photoshop and coming out with some pretty snazzy results!

Check it out:

Sai Org's Deception & Propaganda Exposed 3

THE SATHYA SAI ORGANISATION'S DECEPTION AND
PROPAGANDA EXPOSED

PART THREE

(Part One, Two)

The foes of the 'open society' (Sir Karl Popper's term) are those who use its very openness to achieve their closed and devious ends. Sai Baba and his highly authoritarian and cultist organisation have such ends, which critics have tried to make known. Its foremost leaders silence all those who question it- and never face substantive criticisms. For the first time - after six years of pained and guilty silence - since hundreds of long-term devotees left it in disgust - the Sathya Sai Organisation has found it necessary to try to defuse the debate about Sathya Sai Baba's alleged crimes, deceits and fraudulence. Dr. Venkataraman's tendentious cover-up article expresses untruths which have long circulated within the cult, giving an opportunity to confront him with facts and truth, as follows:-

[Comments by the undersigned are in blue text:]

THE INEVITABLE COLLAPSE OF CALUMNY
[by Dr. G. Venkataraman]

[Black text from Radio Sai Listener's Journal: Volume 4 - Issue 07 July 2006]

UNESCO Withdraws Its Criticism

Where the media advisory of the UNESCO was concerned, we took a different approach. The UNESCO is a part of the United Nations and India is in fact one of the founder members of the UN – it was a signatory to the original declaration, way back in 1944. We in Prashanti Nilayam took up the matter with the Government of India through suitable channels, and for its part, the Government, through its Ambassador in Paris, protested to the UNESCO.

Comment: This is a gross untruth! UNESCO has NOWHERE stated that it withdraws its criticism of Sathya Sai Baba by updating its website; there is no evidence of that on their website or anywhere else. Their official spokesperson, Sue Williams, stated to the BBC in mid-May 2004 that UNESCO (Paris) did not regret having posted this document adverse to Sai Baba and “certain of his organizers”! Further, the removal of the posting was the “result of a routine system purge”, a fact clearly stated by another UNESCO Office spokesperson, Isobel le Fournis.

Most noteworthy, however, is that, since UNESCO posted its advisory, there is no proof that UNESCO has sponsored or involved itself in any way in a single Sai Baba-related event anywhere in the world, despite the Sai Organisation’s intense lobbying through diplomatic and governmental channels! Unlike the Sathya Sai Organisation, UNESCO is most definitely not an amateur organization that bases its advisories on mere rumours, non-investigation or wishful guesswork!

I shall not go into the details here but merely say that the Indian Government took strong exception to the UNESCO posting a hostile media advisory, merely on the basis of hearsay, thereby maligning Sai Baba, who is a revered figure in India and has done enormous good to Indian Society. This strong protest worked and the UNESCO backtracked. This retraction by UNESCO was a big set back for the anti-Sai group

Comment: The label ‘anti-Sai group’ points to a common untruth promoted by many Sai devotees that we number only a handful. Instead, there are hundreds of disaffected former devotees and ex-leaders of the Organisation in many groupings. Most workers conduct activities well away from the Net because of security reasons. The UNESCO Advisory remains a huge setback for Sai Baba and those who defend him. It is independently available on-line. UNESCO posted its Advisory only after they had investigated the allegations and were satisfied that they were well founded!

but they now attacked from another angle, namely television. As you well know, most TV channels have sunk to depressingly low levels. It was no surprise therefore that some channels in some countries seized the opportunity to come out with negative programs on Swami.

Comment: Professional media critics and the general public did not deem the BBC to have “sunk to depressingly low levels". Indeed, the contrary was true!
Venkataraman, Indulal Shah, other Sai leaders and Sai Baba himself are alike in playing the ‘blame-the-media game’! When local Indian journalists investigated the murders of four devotees in Sai Baba’s apartment on June 6, 1993, Sai Baba ridiculed them. They published a number of perfectly reasonable questions on his role in relation to the incident (in his supposedly holy building). For example, they asked where he was during these events, and why the Central Trust or ashram authorities reported nothing to the police. However, Sai Baba’s officials hindered them at every point, and, some weeks later, Sai Baba attacked them in a public discourse for publishing "nothing but flights of the imagination" and for being "malicious". The eviction by Sai officials of the BBC crew from Prashanti Nilayam was but another in a long series of suppressive moves. Of course, nothing banishes “flights of the imagination” better than proper accountability and openness!

Sai Baba has often said never to criticize or slander others, and always to speak sweetly and softly with love. Yet his actions frequently belie his words. Being absent, those attacked in this way could not present their case. This behavior Sai Baba often calls ‘back-biting’.

Given the scepticism of many in the West about Gurus, such a program naturally commanded an audience, though not among viewers with discrimination. Hence, though we received complaints from many overseas devotees, we did not bother too much. It was not worth getting into arguments with third-rate TV channels.

Comment: The phrase “third rate TV channels” –encapsulates Venkataraman’s opinion of the world’s most respected news and comment provider since radio and television began! He imagines perhaps that his Radio Sai propaganda station is first rate – but it serves the most boring, verbose, repetitive, preachifying and syrupy hypocrisy! Western cultures have their own traditions of critical enquiry skepticism, and include issues about fraudulence and superstition about gurus. There can be little wonder about “skepticism in the West about Gurus”. There is plenty in the East too – happy to say.

The BBC Shames Itself

Things went into a different gear altogether when the BBC came out with an anti-Swami film. This was absolutely shocking because like the London Times, the BBC is an icon - in the broadcasting world that is. And yet, for reasons best known to it, the BBC produced a program that was not only poorly researched but also deplorably low in taste, quite in contrast to what it is known for.

Comment: As Venkatarman would have it, in the face of thousands of programs that maintain the BBC as an “icon”, suddenly it deviates and becomes “absolutely shocking”. Autocratic and corrupt regimes and organisations with much to hide invariably complain like this when the BBC exposes them after exhaustive research!

The Sad Case of Alaya Rahm

Central to BBC’s vilification campaign was one Alaya Rahm.

Comment: The BBC never carries out “vilification campaigns”. Only corrupt and unaccountable people or organizations would claim so. Venkataraman’s statement amounts to slander against the BBC! The fact is that the ashram officials treated the BBC team high-handedly, throwing them out because they dared to ask for responses to the worldwide allegations of sex abuse, etc. This eviction alone shows how secret and autocratic a cult the whole Sai hierarchy has become and how they use all the political power they can muster to suppress anyone who speaks up and cover up everything. It is a cult with despotic tendencies. That led the BBC to dig deeper and they uncovered a great deal, only a small part of which could be included in a coherent one-hour film. Indeed, there remain eighty plus hours of footage in storage.

In “The Secret Swami”, Venkataraman’s superior in the Prashanthi Council, Dr. Michael Goldstein, would not reply to civil, sensible questions, which are those a responsible public would wish to ask. The BBC wanted him to explain the notorious Hislop letters [signed copies of which they had with them] which mention Goldstein as a recipient along with other leaders in the US Sai Organisation (but we do not know if the US bosses confided in their ‘brothers’ among the top leadership in India). Therefore, the BBC filmed him with hidden cameras. It acted entirely within the law (including the libel laws of the many countries where the film screened, as Goldstein found out when he tried to pursue them legally) and in the public’s best interests. Dr. Venkataraman has no tenable case.

I have to mention the name of Alaya Rahm because he is the one who filed a case on January 6th, 2006, in the Superior Court of California, Orange County. It was a lawsuit in which the plaintiff sued for money damages. The Court set the case for trial April 28, 2006.

At this point, I shall quote, with permission of course, from a letter we have received from Brother Robert Baskin of California, who is himself a lawyer. He has full knowledge of this case and I think it is best to quote from his report since it would be factually and legally the most accurate account we can present. This is what Baskin says concerning what happened to this lawsuit.

“Although Alaya Rahm’s accusations received some publicity before he filed his lawsuit, his claims were not thoroughly investigated until after the lawsuit was filed. The legal proceeding provided a forum in which his claims could be thoroughly and critically examined. Through this process of investigation, it was discovered that the plaintiff and his family had spoken at a number of retreats and conferences between 1995 and 1999, during the time that the events were alleged to have occurred. Inconsistent with his later accusations, these conference talks, many of which were recorded and have been transcribed, contain no suggestion of any wrongdoing and the earlier words spoken by the plaintiff would appear to refute his later accusations.

Through the process of discovery during the handling of the lawsuit, witnesses were identified and interviewed who were present in the Ashram in India when the events were alleged to have occurred which formed the basis of the plaintiff’s lawsuit. One of these witnesses brought the plaintiff to India in 1995, accompanied the plaintiff to India in 1997, and was present for some of the alleged interviews. The deposition of this witness was taken as a process of discovery in this lawsuit. The witness testified that he had a close and confidential relationship with Alaya Rahm from 1995 to 1997, spoke with the plaintiff on a daily basis when he was in the ashram in 1995 and 1997, discussed the details of each of the plaintiff’s interviews during that period and that Alaya Rahm never suggested during this period of time that any misconduct or wrongdoing had occurred. The deposition of the witness was taken in March 2006. Alaya Rahm dismissed his case after the deposition was taken.

"No offers of settlement were made in this case and no money or any other consideration was paid for a dismissal of the lawsuit. This dismissal should be the conclusion of this lawsuit.”

I must at this point, express my deep and personal thanks to Brother Baskin for that succinct account.

Comment: The lawyer who advises the Sathya Sai Society, which set itself up to avoid accountability, is Robert M. Baskin. As such, “Brother Baskin” gives an account that twists and ignores facts in a very tendentious way. Alaya Rahm’s claims, fully supported by his mother and father, were NEVER thoroughly investigated! A wholly predjudiced Sathya Sai Society opposed them. One of its defendants was Dr. M. Goldstein, who the BBC soundly exposed (see the BBC’s “The Secret Swami”) for his rigid prejudice towards Alaya Rahm’s allegations. The Rahm family’s meeting with him in September in La Fayette in Arkansas 1999 is typical of this sort of inaction.

The untruthful deposition by the devotee of Sai Baba, Lewis Kreydick had no effect whatsoever on the decision of Alaya Rahm to withdraw his case. The withdrawal was purely because his attorney could not find any person or accountable body to answer to the Alaya Rahm’s suit. He fully maintains these claims. There is nothing proved against them.

I do not know what you think about it, but as far as I am concerned, this case withdrawal by Alaya Rahm, before the suit came up for formal hearing before a Judge, knocks the bottom out of all the allegations that have been circulated during the last several years.

Comment: Not one accuser, out of scores around the world, has withdrawn his allegations. Read the statement by the International JuST Group, the Rahm Family and the family’s lawyer.

And please remember that Rahm would not have dismissed his own case, if he thought he had a chance of winning. The fact is he had no case, none at all, at any time. For years, Alaya Rahm got away with wild allegations, and the BBC made much of it. Why? Because they were never put to the legal test.

Comment: Nor was Alaya Rahm’s case put to the legal test. For reasons former devotee lawyers in the USA and elsewhere are having trouble in understanding, Rahm’s attorney embarked on the case only to discover that there was no legally incorporated entity to sue.

Kreydick's main point is that Alaya never mentioned the abuses to him. In the television documentaries, Alaya stated that he believed, at the time of the abuses, that if he spoke about them his family would reject him. Lewis Kreydick’s deposition is that of a blindly subjective devotee who attempted to slur Alaya Rahm. Kreydick claimed that he was a close friend and advisor to Alaya and made constant speculations about Alaya's state of mind (repeatedly objected to by Rahm’s attorney), claiming he could not have been abused and unhappy because he was all smiles. The attempt was to sully Alaya’s character (and, disgracefully, that of his mother, too!). This was heartless. Kreydick’s testimony totally disregarded the situation that Alaya was going through a tremendous inner upheaval while having to put up a brave face. Experts in sexual abuse attest that abusees, in the face of a situation too painful to admit fully into consciousness, can hide the turmoil about a situation beneath smiles. Here was an individual, knowing the terrible consequences in a US court should anyone perjure themselves, striving to tell his story of a very confusing and traumatic sexual abuse by his former guru, whom he had been raised to regard as God.

Emboldened by the apparent wide acceptance of his claims in the West, Rahm then thought he could seek damages and filed a lawsuit. But his attempt has backfired and the chief accuser has realised that. Quietly, he has withdrawn the case.

Comment: This is calumny! Venkataraman - who claimed he never listened - does not know Alaya Rahm’s motives. Alaya Rahm’s and his family’s active support of the JuST Public Statement on the case is not an example of ‘quiet withdrawal’, nor that of his lawyer, William Brelsford, which is plain testimony to Alaya Rahm’s reason for self-withdrawal of his case. Furthermore, there is no evidence whatever that Alaya Rahm proceeded out of a selfish motive, though he did wish to make the Sathya Sai Organisation accountable, although hindered by legal technicalities. He was bravely trying to create a legal precedent for the scores of alleging victims of Sathya Sai Baba, also so they might more easily obtain just compensation for the destruction to their lives. An increasing number of the many Indian Sai alumni (whom we carefully check for their bona fides) contact us. They relate that Sai Baba has sexually abused them or their brothers or friends. Recovery from serious abuses and preparing for public and legal confrontations takes those affected a long time, inner struggle, organization and effort. This is proven by the decades it took for victims of sexual abuses in the Roman Catholic Church, the Hare Krishna (ISKCON) movement and many other institutions to come forth and take action, not least after major top-down cover-ups by top officials in these bodies very similar to those current in the Sai Organisation.

His lawyer, William Brelsford, makes plain Alaya’s reason for self-withdrawal of his case – obstructive legal technicalities. Recovery from serious abuses and preparing for public and legal confrontations takes a long time, and much organization and effort by the survivors. The dossier is growing and some day will illuminate all. The depths of the depravity amaze even us. They will not remain hidden forever. Yes, though very differently from the reasons Venkataraman gives, eventually the truth will out!

signed,

Barry Pittard (bpittard@optusnet.com.au)

Robert Priddy (rero@chello.no)

Note: Several paragraphs from Venkataraman’s article were omitted in the above since they required no comment.

Extra Sources:

BBC on Basava Premanand's claims against Sai Baba
George Orwell's 1984
Unresolved, quashed investigations of murders in Sai Baba's bedroom, 1993
International Sai Petition (over 1,100 signatures)

Sai Org's Deception & Propaganda Exposed 2

THE SATHYA SAI ORGANISATION'S DECEPTION AND
PROPAGANDA EXPOSED

PART TWO

(Part 1)

The foes of the 'open society' (Sir Karl Popper's term) are those who use its very openness to achieve their closed and devious ends. Sai Baba and his highly authoritarian and cultist organisation have such ends, which critics have tried to make known. Its foremost leaders silence all those who question it- and never face substantive criticisms. For the first time - after six years of pained and guilty silence - since hundreds of long-term devotees left it in disgust - the Sathya Sai Organisation has found it necessary to try to defuse the debate about Sathya Sai Baba's alleged crimes, deceits and fraudulence. Dr. Venkataraman's tendentious cover-up article expresses untruths which have long circulated within the cult, giving an opportunity to confront him with facts and truth, as follows:-

[Comments by the undersigned are in bold blue text:]

THE INEVITABLE COLLAPSE OF CALUMNY

by Dr. G. Venkataraman

[text in black from Radio Sai Listener's journal: Volume 4 - Issue 07 JULY 2006]

The Eternal Struggle Between Good And Evil

The Indian scriptures say that practically every Avatar has had enemies.

Comment: Most of the world does not accept Sai Baba as an avatar, nor ever will, as any student of religion knows. Despite his claims that in his own lifetime that he will first transform his own backyard, India, and then the rest of the world he will never succeed. His claims - such as that he will never look old - become daily ever more absurd as he becomes sicker-looking. He has undergone hip operations. His students and other aides have to prop him up. Several times, he has fallen over in full public view. He has walked around in circles, muttering incoherently. He has said - fully caught by BBC cameras! - that he had three tons of gold in him. This is to give but a few examples of his increasing physical and mental decay.

Many countries have laws stating that all are equal before the law. Those uninvited touchings - and much more invasive handling - of the genitals of young males that even many Sai devotees are forced to admit are true are not permitted by law. Only in most circumscribed medical circumstances may a medical doctor touch a person’s genitals. Sai Baba is not a doctor. He is answerable to the law, if only successive corrupt regimes in India did not protect him. Simply to “march ahead ignoring the background noise” is a central tenet of the authoritarian top-down Sai Organisation. No genuine feedback is accepted from rank-and-file members, who have relinquished all rights regarding it according to the Organization’s Charter and to whom even the slightest criticism is banned. We have thoroughly documented this from official sources. Statements by virtually every official and major document in the Sai Organization’s massive website propaganda make this clear.

I will not go into the details, but during every Incarnation there are enemies who challenge the Avatar in various ways. Sometimes, they even attack physically. Apparently, the enemies symbolise the evil on earth, and a struggle between the good and the evil is needed from time to time to establish the Eternal Truth that in the end, Good always triumphs over Evil.

Comment: This is sheer anathema again! If Venkatarman persists in calling former devotees ‘evil’, perhaps one day enough Sai devotees who know the quality of many who have left the Sai Organization will realise his bare-faced untruthfulness. To use one’s right to freedom of speech against provably false claims and criminal actions is not ‘evil’; on the contrary, it is just and right, hence good!

In the Krishna Avatar, for example, there was a demon called Jarasanda who repeatedly attacked Mathura, the city that was the capital of Krishna’s kingdom at that time. In fact, to protect His people, Krishna moved from Mathura to Dwaraka. Krishna was God Almighty in human form. He commanded all the Powers of God. If you recall, He revealed Himself as the Supreme Lord to Arjuna in the battlefield. And yet, why is it that the same Krishna did not dispose of Jarasanda, which He surely could have done in a jiffy? Well, those are the mystifying aspects of the Avatar! Such aspects are present in every Avatar. By the way, to complete this story, it was finally left to the hefty Pandava Bhima, to tear Jarasanda to pieces, literally.

Comment: Venkataraman clearly reveals his unspoken wish – and that of similar Sai devotees – to see Sai Baba’s critics torn to pieces, literally! How very loving and spiritual of him. To stamp people as demons, as he and his his supposedly compassionate Lord and master do, is to revert to primitive superstitions. No truly educated, rational person today would accept this perverse worldview.

Not many realise that attacks on Swami have always been there, almost from the time Swami declared His Avatarhood. If you read the accounts of people who used to travel to Puttaparthi in the good old days, they always tell us how the locals were quite hostile to Swami.

Comment: Now one can understand there were doubtless some very good reasons! The devotee Smt. Vijayamma’s account of Sai Baba’s relentless and continued beatings of her two-year old baby are just one point in case. Moreover, that Sai Baba was in a homosexual partnership even then is very evident from her text too!

For them, a little boy who used to be one of them simply could not be God. How on earth was that possible, they asked. But that phase soon passed off, and now we see how that very same Swami is being venerated by the people of those very same villages, who were once so hostile to Him.

Comment: It is in their economic interest - his becoming a major tourist attraction has raised their standard of living greatly. To try to oppose him now - when he controls the police, and has Supreme Court and High Court judges, Prime Ministers and Presidents and various government Ministers in his hand - would be far beyond any villager. So why, given their dire health problems, do they not swarm to his hospitals as they do to hospitals elsewhere in India? Relative to their size and opulence, his hospitals have very few patients. Are they not primarily Sai Baba promotional showpieces for the world and for use mainly by rich Indian and foreign devotees?

Later, came Vedic scholars who scoffed at Swami. How could this young man who never spent even a single day in Veda Patashala [Vedic school] know anything about the Vedas, they asked. But soon they realised that this was no ordinary young man but the One who was the very form of the Vedas, or Veda Pursusha, as He is known in ancient Indian scriptures.

Comment: Many Vedic scholars in India do not think that Sathya Sai Baba is God incarnate. The attempt to claim otherwise must be deeply offensive to many Indians.

In the sixties and seventies, it was Swami’s miracles that came under heavy attack. A whole bunch of rationalists pooh-poohed Him, challenging Swami to do this and that, so as to convince them. Swami has not come to convince anybody about His Divinity. Rather He has incarnated to tell man, “O man! Realise you are Divine and start acting Divine if not at least as a human. Do not be a slave to your senses and behave like an animal or worse still, like a devil.”

Comment: “Behaving like the devil”, or that ‘the devil’ exists, are totally discredited ideas among educated people. Among Christian sects, they take the form of fundamentalist Bible-thumping ideas, but each culture has its own weak-minded variants.

The rationalists made a lot of noise but the world soon got tired of them. However, some serious intellectuals like Murphet, Hislop, and Sandweiss came with open minds and realised that Swami was the Embodiment of Pure Consciousness.

Comment: Venkataraman cites those whose assumptions themselves are under well-founded and strong critical scrutiny. Whatever competence they may have gained in their own professions, they are not recognized as scholars in religious studies or as probing intellectuals commenting on great public questions. Sai Baba elevated Murphet, Hislop and Sandweiss to a pantheon-like position among his devotees.

The Blitz Interview

In mentioning all these names, I must not forget Rusi Karanjia, a self-declared atheist and Marxist, who published from Bombay, the then highly-popular weekly BLITZ.

Karanjia wrote many things against Swami until someone asked him, “How can you write about something when you have not checked the facts? Have you ever met Sai Baba? Have you checked out whether what you are publishing as facts are really facts and represent the truth?”

Comment: Indeed! Painstaking checking of facts at the expense of much time and energy by many Sai critics is why a range of agencies, and gave valuable time to the of the alleging victims – for example, Interpol, FBI, the Australian Federal Police, the German State Prosecutor’s Office, UNESCO, the State Department, and other governments, civic and religious institutions and many newspapers world-wide. When he generalizes about critics of Sai Baba, Venkataraman shows no evidence of checking his facts.

When his journalistic credentials were challenged, Karanjia came to Puttaparthi and Swami graciously granted him many interviews.

Being the journalist that he was, Karanjia asked many probing questions and Swami answered them all, patiently. Karanjia had to admit that he was mistaken and he wrote a book not only retracting all his earlier biased and critical opinions, but went so far as to describe Swami as the living God walking on earth! By the way, to my knowledge, with the exception of Karanjia, Swami has never granted interviews to pressmen in this fashion.

Comment: Why does Sai Baba refuse all other press interviews? We submit that questions from the independent press would be searching and would soon expose him.

For devotees, it is always a matter of great astonishment that the Lord could have enemies. “Why Swami,” many of them asked, “do You have enemies?” Swami always gave the same Comment: “It is only when there is darkness that people appreciate the value of light.”

In the same way, Avatars need enemies so that people understand better the difference between Good and Evil. In short, the appearance of villains in the Lord’s Story is preordained, and we need not be overly surprised by it.

Comment: Like the defenders of so many other personality cult leaders who come under serious and honest questioning, Venkataraman identifies critics as villains and enemies, his only basis being a false perception of all as fate predetermined by Sathya Sai Baba! Critics include many former Sai Organisation leaders who write incisive articles such as Stephen Carthew , Terry Gallagher, Serguei Badaev, Reidun Priddy, Britt-Marie Andén, Conny Larsson, Timothy Conway. Other writers who, in Venkataraman’s amusing scheme of things are ‘preordained’, include Brian Steel, Jorge Reyesvera (Mexico), Sanjay Dadlani (UK), (Sweden), Alexandra Nagel (The Netherlands), Åsa Samsioe (Sweden), Dr. Dale Beyerstein (Canada) Paul Holbach (Italy), Basava Premanand, Dr. Nayendra Nayak (both India), and numerous other ex-devotees and known independent journalists such as Duncan Roads (Australia), Mick Brown, Dominic Kennedy, Tanya Datta (all UK). Then, of course, there were the revealing investigations of the former top favourite of Sai Baba and adored by many devotees, David Bailey (UK). He went to great lengths, and suffered great and despicable calumny from Sai devotees when he, with the support of his wife Faye, formerly a key figure in the Australian Sathya Sai Organization, self-sacrificially set about to find out and disseminate the facts.

One of Sathya Sai Baba’s favourite long-time devotees was Dr. Naresh Bhatia, former head of the blood bank at Sai Baba’s Super-Speciality Hospital at Puttaparthi. He confirmed to the Daily Telegraph that he had had sexual relations with Sai Baba for 15 or 16 years, and that he was aware that Sai Baba had had sexual relations with “many, many” of his students, and had brutally raped a minor whom Dr. Bhatia examined afterwards and referred to a physician in Bangalore. Strangely, he still believed Sai Baba to be God. Dr. Bhatia, a top favourite lecturer to students and foreigners, was banished and silenced, his previously acclaimed book ‘Dreams and Realities…’ being stopped directly by the US Sai publisher, Leela Press, on the order of the Organisation).

Let me now focus on the more recent events, because the Court case I referred to earlier is connected with these.

Now the Opposition Uses Powerful Media

Starting from somewhere around the late-nineties, began what might be called the fourth anti-Sai wave. Thanks to the internet, this time, it was global. In the past, the targets of attack were Swami’s Divinity, His knowledge of the Vedas and His miracles. This time, the detractors went to the extent of questioning Swami’s purity and character itself. During this period, I was always quite busy with my work, and I therefore heard very little about the non-stop chatter in the gossip circles.

Comment: Former devotees are not gossips but men and women from a large array of social, educational and professional backgrounds. Does Venkataraman think that his accusations would endure in a proper court of law, or among the educated public? Many leaders and devotees know the integrity of those who have left the Sai Organisation for ethical and moral reasons. Acts of concealment and falsification of such facts by Sai Baba and his leaders will forever condemn them.

From time to time, someone or the other would try to tell me something about this nonsense but I politely kept my distance since I neither had the time for this sort of thing, nor any patience to listen to falsehood.

Comment: It takes patience to listen to anything critical, and folly to deem a matter false before even listening.

The slander campaign started amongst a few disgruntled devotees, and soon spread to those eager for sleaze and scandal.

Comment: Here we have the same old hypocritical mantra “disgruntled” chanted about defectors - it is the standard widely-parroted Prashanthi misconception. Former devotees have no heart for sleaze or scandal, but only for proper investigation of the facts. Many have made detailed investigation of the facts but leaders who remain in the organization have not done so. In their hearts, most of them know the valid reasons why so many have now left Sai Baba.

In that sense, the anti-Sai campaign did not amount to much and could be ignored. However, encouraged by the prevailing social atmosphere, the people bent on vilifying Swami now got a toehold in important circles.

Comment: Defectors sought justifiable exposure of vast-scale fraudulence, and, on a historic dimension, the worst spiritual betrayal and moral hypocrisy. Using the stark testimony of Sai Baba’s own printed words, we have demonstrated dozens of Sai Baba’s patent lies, false promises, manipulation of individuals and the masses, and his tremendous betrayal of trust when he maintains that ‘Swami is pure’ and that he represents Truth. He has said that he has magnetic feet that the earth pulls so that he cannot walk (miraculously?). That he never suffers from any illness (yet he is visibly senile). That – in his own words – he can “cure uncurable diseases”, and yet many Sai devotees know that his promises have proved false, though they often rationalize by saying e.g., “Swami must have meant cure him/her permanently by taking them away to Heaven”. That he has said he spat out a three-ton Siva lingam, which actually came from a towel on his lap, and rested lightly on a tray afterwards - captured for all to see on the BBC film!

He has stated that he will - going yet further than Krishna - lift a chain of mountains and fly through the air. Now, Venkataraman (supposedly a man of science?) defends all this claptrap. Such published statements by Sathya Sai Baba with his self-proclaimed omiscience ensure he will be a sectarian curiosity and a laughing stock.

First, there was a very negative article that appeared in The Times of London.

Comment: Actually, it was three articles, all appearing on August 27, 2001, which Venkataraman’s colleague, India’s Air Chief Marshal (Rtd) and others tried to get the Times of London not to publish: 1. ‘Suicide, sex and the guru’, 18 by Dominic Kennedy. 2. 'I sought peace and couldn't find it' by Michael Dynes in Durban and Dominic Kennedy. 3. ‘Three die after putting faith in guru’, by Dominic Kennedy.

After this came an anti-Swami Media advisory by the UNESCO, and to cap it all, there was the film by the BBC. I am sure you all know about these things and so I shall not spend much time on them. For the present, let me just mention the following:

When the Times article appeared, I was shocked as were many others. Here was one of the leading newspapers of the world, and it was publishing negative material without even a casual inquiry about the accuracy of the content. Some of us wrote letters to the Editor, but, contrary to the usual practice of giving some space to those with differing opinions, none of these letters were published. So much for objectivity of the Press!

Comment: Unlike Radio Sai, The Times is a respected world press leader, with high standards of source checking. Does Venkataraman really believe that such a paper (and other respected media) would publish “without even a casual inquiry about the accuracy …”? Why should the Editor publish the Sai leaders’ attempted propaganda on behalf of an organisation not willing to investigate disturbing allegations? The Times would not retract, despite the initiative of the autocratic and unaccountable accountant, Indulal Shah and retired Indian Air Chief Marshal N. C. Suri to influence this newspaper. The Times and officials of important institutions (UNESCO, the State Department, etc.) acted upon the allegations only after strenuous investigation of credentials and documentation by former devotees.

The fact that the Times refused to extend media courtesy due to us did not mean the end of the matter. One could not simply remain silent when wild allegations were being made and atrocious aspersions were being cast in so-called responsible quarters. That was when our respected Mr. Indulal Shah took the initiative and met the then Prime Minister Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee.

As a result of this meeting, a statement was prepared that was later signed by Mr. Vajpayee, the Prime Minister, Justice Bhagavathi, former Chief Justice of India, Justice Ranganath Mishra, another former Chief Justice of India, Mr. Shah made sure that the letter was seen by the top leaders of Europe, including the then Prime Minister of Britain.

Comment: However, Exposé personnel in London convinced the Foreign Office to warn the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair. He then ignored the invitation from Sai Baba to visit him at Brindavan when Blair was visiting literally across the road at the new IT center there! See Blair’s letter on this matter!

The ‘respected’ Mr. Indulal Shah, chief functionary of the Sri Satya Sai World Trust went on record with The Hindu, 10-6-1993 as follows: “When press persons met, he said, ‘the matter is purely internal and we do not wish to have any law enforcement agency investigating into it.” In this statement, he perfectly reflected the despotic methods favoured by him and the Sathya Sai Organisation.

signed,

Barry Pittard (bpittard@optusnet.com.au)

Robert Priddy (rero@chello.no)

Note: Several paragraphs from Venkataraman’s article were omitted in the above since they required no comment.

Extra Sources:

BBC on Basava Premanand's claims against Sai Baba
George Orwell's 1984
Unresolved, quashed investigations of murders in Sai Baba's bedroom, 1993
International Sai Petition (over 1,100 signatures)

25 October 2006

Traitor Chandrababu

A new blog by "Tiger Rana" levels very serious allegations against N. Chandrababu Naidu, former Home Minister for Andhra Pradesh, India, and current leader of the opposition in the Andhra State Assembly and chief of the Telugu Desam Party.

Among other things, Naidu is criticised for his associations with Sonia Gandhi as well as known gangland criminals such as Dawood Ibrahim. Check it out:

Traitor Chandrababu

N. Chandrababu Naidu is a Sathya Sai Baba devotee.

WATCH Yourself, Baba!

One of Sathya Sai Baba's most famous epithets refers to his 'WATCH' philosophy; 'W' for watching your Words, 'A' for watching your Actions, and so on for Thoughts, Character and Heart. In other words this is one of those rare pieces of wisdom that you think are pretty clever until you become sick to the back teeth of hearing it repeated mindlessly until you are comatose, as it has been done in the Sai Organisation.

An anonymous tipper left me a piece of info about a certain Frank Outlaw who said this:

"Watch your thoughts; they become words. Watch your words; they become actions. Watch your actions; they become habits. Watch your habits; they become character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny."

As the tipper asked, who copied from whom? And that question may well be asked since Sai Baba has a rather disturbing habit of hijacking people's clever sayings and pretending that they are his own. Another humorous example is when Sai Baba wrote a letter to a devotee that contained a philosophical message. Nothing wrong with that coming from a self-proclaimed avatar, but the only problem is that the message was an almost verbatim quote of Swami Vivekananda! This is documented fully in the popular book 'Vision Of The Divine' by E.B. Fanibunda. The funny part is where the author reasoned that copyright issues do not arise since it was Sathya Sai Baba who "inspired" Vivekananda to write those words, and simply repeated "himself" when he wrote the letter!

The brainwashing of Sai devotees is truly a unique phenomenon that has to be experienced to be believed.

20 October 2006

Sai Baba's School Records - A New Light 4

One | Two | Three | Four

By way of a quick recap, we have been discussing the possibility of Sathya Sai Baba's true birthdate as being October 4 1929, and not November 23 1926 as we have all been led to believe. The latter date was chosen as a means of hijacking a cryptic statement and mentioned date by Sri Aurobindo - a renowned contemporaneous saint - that signified the descent of "Krishna consciousness" onto earth on November 24 1926. Sathya Sai Baba's records from three of the schools he attended universally agree on his date of birth being October 4 1929 without exception. The young Sai Baba (Sathyanarayana Raju) also spent long periods of time away from school.

In this section we'll discuss circumstantial evidence that point to 1929 as being the real year of birth as well as it's knock-on effects regarding other monumental events in Raju's life. The devotee editors of LIMF attempt to present an unconvincing argument to explain away the glaring date discrepancy by referring to the allegedly relaxed recording of census information in pre-Independence India and why dates and birth registrations were carried out much later after the fact. This conflicts with their earlier insinuation that Raju's family deliberately engaged in deception in order to facilitate his so-called career prospects by making him appear younger. Of course nobody would begrudge any parents their ambitions for their children, and indeed it is related that Raju's parents wished for him to be highly educated so that he could attain a prestigious job working for local government. This argument flies right out of the window when you consider that changing the birth year to 1929 (supposedly three years "younger" than his "original" year of 1926) did him a disservice after all; both the Bukkapatnam and Uravakonda records show that most of Raju's classmates were born in the early to mid-1930s. If the family were deliberately trying to fix his date, they should have thought about bringing it forward into the early 1930s so that Raju could be on a par with his own classmates, putting aside the possibility that their birthdates were faked too. With their "faked" date of 1929, they ended up making Raju look like one of the older children!

Other anecdotes come from a very popular book - 'Anyatha Saranam Nasthi' - by Smt. Vijayamma Hemchand revealing Sai Baba as being the unwitting source of the 1929 birthdate. Readers should note that Vijayamma and her family first visited Raju in 1945 at a time when he was openly promoting himself as an incarnation of God. They attained an exceptional level of closeness to the young Baba that has been documented elsewhere on this blog. As noted already by Brian Steel:

"In 1945 the little girl's cousins were strolling in the affluent Bangalore suburb of Malleswaram when they heard bhajans being sung and entered the house to listen. Sai Baba, who was present there, invited them to go to Puttaparthi (whose name they had never heard). When they returned to their town of Kuppam (south-east of Bangalore, but in today's Andhra Pradesh), the cousins told the girl's mother about their meeting. The latter was keen for them all to go, but the idea was vetoed by the father, who said: 'You tell me He is sixteen years old and claims to be a reincarnation of Shirdi Sai. This is all humbug'." (p. 12)

If Sathya Sai Baba was considered sixteen years of age in 1945, do the math:

1945 - 16 = 1929

It's almost magical when you factor in the new year of declaration. To wit, Sathya Sai Baba's biographers have always contended that he was fourteen years of age when his momentous declaration of May 23 1940 (as the reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba among other things) took place. This is problematic as noted by Erlendur Haraldsson (an eminent devotee author), who contended that the biographers had either got the date of the declaration wrong or that Sathya Sai was thirteen at the time. Now that research has provided new evidence that this declaration took place in 1943, you can check the sums yourself:

1943 - 14 = 1929

Voila! It's amazing that such simple conclusions were under people's noses for so long. Vijayamma's book is good for one thing in particular by informing us that the first official celebration of Sathya Sai's birthday on November 23 took place in 1950, the year his ashram 'Prashanti Nilayam' was formally inaugurated:

"Till that day, prominence had not been given to Swami's Birthday. But that day we prayed to Swami to permit us to celebrate it." (p. 161)

Our recent Shirdi Lies exposé turned up the information that many of the momentous events took place in 1943, namely Raju's being bitten by a scorpion, his announcement of being 'Sai Baba', and then his formally leaving home and material attachments. Combined with the newly released school records that conclusively prove that he was a school student between 1936 and 1943, how is it that the official biography contains such appallingly inaccurate information about how these events took place in 1940? How could Raju be bitten by a scorpion in Uravakonda in March 1940 when he was still studying in the Puttaparthi Government-aided Elementary school and would transfer to Kamalapuram in the next three months? How could he declare himself as 'Sai Baba' and the reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba in May 1940 when he was still in the Puttaparthi Elementary school as per the records? And how could he leave home (in Uravakonda) and be free of material attachments in October 1940 when he had gained admittance there in July 1943?

We are dealing with a two-pronged problem; if the events happened with a fourteen-year-old Raju in 1943 then this implies a birthdate of 1929, and if Raju was born in 1929 then this would make him fourteen years of age in 1943. The years 1926 and 1940 don't even figure since neither are supported by the documented and administrative evidence. LIMF tries to fob people off with the following:

"Indian spirituality tends to discourage numerous debates on scholarly details relating to time and space, for it is concerned with a realm beyond time and space. Sri Sathya Sai Baba also disapproves of such debates ... In this light it is not so mystifying that, right from the middle of the 1950s, biographers have accepted 1940 as the year of Declaration. Many important evidences were not readily accessible to researchers at the time - hence, this difference. The year of the Grand Declaration is officially taken as 1940. " - LIMF, p. 149

This argument also flies out of the window when you consider Kasturi's pre-eminent position as Sathya Sai Baba's authorised biographer and his having been granted unfettered access (from 1948 onwards) to the Baba himself in order to collect information, what to speak of being granted permission to speak to the Baba's relatives, friends, classmates and kinsfolk of the village. If it was so easy for the LIMF research team to acquire access to the Baba's school records, why couldn't Kasturi have done it at a time when they were still 'fresh', what to speak of including that information in his work? As we have shown elsewhere, Kasturi's reportage of the 'scorpion bite' incident was decidely sloppy.

Moreoever, we must not forget that we are dealing with an 'Avatar' in Sai Baba, the most powerful Avatar in the history of creation according to him. Consequently, and at least for the sake of his devotees, isn't it appropriate to hammer out all these details and get them correct so that a proper life history can be preserved? One would think that if Jesus Christ had such a great and dominating influence over people for them to divide Time itself into 'Before Christ' and 'Anno Domini' eras, how much more chance exists of a similar division taking place in honour of the great 'Sai Avatar'?

The intrinsic message of this series of articles is to highlight a grand deception and massive cover-up that is going on with Sathya Sai Baba. The usurpation of Sri Aurobindo's "Avatar date" was itself a shameless act in itself, but to proceed with a wholesale arrogation of Shirdi Sai Baba's name and fame and continue the deception for several decades is an action of breathless arrogance and complete disregard for truth and righteousness, ironically two of the values that 'Sathya' Sai Baba appears to stand for. It remains to be seen for how long Raju & Co. can keep up with the charade until the whole empire comes crumbling down by itself, creaking on it's own weak foundations.

One | Two | Three | Four

Sai Baba's School Records - A New Light 3

One | Two | Three | Four

A major problem in trying to understand Sathya Sai Baba's life relates to relying heavily on 'official' material, such as the authorised 'Sathyam Sivam Sundaram' hagiogaphy by N. Kasturi, whose authenticity and reliability have come under serious scrutiny. A common misconception relating to the young Sai Baba (as Sathyanarayana Raju) is the assumption of his continuance of education in nearby Bukkapatnam, all because it happens to be the neighbouring town. Meticulous research by way of analysing all of Raju's available school records show his education movements as follows:

Puttaparthi - Kamalapuram - Bukkapatnam - Uravakonda

The reason given to account for such upheaval relates to how Raju's parents entrusted the responsibility of his education to their eldest son, Seshama, who was a teacher by occupation and was himself frequently transferred around the district to teach. Consequently Raju followed his brother and lived in the same house along with him, his sister-in-law and her relatives. And so Raju was transferred from the Government-aided Elementary School in Puttaparthi to the Board Middle School in Kamalapuram. Thanks to Seshama's disruptive transfers, he was transferred from there to the Samithi Elementary School at Bukkapatnam. For the first time Raju's transfer certificate (from Kamalapuram to Bukkapatnam) has been released on the Internet and which furnishes us with the following salient information:

(Click to enlarge)

Name of the school which the pupil is leaving: B.M. School Kamalapuram
Name of the pupil: Ratnakaram Satyanarayana
Date of birth as entered in the admission register: 4.10.1929 (Fourth October Nineteen Twenty Nine)
Class or form in which the pupil was [unintelligible] at the time of leaving (in words): First Form
Date of admission or promotion to that class or form: 11.6.40
Date when the pupil actually left the school: 22.4.41
Date on which application for transfer certificate was made on behalf of the pupil by the parent or guardian: 20.6.41
Date of transfer certificate: 20.6.41

The significance here is of a second official administrative document listing Raju's birthdate as October 4 1929 and that this was declared as such on June 11 1940, the date of Raju's admission to the Kamalapuram school. To follow Seshama to Bukkapatnam and join the school there, Raju left Kamalapuram on April 22 1941, and that the transfer certificate was filed after the fact (June 20 1941), a period of just under two whole months. These figures fit in very nicely with the information contained in the Bukkapatnam record, namely that Raju's admission to the 8th Standard (Form One) took place on July 5 1941, a month and one week after he had left Kamalapuram, and just around two weeks after the transfer certificate was filed. There, again, Raju's birthdate of October 4 1929 was listed in the Bukkapatnam records.

After Seshama was transferred again, Raju was admitted into the Karibasavaswami District Board High School in Uravakonda. His records of admission there turn up more unusual and salient facts:

(Click to enlarge)

Student Number: 422
Name in full: R. Satyanarayana
House or village name: Rathanaharam
Parent: R.P. Venkappa
Residence: Puttaparthi
Ocupation of parent or guardian: Teacher
Date of admission: 1-7-43
Date of birth: 4-10-39 [See notes below]
Religion: Hindu
Caste: Rajapuri
Class on admission: III F.

With the appearance of a third official administrative document (again released for the first time on the Internet) we get the information that Raju was admitted to the Uravakonda school on July 1 1943 and straight into Form Three. This is an educational impossibility for Raju to skip an an entire year (Form Two) after apparently passing Form One at Bukkapatnam. LIMF posits that since over a year had passed between Raju's leaving of Bukkapatnam (April 6 1942) it was possible that he was personally tutored at home by Seshama. The birthdate here presents a curiosity of sorts; whereas the original entry stated October 4 1939 (and even spelled out as 'October Thirty nine'), a close look at the record reveals an apparent correction of October 4 1929, that too being spelled out as 'Fourth October Nineteen Twenty Nine'.

A partially legible note on the right side of the record appears to clarify this correction and states thus:

"Compared with --- original --- --- & date of birth corrected as 4.10.1929. (p. 32 of the --- regs.)"

As far as this note is legible, this correction was made on August 11 1976! The writer of that note has also appended it with his signature in two places, at the date correction and after the clarificatory note. It is a pity that people tend not to write too clearly and that time also tends to ravage sensitive documents, but it is a stupendous achievement that we have no less than three independent pieces of evidence that confirm Sathyanarayana Raju's birthdate as October 4 1929, and that the major pieces - further research notwithstanding - all fit neatly together.

This "controversy" can now be put to bed, but not before some further musings. You didn't really think it was over yet, did you? ;-)

One | Two | Three | Four

Sai Baba's School Records - A New Light 2

One | Two | Three | Four

Criticisms of Sai Baba's Bukkapatnam school record usually employ a tactic of avoidance, the noted characteristic to deflect attention away from Baba's (then Sathyanarayana Raju) details by focusing on the details of others. In this way, the school record has suffered criticism over the untenable birthdates of other students. For a start, ten of the 12 students listed (in the cropped image, the full record lists sixteen students) all share a birthday of July 1st, that is, July 1st in the years 1925, 1926, 1933, 1934 and 1935. Along with this, the surname of 'Frakrodeem' (student no. 470) is 'Puttaparthi'. Critics contend that since Puttaparthi is the name of Raju's home village it cannot also be a surname. While Raju is listed as being admitted into the 8th Standard, every other student is shown as being admitted into the 1st Standard with two students listed as being 3-4 years older than Raju. In the words of the critic, "that simply is not possible!"

It is a clear improbability for 10 students in a small backwoods village to all share the same birthdate. Considering this along with some other minor discrepancies, considerable doubt has been thrown on the authenticity of the school record itself. In my opinion that is going too far, because the photostat of the school record is a true and correct scan of the original that is kept in the records of the Samithi Elementary School, Bukkapatnam. This doesn't assist in solving the puzzle of Raju's recorded birthdate of Ocotber 4 1929, and so the following extract from LIMF has been offered by critics and sceptics alike in an attempt at explanation:

"Sathya's date of birth in school records, however, is recorded as the 4th of October 1929 - and not the traditionally recognized date of the 23rd of November 1926. Talipineni Kesappa, son of Talipineni Ramappa maintains that Sathya was one year senior to him at school; therefore, Kesappa's date of birth being 11th of June 1927, Sathya's year of birth definitely is 1926. It has long been a practice in the schools to record a date of birth as being much later than the 'actual' date of birth - in order to facilitate career prospects. Sathya's parents wanted Sathya to become an educated officer. This, possibly could be the reason for the discrepancy. In addition, in 1926, people in remote villages like Puttaparthi, in pre-independent India, were not very particular about dates and birth registration was done much later." - LIMF, p. 68.

Critics have drawn attention to remarks made by Littler Mendelson Bacon & Dear PLLC (an India-related law firm):

"School records and 'birth records' issued by a hospital or church are insufficient substitutes for birth certificates ... Prior to 1970, however, reporting of births was voluntary."

All that may sound impressive but these are yet more devices to apologise for Raju's traditional birthdate (Nov. 23 1926). Critics also allege that since Raju (as 'Sathya Sai Baba') has made only one overseas visit to Africa, his passport would show a birthdate that can be held to be true since it is generally assumed that passports contain correct legal information. This is not strictly true: a member of my own family has an incorrectly recorded birthdate and their passport reflects this. This was most probably due to the pre-Independence situation in India when birthdates and other information were not strictly recorded, but the fact remains that this error has been perpetuated. In the same way this poor argument works negatively against Sathya Sai Baba; if people were really disinclined to record information correctly, who is to say that November 23 1926 is the correct birthdate since Raju and his family never recorded it as such?

All of these problems have a solution. :-)

Due to the pre-Independence situation of not keeping records correctly, is it at all surprising that that ten students share the same birthdate with differing years? Who knows whether the families of the students were not in posession of the knowledge, or whether it was down to a lazy school clerk who just rubber-stamped the papers and put them in his outbox?

Is it really that important if Frakrodeem's surname is 'Puttaparthi', the name of the village? Perhaps Frakodeem and/or his family wished to be known as in ancient times according to the land of their birth; 'Frakrodeem of Puttaparthi', as exists in classical literature. Alternatively, the sad situation in third-world India is that many poor people are largely illiterate and have no knowledge of their own family background and social strata, so it is again unsurprising that poor Frakrodeem may not have known his surname and just agreed to be known as a resident of the village. Or it could be that lazy clerk again who had deadlines and targets to meet.

When critics point out the discrepancy in the record of the difference between the 1st and 8th Standards, the reveal their appalling ignorance of conventional Indian education standards. I guess you just have to be brought up in India to know that the 8th Standard is also known as 'Form One', and that this is what is noted in the Bukkapatnam school record when other students are noted as being admitted in the "1st Standard". '1st Standard' and 'Form One' are two different things altogether. This is supported by the details in LIMF, and a fuller analysis of Raju's school years will be carried out at a later date. One would also be wise to note that, unlike in Western educational systems, students are not always categorised and taught by age but by educational achievement. In India it is entirely possible to be 'promoted' and 'demoted' according to exam results and other factors, and to be in a class with students of assorted ages. Of course the general trend is to 'maintain' one's position along with one's peers and to graduate and pass to the next class accordingly, as demotion to study the class again with the junior chaps would be humiliating. However in a backwoods and illiterate poor village like Puttaparthi and Bukkapatnam, the students cannot be expected to be as fastidious.

Anyhow we may note that the majority of the criticisms have been neutralised. All that remains is to explain how and why October 4 1929 is the true birthdate of Raju aka Sathya Sai Baba.

One | Two | Three | Four

Sai Baba's School Records - A New Light

One | Two | Three | Four

For some years a simmering controversy on the subject of Sathya Sai Baba's true date of birth has continued to send ripples through the bearings of the whole Sai scandal. Before I proceed to relate my own findings and reflections on the same, I'll attempt to offer the readers a refresher regarding the background of this subject.

This issue was first broached by Hari Sampath in an article for ExBaba.Com, wherein the book 'Love Is My Form' (published 2000, henceforth referred to as 'LIMF') was used as a major source for this claim. To wit, a photostat in LIMF of Sai Baba's school records at Bukkapatnam (a town near his home village of Puttaparthi) was scanned and produced that appeared to evidence the following points:

Sai Baba (real name Sathyanarayana Raju) was born on October 4 1929.
According to Indian matriculation levels, Raju was in the 8th Standard at the time.
Raju was a student of the school on and around July 5 1941 as the date of the record itself is evidence of this, having been dated as such.
Mention is made of an exam scheduled for April 6 1942.

Raju is listed under Entry No. 466:

(Click to enlarge)

Why these facts are important is because, for one thing, since 1950 Raju's birthday has been celebrated on the date of November 23, 1926. Raju is also supposed to have declared his divinity in May 1940 and even went further as to leave home and become a 'full-time' avatar later that year (October 20, 1940). Clearly the dating of these events are contradicted by his school records. Although Sampath made it very clear in later addendums that he was personally convinced that the twin events of the declaration of divinity and the assumption of avatarhood were both false and never happened as real historical events, he stated that he brought all these facts to light in order to highlight the inconsistencies that exist between official administrative documents and the legend.

Following Sampath's arguments, one may ask of the significance of Novermber 23, 1926 and why that date was selected for birthday celebrations? The easy answer is Sri Aurobindo, who, on November 24, 1926, declared the following:

"November 24, 1926, was the descent of Krishna into the physical. A power infallible shall lead the thought. In earthly hearts kindle the Immortal's Fire, even the multitude shall hear the voice."

Unsurprisingly, Sai devotees have seized on this as proof of Sai Baba's divinity and identity with God (Krishna) with no exception, given their belief that Aurobindo was referring to the Baba who was supposedly born on the previous day (Nov. 23). The main problem with this idea is that the followers of Aurobindo widely believe that he was referring to the descent of "Krishna consciousness" into himself, being that he had been in a meditative trance for a long while and had emerged out of said trance on November 24 to inform his followers of his revelation. As an interesting aside, Aurobindo largely retired from public interactions from that date onwards and preferred to spend long periods of time in seclusion while communicating with his followers via letters. Incorrigible Sai devotees seize on that too, presenting it as an example of Aurobindo's taking of voluntary retirement after handing the reins over to "God incarnate"!

Be that as it may, the Aurobindo theory is the most likely explanation for the selection of November 23 1926 as the official birthday of Sathyanarayana Raju. Contemporaneous saints such as Aurobindo, Ramana Maharshi, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Swami Vivekananda and others were very famous in those days, so it is not unlikely that Raju & Co. had heard of Aurobindo and his cryptic pronouncement. What happened next appears to be a sordid example of gross misrepresentationa and a hijacking of a saint's inheritance by way of deliberate deception and wilful concoctions in order to support an "avatarhood" house of cards.

Of course, this theory along with it's supporting evidence cannot be expected to appeal to all. One vociferous critic, Gerald 'Joe' Moreno, had much to say in rebuttal although this is not to affirm said rebuttals as correct or worthy of response. For a start, Moreno made a big hue and cry over the status and price of LIMF, affirming that the text was a private venture that was not approved or authenticated by the Sri Sathya Sai Books & Publications Trust. Given that LIMF is a monumental research work that involved extensive interviewing of Sathya Sai Baba's surviving relatives, friends and classmates over a period of seven years, it is inevitable that new facts would turn up as they have done, and that this in itself does not invalidate the work itself. Complaining about the price of the work ($149.95 hardback, $55.11 paperback) was particularly laughable, especially Moreno's contention that it was "undeniable that the prime motive to make this volume series was money". As a point of interest, a former devotee has been kind enough to donate his copy of LIMF to me for free and I can personally testify to the sheer bulk of the book! It is indeed a work of extraordinary size, and I have trouble holding it in my arms to read it without any form of support.

Bearing this in mind, I think that the expensive price is entirely reasonable when considering the bulkiness of the volume. In the next part of this series, I'll address more of Moreno's shallow criticisms and explain how - in the light of new evidence - they will now be untenable.

One | Two | Three | Four

Sai Baba's School Records Index

A Full Exposure of Sathya Sai Baba's date of birth and related issues and featuring never before released evidence of the Baba's school records. Complete re-evaluation of the facts in the light of new research that blows apart unquestioned and accepted histories related to the birth and school education of Sathyanarayana Raju aka Sathya Sai Baba.

A New Light - | Introduction | Bukkapatnam school record discussion | Reveals D.O.B. as October 4, 1929 | Discussion of Sri Aurobindo's cryptic remark | Aurobindo hijacked by Sai colluders | Gerald Moreno's criticisms ridiculed |

A New Light 2 - | Criticisms continued | Inconsistent entries on Bukkapatnam record | Bukkapatnam record is not fraudulent | Apologetic explanations for 1929 birthdate | Passports are not evidence of true birthdates | Explanation for Bukkapatnam inconsistent entries | 8th Standard is equal to 'Form One' | Indian education dissimilar to Western education |

A New Light 3 - | Actual sequence of Raju's education different from 'official' sources | Seshama Raju's frequent job transfers | First-time release of Kamalapuram transfer record | Reveals D.O.B. as October 4, 1929 (spelled out) | Transfer form filed after the fact | Raju transferred to Uravakonda | First-time release of Uravakonda school record | Reveals D.O.B. as October 4, 1939 (later corrected year to 1929) | Existence of all three independent evidences confirms 1929 birthdate |

A New Light 4 - | Recap of topic | Recap of apologetic explanations | Facilitation of Raju's career prospects is laughable | Vijayamma Hemchand appears to confirm 1929 birthdate | Problematic 'Declaration' date resolved with 1929 birthdate | First November 23rd Birthday celebration in 1950 | Discussion in light of Shirdi Lies | 1926 and 1940 dates declared an impossibility | Kasturi's sloppy research | Consideration of correct 'Avatar' birthday | Decades of systematic deception | Conclusion |

No more arguments.

Sathya Sai Baba was born on

October 4th 1929.

15 October 2006

Needs To Get A Life

Vinayak Krishna Gokak, eminent author and devotee had the following to say about Sathya Sai Baba in his book, 'The Man And The Avatar':

"Baba has no life of his own." - p. 39.

No kidding. But not to worry, here you go Swami. This one's on me:

13 October 2006

Shashi Tharoor - What Went Wrong?

Since we have adequately covered the Sai Baba angle on the Shashi Tharoor UN appointment saga, we felt that an editorial by a respected Indian journalist would help clarify matters and make it easier to understand why Tharoor's candidature was flawed from the beginning:

Shashi Tharoor's defeat was staring at Govt's face

- G. Parthasarathy

"The Manmohan Singh Government seems to have become increasingly accident prone in recent days. Ill-considered actions inevitably lead to disastrous results. We have seen the brazen and arrogant Pakistani reaction to our concerns about the involvement of Pakistan-based terrorist groups, the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba and the Jaish-e-Mohammed in the 7/11 Mumbai bomb blasts. This was inevitable following ill-advised statements in Havana suggesting that Pakistan, like India, is a 'victim of terrorism' and the decision to set up a joint mechanism to deal with terrorism. Coming close on the heels of this setback, is yet another major international rebuff for India, with its candidate for the post of UN Secretary General, Shashi Tharoor, being forced to acknowledge defeat and withdraw his candidature.

"Tharoor found that he had consistently trailed behind his South Korean rival Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon in 'straw polls' of the 15 UN Security Council members. He eventually had his candidature rejected and killed by opposition from a Permanent Member of the Security Council. Professional diplomats in South Block with years of experience of the UN had, from the very outset, warned that Tharoor's candidature was doomed to failure. The candidature was announced with no prior consultations with our permanent mission to the UN and without consultations with even a single permanent member of the UN Security Council. Moreover, past experience has shown that any candidate who does not enjoy the support of either the US or China will find that the US and China will make common cause behind the scenes, to have him defeated. It was quite evident following Manmohan Singh's visit to St Petersburg that even a traditional friend like Russia was unwilling to publicly support Tharoor's candidature.

"When President Bush made it clear that he favoured a candidate from East Asia, it should have been evident that the Americans would not, in an ultimate analysis, back Tharoor. Tharoor would have been well advised to back off when he received only eight out of 15 positive votes in the third "straw poll". He instead chose to brazen it out and had to be forced out of the reckoning in the fourth poll when he faced a veto from a permanent member of the Security Council, with little doubt now that his candidature was killed by American opposition. It could, of course, be argued that no great harm has been caused by this episode. This would be a serious error of judgement. It took us nearly a decade to recover from the trouncing we received by 142 votes to 40 when we challenged Japan for a seat to the UN Security Council in 1996.

"Across the world, the word will go around that when push came to shove the Americans preferred to back a traditional ally, rather than a country they claim is a new found "strategic partner". And it will be noted that the Americans have had intensive backroom consultation with the Chinese on this issue, much to the embarrassment of India. What is most regrettable about this setback is that it comes after a decade of patient diplomacy had resulted in a new international profile for India with its membership of the East Asia Summit, its participation as a partner with major industrial powers at G-8 Summits, the establishment of the South Africa, Brazil, India Strategic Triangle and its resounding success in obtaining support this year for election to the UN Human Rights Commission.

"It is fashionable in the present dispensation for Government's cheer leaders in the media and elsewhere to ridicule the views of those with specialised experience in fields like diplomacy, national security or nuclear energy by labelling their views as being 'outdated' and not in consonance with the 'out-of-the-box' thinking that is supposed to lead to greater domestic and international glory for the country. One hopes that the Tharoor debacle will lead to the Government carefully weighing the pros and cons of its actions, rather than rushing to embrace 'out-of-the-box' initiatives in foreign policy-initiatives that can only embarrass the country."

10 October 2006

Tharoor UN Nomination Flops

This comes a bit late in the day, but 'tis worthwhile to report that Shashi Tharoor's candidature and nomination to the UN Secretary-General post (after it is vacated by Kofi Annan at the end of this yeaR) has comprehensively failed.

According to reports (5th October):

"The Security Council has conducted four straw polls, on 24 July, 14 September, 28 September and 2 October in which each of the 15 member states were asked whether they would 'encourage' or 'discourage' each of the official candidates (or if they had 'no opinion' on the candidate). Ban Ki-moon topped each of these polls. In the fourth poll, Ban emerged as the only candidate with the support of all five permanent members, each of whom has the power to veto candidates. After the vote, Shashi Tharoor, who finished second, withdrew his candidacy and China's Permanent Representative to the UN told reporters that 'it is quite clear from today's straw poll that Minister Ban Ki-moon is the candidate that the Security Council will recommend to the General Assembly'."

For the record, Tharoor ran a close second in each of the straw polls and finally withdrew from the race after the results of the fourth straw poll were revealed, telling reporters that he was “confident that Ban will win”.

On the 9th October, the Security Council announced its formal nomination of Ban Ki-moon (South Korean candidate) as Secretary General for a 5-year term to run from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2011. After the withdrawal of Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga, Ban Ki-moon was the sole candidate for the position. His appointment will take effect after the 192 member General Assembly gives final approval.

This news will bring relief and joy to the worried and anxious hearts who feared the consequences brought about by Sai Baba's man in the UN wielding power like anything. Despite his questionable devotion to Sathya Sai Baba, Tharoor's nomination has proven unsuccessful and this yet another occasion where the goons of Puttaparthi will tear out their hair and scream in frustration, having lost yet another opportunity to publicise and boast of their attainments as well as the expected pride and preening about the man from Kerala rising to a position of global power.

Politicians and rising stars take note: Sai Baba brings bad luck. The last great politician who was claimed to be in receipt of the Baba's blessings was a certain Mr. Gore in the year 2000. And we all know what happened there...

Related articles:

Shashi Tharoor: The Sai Baba Connection
Even More Tharoor Tribulations
Rising Opposition To Shashi Tharoor
Vajpayee Endorses Shashi Tharoor
Rationalists Boo Shashi Tharoor
Shashi Tharoor: Next UN Sec-Gen?