Just as I was wondering what the dwindling Sathya Sai Organization would come up with for the 100th centenary of their dead guru’s birthday, a close acquaintance made me aware of literally groundbreaking news: the Central Trust in its infinite wisdom has decided to build new, extra accommodations in Prasanthi Nilayam!
For whom? Well, for all the visiting pilgrims, of course. Or so the CT lets the world know. Everyone who visited Prasanthi Nilayam over the last decade could not fail to notice the lack of occupancy in the existing accommodations but never mind, this new religious movement has a long history of fabricating and grossly exaggerating numbers, so, there you have it: another mysterious move in order to house non-existing guests. Or are these new sheds meant to house the only regular attendants of Prasanthi Nilayam these days, the Indian seva dals? Maybe the western rooms are a bit too fancy for them but the old sheds a bit too corroded and rustic?
Who knows: it’s an enigma.
For all the particulars see the article below, which featured in the Hindu of April 21, a few days ago.
I am sad to report the passing of my friend and colleague Brian Steel earlier this year. After a short period of illness Brian died peacefully at the age of 87 on January 29 2023 in his hometown of Mornington, Victoria, Australia, his daughter Maribel let me know.
Brian, a Brit to his core, was born in Southampton, 3 July 1935, the eldest of 2 sons. He attended grammar school at Taunton and subsequently acquired a scholarship to attend Cambridge, where he read Roman languages, French in particular.
After a chance meeting with a Spanish exchange student, who was to become his wife, Piluca, he steered his lifelong academic endeavours toward Spanish.
In 1966 he applied for a teaching position at Monash University in Melbourne. Brian, his wife and 2 children migrated down under. It was the start of a long and fruitful career as a teacher and academic lexicographer at the department of Spanish, which lasted until his retirement in 1990.
Brian Steel (1935-2023)
Like so many of us, erstwhile devotees of Sathya Sai Baba, Brian stumbled upon this enigmatic figure in the early eighties, as a result of a home video and of the flurry of books that appeared within a decade as personal testimony by Western devotees like Howard Murphet, Samuel Sandweiss and John Hislop (see Necessary personal statement by Brian Steel 2001). Brian, convinced of the veracity of Sathya Sai Baba’s claims of being an avatar and miracle worker, became a devotee, and later traveled to India on several occasions, without ever receiving an interview or having other, psychic ‘visits’ by the guru (significant dreams et cetera).
Being the lifelong linguist and lexicographer that he was, Brian set himself the task of writing a threefold compendium of Sai Baba’s lectures. The first two were indeed published in the ninetees. While working on the last tome, Brian got his first misgivings, as he started noticing serious discrepancies between what Sai Baba actually said and the official translations given. Compounded by the shocking personal accounts of deception and sexual misconduct that were surfacing on the burgeoning internet around the change of the millennium, it caused Brian to reconsider and subsequently change his position into a critical observer of the whole phenomenon. He started connecting with other disaffected, worried devotees and former adherents through mail and chatboxes. Within a year, this resulted in his own website, and a decade or two of close contact with other academics worldwide, nearly all former devotees turned critics, like Robert Priddy of Norway, Barry Pittard of Australia, Alexandra Nagel of the Netherlands and Timothy Conway of the United States.
Brian was no activist. His tone remained always reasoned, his opinions well underpinned and concisely written down, his academic output regarding Sathya Sai Baba prolific and singular. Within scarse more than a decade, Brian produced an exhaustive catalog of hagiographical, apologetic, critical and academia based literature, which served subsequent writers like Tulasi Srinivas well. His sectioned and annotated bibliography is indeed a sine qua non for every academic or journalist who wants to shed light on the controversial nature and intricasies of Sathya Sai Baba.
I myself got to know Brian quite well from 2012 onwards. I was ‘late to the party’, Brian teased me once. (He knew he was wrong: I was early. And only then, late…) We wrote eachother frequently, and oftentimes he would call me, or I him. The private man slowly dissipated as we shared our mutual enthusiasm for languages. Brian was an erudite polyglot, with a vociferous appetite for new language input and cultural differences. He taught himself Hindi, and tried to improve on his Dutch and German with me. The latter two to no great avail, but to our neverending amusement. Brian was a playful friend and a stern taskmaster alike where I was concerned. He set an example how to publish without bias yet to great effect. It was exemplified in his official peer-reviewed book review of Icelandic parapsychologist Erlendur Haraldsson’s revised edition Modern Miracles: Sathya Sai Baba: The Story Of A Modern Day Prophet (2013), which contained deserved criticism of Haraldsson’s work and cited Brian’s, Robert’s and my own internet publications. Brian’s review appeared in the Journal of the Society of Psychical Research (JSPR, April 2015, Vol 79,2, Number 919, pp 112-114 and a few lines of pg 115).
It was a privilege to have known the man. He will be sorely missed.
Sathya Sai Baba was likely the most successful archdeceiver in recent history. And also one of the most prolific sexual molesters of boys and young men. Both allegations have haunted him and his worldwide movement. They have become endemic to his controversial nature and legacy. And yet, his good deeds were allegedly plentiful too. Thus the paradox arises: was he a (flawed) godman with genuine mystical powers? Or was he a twisted individual suffering from a mental disorder? Did he believe himself to be of grandiose proportions? Or was he both?
Wikipedia hassle
The ever changing Wikipedia page on Sathya Sai Baba is testament to the ongoing controversy. Staunch believers have long hindered even the semblance of a balanced review on that platform. Online critics and whistleblowers like Robert Priddy, Barry Pittard, Brian Steel, Serguei Badaev or Conny Larson still go totally unmentioned. Many have dealt with this Wikipedia issue. Robert Priddy certainly did. But none so exhaustive as another learned online critic, British writer Kevin Shepherd. His rich account proves we cannot take Wikipedia contributions at face value. It’s simply not an unbiased encyclopedia.
Wide variety of critics
Sathya Sai Baba critics have been many and varied. Opposers never gave them credit for this. It has been all too easy for them to paint Sai Baba’s questioners with one brush as disgruntled. This is an entirely undeserved misnomer. In fact, they not only consist of former longtime adherents, some even highranking office bearers, like Robert Priddy (head of the Norway organization), Barry Pittard (taught English for over 2 years at Sathya Sai Baba’s college in Whitefield), Glen Meloy, Hari Sampath, Serguei Badaev and the like, each highly educated and devoted, but also include outsider individuals like Kevin Shepherd or the late professor Abraham Kovoor, who challenged all the god-men of India and Sri Lanka. He spearheaded the rationalist challenge to these miracle workers, putting up a reward if they performed one or more of 23 feats. Within the ‘group’ of former adherents positions range from still spiritually interested or invested to (re)turned agnostic.
Even professor Tulasi Srinivas, who supposedly took years familiarizing herself with them, egregiously failed to notice this important fact in her 2010 book Winged Faith: Rethinking Globalisation and Pluralism through the Sathya Sai Movement. She lumped them summarily together as predominantly white and male, another undeserved epithet, as, by doing so, she skipped important Indian critics like Basava Premanand, a former devotee who later became a leader within the Indian Rationalist Society, or female ones like American psychologist Shirley Pike, Dutch academic Alexandra Nagel, Swedish Åsa Samsioe or American outlier Eileen Weed, who lived nearly her whole adult life in Puttaparthi, not as a typical Western devotee but uniquely integrated in the local Indian community, speaking Telugu fluently and looking after two of Sathya Sai Baba’s sisters, Venkamma and Parvatamma over years. Her diaries and online interviews, publicly accessible, are an invaluable asset in uncovering the truth.
Dr. Timothy Conway
In the long list of voices critical of Sathya Sai Baba, American born Timothy Conway deserves a special mention. His scholarly concerns have unjustly been overlooked, whereas I find his exposé, written mainly in 2007, added only by 2 short paragraphs right after Baba’s death in 2011, still of signal clarity and compassion. Conway, a lifelong advaitist (and follower of Sathya Sai Baba until 2001), upholds an extensive website called Enlightened Spirituality.
Timothy Conway Ph.D, 2005
A special entry provides a large overview plus speculations regarding the true character of the downfallen saint: My concerns about Sathya Sai Baba. In a prefatory note Conway says:
His Holiness the Dalai Lama has declared: “If there is any difference between who you are sitting on your throne, and who you are behind the scenes, then you should not be sitting on that throne.” And on two-faced teachers who deny or rationalize their unwholesome hidden behavior, the Dalai Lama says to students of such teachers: “You get out. You let everybody know, you don’t keep it secret.” (Quoted in Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo, Into the Heart of Life, 2011, pp. 161-2)
It is a curious paradox in authentic spirituality that we do best always to see everyone in the most sublime light as embodiments of the One Divine Light, yet we must also be savvy and sharp about injustices, abuses of sentient beings, abuses of Truth, Virtue and Propriety. Jesus taught, “Judge not, lest you be judged.” And yet Jesus himself could be quite “judgmental” and “critical,” even in the most genuine earliest collection of his teachings, as carefully sifted by scholars (such as when he harshly rebuked the greedy money-lenders and threw them out of the temple). Hence, our mature spiritual intelligence needs to be a judge or a critic, that is, an evaluator, of proper and improper behavior occurring in ourselves (first and foremost, ourselves) and also in others, for the sake of the common good. Otherwise, “all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” (a line famously attributed to Irish philosopher-statesman Edmund Burke, d.1797). We can criticize or judge our own behavior and the behavior of apparent “others” (the One Self in disguise) while fully loving them as the Beloved.
Bottom line: while critiquing unseemly and/or illegal, criminal behavior, we need not throw anyone out of our hearts!
My take
This is a forgiving and enlightened, very aimiable point of view if ever I read one. Which is fine, commendable even. I do have a caveat. While lofty as an ideal, for the sake of those who were violated, I find it potentially detrimental to allude to such advaitic notions in a context such as this. Without proper treatment and healing it could open the door to dissociation, rationalization, repression and self-blame even further. An extreme example being that of Yaani Drucker, who was raped in the selfsame pooja room in San Francisco that Conway used to frequent decades ago. She has in her mind transformed the horrific rape into an eerie spiritual transformation point: ‘It never happened, it wasn’t real’. I concur with my colleague Elena Hartgering that ‘Mrs. Drucker’s apparent denial, dissociation, cult-speak and detachment are not healthy measures to be undertaken by rape victims.’ This is not to say Dr. Conway would think differently, when asked. In fact, I am quite sure, given his training and compassionate stance, he would not want to suggest victims of sexual abuse to adopt such a relativistic approach.
Nature and likelihood of the sexual abuse cases
Dr. Conway, in weighing the pros and cons of the veracity of the sexual abuse, first asks why the accused party never used their enormous wealth and power to sue the ‘attackers’ in Indian court for spreading lies and defamation of character. Nor held an open hearing or tried mediation.
Instead, a wall of cowardly silence was erected. A few highly influential people like V. Ramnath, former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee, high court judges Bhagavati and Mishra flatly denied the whole sordid affair. They defamed and slandered the few brave whistleblowers. As did dr. Michael Goldstein, who let Sathya Sai Baba himself get off the hook with one remark: ‘Swami is pure’.
Dr. Conway subdivides 5 categories of reported sexual transgression by Sathya Sai Baba.
Five categories of sexual transgression
1. Having the young boy/man without informed consent drop his pants and oil his lower abdomen and/or genitals.
2. Young male Sai devotees, while fully dressed, having had their penis or groin area touched, played with, fondled, slapped, etc., by Sathya Sai Baba, both inside and outside the interview room.
3. Far less frequently, within the private interview room SSB has asked a youth to drop his trousers, or undone them himself, and then proceeded to manually rub or orally suck on the penis of the male youth.
4. Also far less frequently, SSB has in the private interview room exposed his own genitals and asked the male youth to fondle or suck on his erect, partially erect, or non-erect penis.
5. In a number of cases it has been alleged that, within the private interview room, SSB kissed a young male on the mouth, sometimes for a long period of over 5 seconds, up to 30 seconds or more, and/or hugged a male youth close to him for a similar time-period.
Let’s be clear: it involved sex acts which in some cases led to masturbation, involuntary ejaculation and even anal penetration.
Further down in his exposé, Dr. Conway then explains why these intrusions could remain unheard and unseen (curtain, electric ceiling fan, ambient ashram noise, turning a blind eye or deaf ear), after which he lists 6 groups of sex experiencers.
Six groups of sex experiencers
1. 16 named individuals who went on record up til around the turn of the millennium: from Tal Brooke, Alaya Rahm, Jens Sethi, Mark Roche, Neptune Chapotin, Hans de Kraker, Ulrich Zimmerman and Dr. Naresh Bhatia to Conny Larsson, Krishna Kumar, Jed Geyerhahn, Keith Ord, Marc-Andre St. Jean, Matthijs van der Meer, John Worldie and “Said” Afshin Khorramshahgol. Many with stories covering categories 3 and 4, far beyond the perhaps harder to explain ‘oiling rituals’.
2. A group of around 14 others, known to a trusted few but not formally named yet. Ulli Steckenreuter (long dead) was amongst them.
Together, they constitute a group of around 30, a third of whom were under age (below 18) at the time of their sex experience.
3. There is a third set of experiencers, at least a dozen or a few dozen further cases where we do not have any specific names, but we have verbal and/or written reports from named individuals—their relatives, friends or acquaintances—who knew the experiencers and who were told by these usually unhappy or disgruntled persons to some extent about their sexual contacts from SSB. These experiencers fall into the category of “son of…,” “stepson of…,” “father of…,” “friend of…,” “acquaintance of…,” etc. The time-period and individual nationality reported strongly suggest in most cases that these are additional, unique cases, not merely cases that can be considered as a subset of cases already identified.
4. There is a fourth set of alleged experiencers, some of the signers of the JuST petition posted on the Internet. Robert Priddy and others, me included, know them. I myself signed the petition. And I was an experiencer myself.
5. A fifth set of experiencers, the indiscriminately-labeled “many students in the Sathya Sai Baba schools,” primarily Indian students, referred to in writing or orally by people like David Bailey, Jed Geyerhahn, Krishna Kumar, Meenakshi Srikanth, Mary Garden, Mrs. Bitten Nelson, Andy Reimer, Dr. Naresh Bhatia, Basava Premanand, and Mr. Kamadhani, who were in a position to directly hear these stories from many students.
6. Finally Dr. Conway mentions a sixth set or group of “suspected molestees,” male youth who received notable attention from SSB in the form of one or more private interviews, but who at some point afterward (even very soon afterward) left the ashram and/or the SSB movement, never to be seen or heard again.
Important aside
As an important aside, it must be said that Dr. Conway’s account of the first group of individuals who came forward (‘the 16’) is not exhaustive. There have been quite a few more: Satch Purcell, Josh Kintz, Michael Pender, Kestrel Boyle, an Australian boy named Edward, and fellow Dutchman Bas Engelbarts come to mind. For more information on them, see Priddy’s overview: Major exposure of alleged sexual abuses by Sathya Sai Baba. In 2014, another damning testimony emerged in the shape of a documentary A man called God, that of Hollywood star Kristoff St. John, who says he was abused by Sathya Sai Baba in 1980, while 14 years old.
Dr. Conway’s debunking of every counterargument
Page after page, through rational argumentation and in part expressed in questions to the then chairman dr. Michael Goldstein, in part through careful point-by-point rebuttal in letters to friends and office-bearers who still try and deny or explain away these allegations, Conway makes his case.
1. My questions of Dr. Michael Goldstein; 2. A letter in 2001 to “Emily” (name changed for privacy), a longtime devotee of SSB and also a close friend; 3. An open letter I wrote in March 2001, commenting on a “damage control” propaganda piece written by Jack Hawley, a prominent author and devotee of Sathya Sai; 4. An open letter in March 2001, commenting on another propaganda piece written by Jagadeesan, a prominent SSB devotee, author, and overseer of the SSB movement in SE Asia (and ongoing advocate for virginity among the youth!); 5. A letter in 2001 to “Anne” (named changed for privacy), a longtime devotee of SSB; 6. A short letter from 2005 to “Sandy” (name changed), a doubting devotee, in which letter I comment on the pathological behavior of the “true believers” who criticized “Sandy” for her doubts about SSB. 7-8. Two more short letters, from Jan. 2007, to “Sandy” in response to her sharing with me a few questions and a long open letter [not reproduced here] written in late 2006 by G. Venkataraman, a scientist and “true believer” in Sathya Sai Baba, a high-ranking deputy in his organization. As part of these two letters I have added some scientific insights on how the incidence of the paranormal around SSB cannot be seen as sufficient evidence of his being “a Divine Incarnation.” Very importantly, I have also added the statement by the Rahm family and their lawyer concerning their court case against the SSB org leadership in the USA, which was self-dismissed on a legal technicality (the SSB org is so fearful that it has structured itself to be unaccountable to the law), and yet that dismissal has been falsely interpreted by SSB org leaders like Venkataraman as an imagined “victory,” when in fact the allegations still stand uncontested as true in the view of many national, international and media organizations.
These pages are required reading for anyone who wants to acquaint himself with nearly every nook and cranny of this debate. It has been unresolved in the public eye, whilst the matter at hand clearly points in just one direction: Sathya Sai Baba was culpable of illegal sex acts. He himself, his devotees and organization responded in a dysfunctional, vindictive, hypocritical and childlike manner to earnest and serious misgivings.
Dr. Conway’s personal explanation of the Sathya Sai Baba phenomenon
How does Dr. Conway explain the apparent two-facedness of the late Sathya Sai Baba? He sums it up in this brief statement:
For what it’s worth, my preferred explanation for all that is good and not-good about Sathya Sai is this: the evidence indicates that the old Shirdi Sai Baba (d.1918) of Maharashtra state, an unbelievably powerful spiritual adept, possibly an avatâra (one who freely incarnates without karmic necessity), has worked through several channels, likely one of whom is the Sathya Narayana Raju / Sathya Sai personality (there are several other notable saints and healers who claim that Shirdi Sai Baba’s holy and powerful influence is behind their ministry, most recently including figures such as Sree Chakravarti of Delhi and Sainathuni Sarath Babujiof Shirdi). But it seems that Sathya Narayana Raju has his own dark shadow side of lust for sex and power, etc., and this has “contaminated” Shirdi Sai’s working through him. This could easily explain how so much good has happened around Sathya Sai—including deep experiences of God-realization for many devotees, while others have had such weird or even terrible and traumatic experiences with Sathya Sai. Again, I daresay this is a “Jekyll-and-Hyde” phenomenon of amazing proportions.
My own point of view
As a firm believer in the true nature of man being spiritual, Dr. Conway’s ‘way out’ of this conundrum makes perfect sense. Is it a way out? I find myself more on the fence than I care to admit, mainly through some amazing first hand experience with the prematurely deceased guru (85 instead of 96).
Let’s just say I have encountered both the Dr. Jekyll and the mister Hyde aspect of Sathya Sai Baba. I personally witnessed some miraculous events I still cannot rationally explain AND I personally suffered the sexual transgression. Which I cannot deny either. So yes, me too.
To say Sathya Sai Baba was deeply flawed and should have paid the price of a trial and conviction, plus prison time, like Keith Raniere of NXIVM recently (120 years in jail!) and other person centered cult figures these days is a no-brainer to me. That much is for sure.
Why the big load heaped on the shoulders of so few?
Like Nelson Mandela or Gandhi the Mahatma
Like Simone Weil or Dietrich Bonhoeffer
And the small band of others across time
Many not named or else famed and soon-forgotten
Who will walk like these? Who simply will step forward?
*
Standing up, speaking out, stepping forward
Even though, even though – the numbers need to grow
*
Or who will be timid, and show kids how to back-step?
Or who will teach boldness by ourselves being bold?
Like Martin Luther King or Sir Edward ‘Weary’ Dunlop
Like the Dalai Lama or Wangari Maathai
And the small band of others across time
Their eyes on the straight point of their compass of conscience
Simple as a fable, just as pointed, and as true
*
Standing up, speaking out, stepping forward
Even though, even though – their numbers need to grow
*
… Why does it take war before we snap awake?
… Or a Royal Commission before we listen
… To the rivers across the years of people’s tears
… Who have no protection when bullies oppress them
*
Who will step forward? Who simply will speak out?
Why the big load heaped on the shoulders of so few?
Like Malala Yousafzai or Liu Xiaobo
Like the Irish peace women or Andrei Sakharov
And the small band of others across time
Many not named – or else famed and soon forgotten
Who will walk like these? Who will simply step forward?
*
Standing up, speaking out, stepping forward
Even though, even though – the numbers need to grow
*
… Why does it take war before we snap awake?
… Or a Royal Commission before we listen
… To the rivers across the years of people’s tears
… Who have no protection when bullies oppress them
Except when we are –
Standing up, speaking out, stepping forward …
______________________________________________
Barry Pittard
The poem above was written by Australian teacher, poet and musician Barry Pittard near 9 years ago, and published on March 21, 2014, a mere three days after the official annexation of the Crimea by Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. The world, we, did not speak out loud enough, we did not dare or want to. Look what has happened since. Full-size war after Putin invaded Ukrainian territory for the second time, February last year.
Frankly, I do not know whether Barry, one of the first and leading critics of Sathya Sai Baba, see his noteworthy internet site ‘Call for Media and Government Investigation of Sathya Sai Baba And his worldwide cult, the Sathya Sai Organization’, wrote this poem in reaction to this brazen breech of the peace between two neighboring countries, or that he was referring to a much broader issue: us keeping silent after years of serious doubts concerning cult leaders like Sathya Sai Baba, and politicians worldwide.
And victims who keep silent they were abused by Sathya Sai Baba though decades may have gone by. Which is not uncommon, especially when boys and young men are concerned. Even after #MeToo kicked in, men are still having far more trouble coming forward than abused girls and women. The examples are few, which doesn’t help. Indian sexual culture sure does not help either.
Back when I first read it, I took it to be an outcry for justice and peace and love, not by being all lovey-dovey but by showing backbone, thus speaking out, even when we are afraid or it hinders our personal interests.
In the end, to me it is a timeless call for action, gentle yet determined, towards a common purpose of truth and love and an abhorrence of dishonesty, pomp and circumstance and living a lie.
That lie encompasses that of Sathya Sai Baba, who continues to stay in good standing, from the hindutva driven Indian government led by Narendra Modi to scholarly literature like the never questioned bias in favor of Sathya Sai Baba and his movement in Winged Faith by (now) famous academic Tulasi Srinivas. Up till now, more than a decade after Sathya Sai Baba’s premature demise, he and his minions have still dodged the bullet of being seen for what they were: deeply flawed human beings, gifted in some ways, like charisma, dark and ugly when it came (and comes?) to acting responsibly towards the youth entrusted to him and his successors.
Let’s never forget to stand up, speak out and step forward. Or else we’ll never learn to become active nonviolent seekers of truth. Because it doesn’t come naturally. And it’s not easy. But it’s the honorable thing to do. Else we remain a silent majority, committing a sin of omission, not helping whereas we can. It’s not simply a question of moving on, like I tried to make clear in this earlier post: On the topic of moving on.
A few days ago, on November 3, according to an unassuming article in the lyfestyle section of the Hindustan Times (Sri Sathya Sai Divyasmriti Museum will be inaugurated soon in Bengaluru), followed by a few local media outlets, another museum in honour of the late alleged avatar Sathya Sai Baba was opened. As if anyone needed yet one more. But hey, leave it to the Central Tust to celebrate their own golden jubilee by building another useless piece of tawdry, self-serving, touchy-feely, hyperspecial state-of-the-art lifetime digital Phy-gital experience! (Spoiler alert: Not!) It promises to display no less than 15 exhibits! I quote:
… On display are creative recreations of anecdotes from Sri Sathya Sai Baba’s childhood and the experiences of early devotees. One of the exhibits features a touch wall with glimpses from his travelogue and archive images from his Puttaparthi and Bengaluru ashrams. Visitors can also interact with tables that chart the timeline of Baba’s entire life. The museum, which would be a nostalgic and sacred reminiscence for followers and devotees of Sri Sathya Sai Baba, will also inform people about the immense social welfare projects undertaken under his guidance …
An official YouTube teaser, to attract visitors
A true teaser, in hopes to get some visitors, who can reserve a slot from November 9 onwards
Pink elephant
The new pink elephant in the room (and bright piggypink it is!) has been built not in Bengaluru itself, of course, as his late greatness is not important enough to deserve real center stage attention anymore, but on the premises of his erstwhile annex, the Whitefield ashram Brindavan, next to the Kadugodi railway station. Once a restful, tree filled enclave, it was long ago turned into the typical Indian style stock of building blocks in ultra Colorite, with no attention for durability and even fewer trees left, no concern over global warming, only a bit of an upgraded Madame Tussaud’s plus some interactive features every Western museum possesses for 2 decades or so, all to glorify the one and only true ‘godman’, Sathya Sai Baba, who greets you non-hologrammically in gypsum when you enter the building, like Chief Minister Bummai of Karnataka noticed after he cut the ribbon and entered the premises:
The morose statue of SSB on the right. And who’s there on the left but the shifty looking chairman of the Global Trust, the infamous nephew Ratnakar himself?
Why add to the self-glorifying list of dust gathering Sathya Sai Baba museums?
The list of so-called museums commemorating Sathya Sai Baba is quite staggering if one were to discount the fact that almost all are confined to the premises of his ashram Prasanthi Nilayam. Built with much pomp and circumstance in the last decades of the 20th century and a few later on, they were announced with great aplomb, but are failing miserably to live up to modern standards and lack visitors chronically. Their propagandistic and simplistic interior messages are an affront, so that does not help, their seva dal personnel are so robotic they might well be engineered from afar by Tank-Bin, the present firm to make it all hip and interactive. Whether it be the Chaitanya Jyothi Museum, the Eternal Heritage Museum, The Planetarium, they were in total disarray 3 years ago. Likely they are even in worse state than back then.
Divya Weed’s series of inside the ashram video series, including tours of the museums
For a comprehensive look inside the main Puttaparthi ashram and the museums there by former devotee Divya Weed, see her unique insider look YouTube video series here:
Chaitanya Jyothi Museum at Puttaparthi full video
The other ill-fated museum in Prasanthi Nilayam
Is the SSSCT getting desparate?
It is quite clear this whole newest kid on the block ‘museum’ was built on commission by the Central Trust, and with ‘their’ money. Notwithstanding the fact they are still trying to gain influence, there is little to go on that they are making headway. They face fierce competition as new gurus garner attention, like the fake Muddenahalli boy, see my post Sai Baba Copycat gets PM Modi’s Covert Support.
In an unlikely twist of events, PM Narendra Modi, like a number of former PM’s and presidents of India a staunch supporter of the late Sathya Sai Baba, seems to at least surreptitiously endorse the Sathya Sai Baba copycat Madhusudan, as if he were a rightful and worthy heir to the legacy of the late ‘avatar’. (Well, perhaps, he is, as he seems as mendacious and self-deluded, as convinced of his own predictions, and selling his trickery to the highest bidders while donning a renunciate philanthropist life style).
Madhusudan Sai, formerly known as Suskhma Baba, in a characteristic Sathya Sai Baba pose
Modi and the late Sathya Sai Baba
Modi with Sathya Sai BabaModi paying his respects at Sathya Sai Baba’s funeral, April 2011
PM Modi
Narendra Modi, a hindutva hardliner, is prone to do anything promoting the superiority of the Hindu foundations and traditions of the ancient subcontinent that is India. He did so when he was Chief Minister of Gujarat, he does it still, often to the detriment of minority groups, like muslims and members of the LGBTQ+-community. After all, being a religious man of Hindu faith, he is much akin to the conservative ideals the catholic church maintains. Modi is a walking and talking billboard for the veneration of avatars, sadgurus and saddhus whenever and wherever they pop up. Whether Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, Sai Baba of Shirdi, or any other saintly figure, past or present, Modi was and is quick to grant his endorsement. He endorsed Sathya Sai Baba from early on, and did so with a host of other false gurus too (See: Narendra Modi’s love of false Hindu gurus).
The Light Body Drama Boy, Madhusudan
Endorsing a Sathya Sai Baba copycat like Madhusudan, once an inconsequential student of one of his colleges, known mainly for his keen impersonations of others, Sathya Sai Baba included, and subsequent failures in business enterprises, is a different kettle of fish. Madhusudan and his clique have in a mere decade caused a major rift in the Sathya Sai Baba community, starting their own ashram in Muddenahalli, some 200 miles from Prasanthi Nilayam, and luring ever more devotees away to his once tawdry side show, which went from welcoming the ‘subtle appearance’ of the late Sathya Sai Baba to becoming his mouthpiece to embodying him in full since 2019. Madhusudan´s ashram, Sathya Sai Grama, by now grown beyond recognition, even surpassing Prasanthi Nilayam in pomp and circumstance, his free hospitals, his first-class travels throughout India and abroad, each one of those poses a direct threat to the memory of the late so-called avatar and the flow of money to his Central Trust cronies, like Rathnakar, Anil Kumar and lawyer Naganand.
For this reason, they have from the get-go tried to smother this new guy on the block’s popularity. In 2016, the situation had gotten so dire a public petition was drafted to the PM and the President to disengage themselves from any dealings with this new fraud, see: Petition to stop Muddenahalli scam of sri Sathya Sai Baba impersonation in public interest. If this report is to be believed, Central Trust lawyer Naganand, who signally failed to act against Madhusudan in a timely manner, spoke to Modi directly on the matter in late 2017. Only a picture is produced though, no written report:
Naganand in black, gesticulating whilst talking to Modi, August 8, 2017
Madhusudan Sai
The former college boy Madhusudan Naidu, aided in no small measure by a wealth of money provided by disappointed western Sathya Sai Baba devotee millionaires like Isaac Tigrett, has morphed from a follower of a not-to-be-seen astral Sathya Sai Baba into a mouthpiece of his late greatness to a fully (by Sathya Sai Baba) inhabited Sadguru Madhusudan Sai. Ahh, the stuff that dreams are made of! It boggles the (right) mind, yet needs no genius to see the growing similarities:
Abhaya Hasta blessing gesture
Madhusudan’s claim to have predicted Modi’s rise to power
That this new ‘ship of fools’, as Robert Priddy aptly described the Muddenahalli gang, is every bit as looney and megalomaniacal as His Late Greatness SSB was, is proven by this hilarious post Robert wrote some 5 years ago: Was pm Modi discovered by Madhu Sudan usurper of Sai Baba’s subtle body?
Modi did NOT mention Madhusudan Sai in his video speech, in spite of claims to the contrary
Whereas Modi has never visited Prasanthi Nilayam ever after Sai Baba’s demise in 2011, odd, to say the least, he did present himself on several occasions at inaugurations of hospitals and colleges of ‘the Muddenahalli Group’. He for instance attended the groundlaying ceremony of the Raipur hospital in 2016, in Chattisghar, meanwhile sprinkling a statue of the ‘other’ Sai, that was unveiled on site.
Strange, this unveiling of a Sathya Sai Baba statue in a Madhusudan-governed hospital to be…
And only a few weeks ago, he gave an online speech lauding the opening of a children’s heart hospital belonging to the Sathya Sai Sanjeevani faction in Fiji, where none other than their leader Madhusudan was the guest of honour!
Struggle for government approval
It is safe to say that both the original organisation, that of Sathya Sai Baba’s Central Trust, which recently got a district named after their late guru (See: Furor over the new sri Sathya Sai District Headquarters), and the new Muddenahalli-based organisation, which gains credits with state governors already, are vying for government approval in the highest levels. This is not new, of course. It’s an age-old tradition, perfected by the late Sathya Sai Baba and his helpers themselves, only now to be in danger of being toppled by a newer, savvier, richer and as yet asexual (?) guru wannabee. Who has at least the advantage of being alive…
Sadguru Madhusudan, wearing a COVID-mouthpiece in a matching colour with his garment
The whole dreary, tedious ceremony was aired live, with some 30 plus minutes just seeing the tomb with the interred guru inside, followed by the ever busy Sri Naganand. (See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pK59LSfkcM, especially from 40 minutes onwards). He gave the particulars on the present state of the global council, which I will delve into some more later in this post.
Saibliss
In the days leading up to the grand occasion, rather pathetic declarations were issued, like the one by Saibliss, a Facebook group consisting of more than 40.000 devotees closely aligned to the Central Trust and professor Anil Kumar, in which the rumour is spread that ‘Australian office bearers resign enmass’ (from the SSSIO that is). Or the link to everyone in the USA to join the Global Council, a clear attempt to sow division. Or the congratulatory letter proving that the entire populace of Mauritius no less (a tiny island state) ‘made the right choice’ (leave the SSSIO) and decided to join the GC, signed by Chakravarthi himself.
‘Blessed the rain droplets’
In a ridiculously flowery post, Saibliss also announced that ‘Even the rain droplets must be blessed to fall in the holy abode of our beloved Lord’, the only understatement being the fact that it clearly was pouring with rain that day.
Naganand’s speech
Naganand then rewrote history in order to claim the Central Trust as the main executive of the Indian and foreign Sathya Sai Organisations after the death of their guru. He underpinned this rather vain claim by stating that the United Nations had after all given the Central Trust ‘special consultative status’ (meaning NOT the international organisation). Without delivering a shred of evidence he went on to state that 90 per cent of the centres worldwide had by then signed up to the Global Council (‘over 800’). After assuring everyone the Central Trust has no right of veto, and only has 3 members in the national and international executive bodies of the Global Council, Naganand stated that ‘… It (the Sri Sathya Sai Global Council) is truly a representative body of the entire Sai world, in India and abroad.'(049:36:00 ff).
‘The spirit of the Global Council is Unity, Unity, Unity’
‘The Global Council will provide a forum for all Sai organisations to come together, sit together, discuss in a spirit of cooperation, friendship, mutual respect and independence. The object of this body is to unify the entire Sai world, so that each will know what the other is doing, and policy decisions can be taken at the level of the Global Council, keeping in mind the partical differences among countries, regions and certain areas which require special treatment due to local conditions and regulations. The spirit of the Global Council is unity, unity, unity. I would like to conclude with the assurance that the Global Council will conduct itself in a free and fair manner. The Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust has no intention or desire to controll either the All India sai Organisation nor the International Sai organisation, which is spread all over the world.’
Convocation by the ‘Big Shots’
Then the pivotal moment came when 3 of the members of the Central Trust, Naganand, Chakravarthi and Rathnakar, plus Nimish Pandya (leader of the SSSSO of India) offered the Global Council at the feet of the master’s tomb. In its typical childish, taudry way, a shiny, translucent globe of sorts was offered, with a cardboardlike figurine of Sathya Sai Baba in front of it and a bunch of flags, to seal the deal (no flag of the USA discernable).
The Globe representing the Global Council
Pomp and Circumstance
The Globe, the pile of subscribers and the cardboard figure of Sathya Sai Baba
Where does this leave the Sri Sathya Sai International Organisation? Chakravarthi speaks…
The speech by Naganand did not address the huge elephant in the room, namely the continued opposition by the Sri Sathya Sai International Organisation to join the Global Council, which I detailed in my previous 2 posts. Chakravarthi however, in his ‘welcoming the GC speech’, from 58 minutes onwards (until 1:04:41), deals with the topic as condescendingly as he deems effective.
Chakravarthi
´The arms of the Sri Sathya Sai Global Council are waiting to embrace all those who have not yet registered, and are awaiting their homecoming’, he eulogizes.´Whereas´, he vilifies, ‘those who refer to this place as adharmic´ (1:00:44)’, ´they rile.´‘This place will make adharmic people be dharmic, not the other way around. All the lives of those who have taken the correct decision (i.e. choose to become members of the GC) will be purified by the pervading divinity here.’‘The Global Council by its very nature stands sanctified’. It is of course a little disheartening that all the Sri Sathya Sai Centres in all the countries have not yet formally joined, although they have a place in the Sri Sathya Sai Global Council by virtue of their being Sri Sathya Sai Centres in different parts of the world.’ ‘Possibly, with a varying period of maturation for these Sri Sathya Sai Centres to claim their rightful place in the hallowed Sri Sathya Sai Global Council.…’ On their way to join the Sri Sathya Sai Global Council a few countries and Sri Sathya Sai centres seem to be bedeviled by misconceptions borne out of fear (?) and error or deliberate falsification of the intent and objective behind the setting up of the Sri Sathya Sai Global Council. As you are all aware, we have two seva organisations, one for India and another for the countries overseas. As such the identity of the two arms has not been disturbed. The Sri Sathya Sai Global Council is conceived as inclusive of both. And as such, there is no question of a choice being asked to be exercised between the Sri Sathya Sai organisations overseas and the Sri Sathya Sai Global Council, since the devotees are naturally part of Prasanthi Nilayam. It is pertinentto remark at this stage that when announcing the setting up of the Sri Sathya Sai Global Council, it was made clear that all the functionaries at various levels will continue because all of them are seen as doing seva to Bhagawan. We take it that there is a time and hour for those that have not joined the Sri Sathya Sai Global Council to do so. It is my hope and prayer to Bhagawan that it will not take much time for them also to take their legitimate place in the Sri Sathya Sai Global Council. This body of the Sri Sathya Sai Global Council will, I hope and pray, become a common, divine platform for all those engaged in furthering andstrenghthening the Sai mission across the globe.Wishing you all a happy and holy Guru Poornima, I am placing my reverential pranams at the holy lotus feet of Bhagawan. Jai Sai Ram, thank you.’
Nimish Pandya, the all India president and newly appointed vice-chairman of the Global Council, underpins Chakravarthi’s take
In a feverish and propagandistic tone of voice, Sri Nimish Pandya then took center stage to give his two cents. In short, he alleges it is a no-brainer to commit oneself to the Global Council. India, the nation bearing 95 per cent of all the devotees across the globe, chose from the heart. Half of the USA centres have done so also, like the UK, South Africa and Nepal, he went on. Without being rooted in Prasanthi Nilayam, there is no future or nourishment for whatever organisation.
Sri Nimish Pandya
A clever amalgam of Sathya Sai Baba’s discourses clinches the dedication
From roughly 1:19:00 onwards, a lengthy and convincing exposé is presented, copiously using direct quotes by Sai Baba himself from various discourses, in order to cast suspicion on the position of the SSSIO.
A few countries though? Really?
If we are to believe the ‘few countries’ that haven’t joined, and we turn to the website of the SSSIO, we come across a still very different narrative. It is that of a heavily besieged organisation, that has set up a Helpline for their member countries, centres and devotees. They also lay claim to still 107 countries that have not joined the Global Council: if correct, that’s not a few. The SSSIO also goes into great detail, earlier done by me in my previous posts, to underpin their point of view, including the different TOR’s and a masterclass by old hand, 43 years of service Californian lawyer Robert Baskin.
The SSSIO Helpline
The SSSIO Story
All the while the SSSIO is sticking to their guns. Reddy and the other ‘Western’ big wigs went even further in detailing the present state of events.
The gloves are off. The now arisen power play between the SSSGC and the SSSIO seems to be turning in favour of the Indian based Global Council. The SSSIO has all the hallmarks of an organisation fighting an unwinnable rearguard action. A pity, but such are the age old rules of a political power struggle: divide and conquer. Although Pandya assures this is not Indian domination over the West, but inspiration, there is a not to be missed rift between an autocratic, Indian style of leadership, top down and expecting obedience, and a western style of leadership, open, democratic and more up for debate. In that vein, the global Sathya Sai Movement is in danger of loosing its universal acknowledgement. It’s in serious peril of reverting back to its Indic, Hindu roots, to the detriment of a worldwide appeal.
As I predicted at the end of my latest blogpost, Ugly Turf War between Central Trust and International Organisation, the sworn peace between Sathya Sai Baba’s Central Trust, managed by the deceased guru’s nephew Rathnakar, and the Sathya Sai International branch (SSSIO), headed by Narendranath Reddy, was of short duration. It was in fact no peace at all, more a shortlived truce, as can be gleaned from below correspondence.
No love lost between Rathnakar and Reddy as International Organisation retracts its statement of intent to join the Global Council
This statement can be found on the main site of the SSSIO since little over a week (end of June):
The Stumbling Block? An irate letter by Rathnakar sent to Reddy on June 26 certainly did not help
As can be read below, the joint declaration of intent to join the Global Council, dated June 1, (see below and also in my earlier blog post), was to be finalised by a mutual, signed agreement on two conditions:
No disruption in structure and function of the SSSIO
Mutual acceptance of a so-called TOR, a document pertaining to Terms of Reference
The Joint Statement in question, still present on the site of the Central Trust
According to the SSSIO, and the CT does not deny this, these terms were agreed upon in the cordial Zoom meeting on May 30, and put into writing following the joint statement. Then discussion, phone calls, mails with TORs et cetera were exchanged in order to reach a final agreement. Every semblance of concord ended when Rathnakar sent the following mail message to dr. Reddy on June 26, in reply to a mail by Reddy that I wasn’t able to retrieve. Note the tone and the frequent use of exclamation marks:
Rathnakars Letter
YOUR OWN ACTIONS SHAPE YOUR DESTINY” – BABA – 26 /06/2021 Dr. Narendranath Reddy, Saíram.
Received your mail rejecting the very main clauses of the Sri Sathya Sai Global Council. It is important to mention that you are aware of these clauses right from 16th November 2020, day on which the concept note was circulated to you and Mr. Nimish Pandya. You are also aware that this Unifying initiative, SSSGC, was announced on the most auspicious occasion of Bhagawan’s 95th birthday celebrations. Inspite of receiving uncivil and irrational letters from office bearers of SSSIO accusing SSSCT Trustees and several zoom calls you and your team conducted where vicious and venomous attacks were made, we from SSSCT confined only to giving clarifications to your accusations and tried to appeal to devotees in various centres across countries. We readily came forward for an online zoom meeting accepting your requests on 30th May 2021, putting aside all the innuendos that were made on SSSCT and personal attacks your team heaped on us.
Please understand that we are in the organisations bearing the divine name of “Sri Sathya Sai” where there is neither place for ego nor for self aggrandizement. This is a beautiful organisation created by the loving lord for the sake of devotees and to uplift the entire mankind. This is not our personal organisation where we can bring in our personal agendas and idiosyncrasies. There should not be any clamor for power and positions and endless greed to hold on to our chairs. The main purpose for which we come to the Lotus feet of Sai or join the Sai Organisation is to lose our identity into Him but not to create an identity for ourselves and revel in it.
Painstakingly we have clarified all your concerns and reiterated the position of SSSCT that SSSGC is a Unifying, Coordinating and Supervising body which will not interfere with the structure and functioning of SSSIO and SSSSO. How can we make it a mere superficial body as you are expecting? Please be assured that SSSCT did not initiate SSSGC either to disturb any organisation or to undermine any one of you. If you and your team have any prejudices, preconceived notions, mistrust and wrong opinions about individuals, then you need to deal with such perceptions yourselves, as they are concerned with individual personalities. They cannot be rubbed onto the institutions. Unfortunately you seem to place personal interests above the interests of these sacred and noble institutions started by the Avatar Himself!
In all our exchanges in several meetings, calls and emails, we could not find any logical reason in your unwillingness to accept SSSGC, except your often repeated excuse of ‘divine command’ as published by Dr. Michael Goldstein, in Sanathana Sarathi, 2006. Also, at times you made us feel that SSSIO was only trying to forestall SSSCT actions and was indulging in procrastination. Maybe you are being misguided by Ganguly , Sadanand and the likes!
Our intentions and actions determine the future, and not mere words. You bring up issues like jurisdictions, independence, etc. I wonder whether we understand and appreciate the good fortune of being in such a noble, Divine Sai mission? Swami always emphasised on “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” and that is exactly the fundamental basis of SSSGC.
What jurisdiction can we give to Bhagawan? The whole universe is His jurisdiction!! All organisations bearing His name cannot and should not be divided in the name of jurisdiction. It goes against the very principles that Swami enunciated throughout His Avatarhood!
I feel sad to recollect that in one of your letters, you have mentioned “… removing, or replacing the jurisdictional duties of appointments and reporting of officers, means taking away one of the primal functions of the SSSIO…” The primal function of any Sri Sathya Sai organisation anywhere in the world should be following Bhagawan’s spiritual teachings, participating in community service activities, spreading love and bringing peace and harmony to the society! What have we made of these divine organisations? No point talking about ideals to others, ignoring them ourselves as though they don’t apply to us. You and the team flaunt authority and accuse us of being autocratic and authoritarian!!
We fail to understand the circumstances in which you are in, due to which you are being indecisive. Maybe your team members who attacked SSSGC and SSSCT under your direction must be questioning your joining SSSGC! It was you and SSSIO which sought our meeting after about five months of animosity. We readily agreed and came forward for the sake of brotherhood and it was once again you who was in a hurry to release the Joint Statement and first to release the joint statement to Sai devotees worldover! You have also registered the entire SSSIO, including all the nations and centres en bloc on the SSSGC portal. Now you and the team are backtracking ! Inspite of the clarification and comfort, I and Sri Nimish Pandya gave you during the discussions, you are going back on your word, citing your team members unwillingness!! Only Swami can help to deal with this instability in thinking. I do not know how you will face the devotees? How embarrassed your national council presidents would be to go to centers and face devotees?!
Dr Narendranath Reddy, we have given our 100% and made all possible efforts sincerely to assure you and your team. It is clear to us that you understand our intent, but you appear to be not understanding. Being a reputed and respected organisation, SSSCT is not in a position to be part of any discussion wherein you are unable to come up with any clarity and we are unable to make any headway!! The responsibility of convincing the SSSIO team is entirely yours as we are not involved in that. Please do not blame SSSCT and Trustees or any one for that matter, for your wish to stay away from SSSGC and Prasanthi Nilayam!
Let me affirm that we gave our best to unite SSSIO with Prasanthi Nilayam but SSSIO did not come forward. Top leaders should have clear thinking and cannot be dilly dallying. Without clarity, leaders lose credibility. We have no right to take devotees for granted and think that the centers and devotees will follow us just because we have some positions in the organizations. Expecting devotees to swing to our tunes is not good. Swami will be deeply hurt when we cause confusion amongst devotees. Also, every office bearer should be here only for Swami and not for any of us. If they think they are for “leaders”, they don’t deserve to be part of the noble mission.
You need to appreciate our position that we will be moving forward on the SSSGC. We from SSSCT are committed to the SSSGC and that commitment is made to Bhagawan. We will abide by it. As far as SSSGC is concerned, all Sai organisations are already part of it. We will soon be communicating with all the countries and centers.
We, along with all those Sai children who joined Prasanthi Nilayam, will be making the offering of SSSGC at the Lotus Feet on Gurupoornima, 24th July 2021.
The doors of SSSGC will always be open for you and your team in future, but it will be without any dialogue, mails or calls and will be unconditional. Let me also affirm that SSSCT has initiated SSSGC as it is Bhagawan’s own directive and a safeguard for the future.
I am enclosing Bhagawan’s discourse clips for ready reference.
In Sai Service
R J Rathnakar
First Impressions
Strong stuff, to be sure, this letter by Managing Trustee Rathnakar. Worthy of his reputation as ‘the Don’ of Prasanthi Nilayam, some might think. Safe to say it is richly laden with serious, acerbic accusations towards Dr. Reddy, not unlike before but even more angrily phrased (not here for Swami, self-aggrandizing, unwilling, indecisive, egotistic, seeking personal interest, muddled thinker, flaunting authority). The only difference now is in the threat, or promise if you will, at the very end, where Rathnakar basically says: you shut up now, you and the SSSIO. We (i.e. the Central Trust) will be moving forward unilaterally. You can either sign at the dotted line or stew (… doors always open, but it will be without any dialogue, mails or calls and will be unconditional). On the other hand, I find it quite understandable that some devotees, especially from India (but not all), mainly found active on Facebook, agree with Rathnakar, as he and his trust members seem to make some valid points, not only in this ´tough-love´ letter but also in their Zoom calls I presented earlier. Was Reddy, in cohoots with his Prasanthi Council members Gutter and Harvey, stubbornly and stupidly stonewalling and sandbagging a perfectly sound idea to bring unity where it was lacking??
To further try and split the foreign countries up, this rather sweet-voiced message was put online by the CT after the decision of the SSSIO to remain independent after all was made public.
Reddy’s Convincing Rebuttal
As the initial statement at the top of this page by the SSSIO in response to this onesided step by the CT already makes clear, the SSSIO was quick to react. The SSSIO is NOT part of the Global Council, it firmly stated. In a new declaration of independence the International Organisation sums up 107 countries who jointly agree with this remarkable turn of events, and stick to the SSSIO. The above call to join the SSSGC by the CT evidently did not amount to much. The reason might well be a lengthy Teams-session posted online July 4 on the SSSIO website, showing Reddy, Gutter and Harvey, the leaders of the International Organisation, moderated by Malaysian SSSIO executive Dr. Suresh Govind, in a strong and enlightening rebuttal of the allegations flung at them by the Central Trust. The screenshot is telling as to the scope of subjects discussed by this panel of VIP-devotees and office bearers with a joint total of near 110 years of close, personal contact and experience with Sathya Sai Baba during the master’s lifetime, and another 30 in office after his demise.
Screenshot with contents of the video conference
Some decisive statements that caught my eye and ear: The CT was developed solely for the management of the ashram, schools, hospitals and institutions. It was never intended to have any purview outside India. Another one: The history of the SSSIO harks back decades, and was, by the master himself, in near-constant deliberations with Goldstein, but especially Reddy, often in the presence of Harvey and Gutter, put into place as is around 2004, a wholly independent body to ´spread the word´, not for 50 or 100 years but forever. Like the disciples of Jesus, men like Reddy were to see themselves as apostles in expanding the flock. Also, all the necessary laws and by-laws were drafted and after discussing them with Sai Baba approved by Sai Baba himself, both verbally and in writing (!), including a democratic process of replacing office bearers, up to the highest level. This process went on until Sai Baba’s death. So, to men like Reddy this was divine command, and still is. To come in between swami and his devotees, creating a divide between swami and Prashanti Nilayam for foreign devotees is unacceptable as it is the home for every devotee even before any organisation existed. To set conditions, as the MT does, is adharmic. So Reddy emphatically states: Do you want to follow Bhagawan’s teaching or the instruction of the MT? And at 1:10:37: The Global Council is manmade, the SSSIO and its guidelines were godmade and meant for all times. Gutter elaborates: They erased with the left hand what they have promised and written with the right hand. A salient detail in the video is Chakravarthi’s statement dating back to 2013, where he unequivocally affirms international matters are far beyond the scope or mandate of the CT, as it only has a domestic role (see below video from 1:14:30 onwards). By now however, Chakravarthi is an important member of the CT and appointed Global Council chair, and seems to embrace the totally opposite view. Up til 2015 the independent position of the Prasanthi Council and the International Organisation was not seriously contested. The organisatation’s organogram clearly showed that. See here:
The Sathya Sai Organisation up til 2015, with an independent international and national branch
Reddy went on: We only surrender to Swami, not to the Managing Trustee. Gutter specifically addressed the dispute regarding the differences in the two TORs. He says, in reference to Rathnakar’s letter, that he/the CT insisted on adding a supervisory role and the right to appoint office bearers at every level by the CT within the SSSIO. This is not in accordance with the procedure swami bestowed upon the SSSIO. It violates Bhagawan’s direct instructions. Another hot topic: Are the Prasanthi Council members powerhungry and do they want to cling to their seats? is rebuffed with valid arguments (Many came and went, even after swami’s demise. We have a democratic process for that). In a small but strong intersection, Harvey describes the announcement of the Global Council as a Trojan horse. In conclusion Reddy soothingly said: All is well. No one needs to worry. Even if they want to make us second rate visitors to Prasanthi Nilayam, it is of no consequence. The bond between swami and his devotees does not depend on that. It is eternal and of the heart.
I recommend all who doubt or are simply curious as to what has transpired to watch the whole video:
The interesting and illuminating exposé of the history of the SSSIO and its deeprooted connection to Sai Baba himself
Last Remarks
“You are not going to be missish, I hope, and pretend to be affronted at an idle report. For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbors, and laugh at them in our turn?”
Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen (1813)
Now I personally am no devotee, and have no vested interest in a smooth, unaltered, unified Satyha Sai Baba Organisation remaining in place in whatever shape or form, as I do not share the sole premise these esteemed gentlemen from both sides of the isle DO share, a rocksolid belief in the divineness of their master. Still, it is of interest to see the very thing happen in this organisation that so many starting and even matured religions suffer or suffered from: fractioning, in-fighting, each faction surer than the other to know the will (?) of the (long) gone master. That being said, my sympathy is with the SSSIO, though their Zonal Leaders in my time were one of the reasons to step from the podium (they could be every bit as hideous as Rathnakar and co). I find the SSSIO´s version of events and their firm insistence on independence simply more humane and convincing. But then, is that not due to the mere fact that I am a westerner? Let’s not forget the Indian independent organisation (SSSSO) went along with Rathnakar in a jiffy… Then again, maybe it has something to do with very real, lasting differences between (the traditional religious part of) India and the rest of the world? Different mores and such? Anyhow, for now, the rift is near total.
Without prior notification the Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust (SSSCT) announced the erection of a new legal entity, a Global Council, November last, about a week before the late guru’s 95th birthday. Whereas the Indian based Sri Sathya Sai Seva Organisations (SSSSO), headed by Sri Nimish Pandya, apparently went along with the ‘proposal’ within six hours, the hitherto independent International Organisation (SSSIO), with its headquarters in the United States, did not. On the contrary: they vehemently opposed. Over a period of roughly half a year the conflict obviously got so out of hand that at least 2 members of the Central Trust, Sri Rathnakar, the (in)famous nephew of Sai Baba (see for instance this incisive post) and Managing Trustee, and Sri Naganand, an experienced lawyer, felt the need to publicly step in.
Present members of the SSS Central Trust, June 2021
On the other hand, the accusations made by the International Oganisation’s leaders regarding this initiative by The Central Trust were so serious they could not be ignored nor concealed, as they were part and parcel of the social domain. Reddy and Gutter basically accused the Trust of power grabbing, money grabbing and withholding Covid aid to countries outside India. These accusations were apparently widely shared with central committees and centres all across the globe, in letters, mails and online meetings. The remnant of a letter dated April 13 2021 by Narendra Reddy can be seen in below screenshot (it has recently been taken offline):
The full version can be read here. It was saved by several sources before it disappeared. A similar message, on video, by Leonardo Gutter was preserved also and can be seen here:
As most official letters, mails and internet meetings are by now largely hidden from the general public, what exactly transpired during the last 7 months is difficult to fathom. The Central Trust’s version of events is quite clearcut, in that they view the Global Council as a necessary new overarching body, with Prasanthi Nilayam as the central hub. They accuse the leaders of the International Organisation of letting the topic of ‘the Muddenahalli gang’ slide, and put them in place also regarding the amount of money that was donated to the CT by the IO over the last decade, it being a miserly 2 million dollars, the same amount the Central Trust allegedly pays every month in expenses, if we are to believe Rathnakar.
Miracle Reconciliation
Because the turf war was allegedly all of a sudden over after one, ‘cordial’ Zoom meeting on May 30, clearly decided in favour of the Central Trust, and thus in favour of the Global Council, every previous letter and public announcement by the International Organisation has all but vanished. The following amazing joint statement by SSSCT, SSSSO and SSSIO went out across the planet immediately after, as if all the discord and burning of bridges had never happened:
All lovey-dovey again in the Sai Universe?
One wonders what will become of the International Organisation after Guru Poornima Day (July 24) this year, when the Global Council will be put into actual fact. And one cannot but wonder what will happen to brave men like mr. Gutter, who spoke out in favour of an independent organisation outside India and against the vanity of a Central Trust that once was the sole domain of only the late guru himself. Will this newly found comradery last?
A little over two weeks ago, I put down my phone after a most peculiar and disconcerting conversation with former Dutch academic mr. Harmen Reerink, a now 76-year-old, longstanding VIP-devotee and officebearer of the late guru Sathya Sai Baba. Like I still am, in his working life he was a (child!) psychologist. Mr. Reerink was then based in Amsterdam. He now lives in a town in the East of the country, where he is chairman of a vegetarian based housing project, and is actively involved in seva (serving others in need without personal gain or ego, in accordance with Sathya Sai Baba’s lifelong motto: ‘Love all, serve all’). After many years of being the Chairman of the SSIO (Sathya Sai International Organisation), region Northern Europe, representing 17 countries, until well after the master’s untimely demise in April 2011, he told me he is now ‘only’ the media director of the Dutch Sathya Sai Baba Organisation.
On August 7, 2010, less than a year prior to Sathya Sai Baba’s so-called mahasamadhi (his death being a far cry from the necessary conscious shedding of his mortal coil, see also my post The Sorry Tale of Sathya Sai Baba’s Final Weeks on Earth), mr. Reerink was the chief male representative of a Western group of bhajan chanting devotees (some 300 in all). Before commencing their programme, he was afforded the singular privilege to present the by then clearly wilting ‘living god’ a rose, after which he gave a short speech, as can be seen in this section of a lengthy video of this Northern European gathering in Prashanti Nilayam. Mr. Reerink was the sole caucasian to be allowed on stage the entire duration.
Mr. Reerink presenting his rose Mr. Reerink delivering speech
The reason I reconnected with him was a chance viewing a couple of weeks ago of a long interview on Dutch television, concerning mr. Reerink’s life in connection to Sathya Sai Baba. After a little research I learned that it aired repeatedly since its first release in late 2014 (NPO/OHM). This surprised me greatly, as I had thought the SSB Organisation and its groups and centers had all but vanished after the untimely, ignominious passing away of their leader. This turns out not to be true: to my astonishment, there are 18 groups and centers currently active in the Netherlands! Although these comprise only half the size and the amount of active followers Sathya Sai Baba had before all hell broke loose concerning his alleged homosexual abuse of boys and young men, his misappropriation of funds and his massive, seven decades spanning con as far as miracles and sound predictions go, it is still a sizeable number. Mind you, probably the largest part of the remaining followers are Dutch citizens of Indian descent, stemming from the former Dutch colony Surinam, young and old(er), who are chiefly Hindu, and are therefore much more accustomed to embrace the ‘avatar’ concept.
The abovementioned interview with mr. Reerink on Dutch television (NPO)
I myself first met mr. Reerink some 38 years ago, in the earliest period of the budding Sathya Sai movement in the Netherlands, and knew him intimately during the eighties. A soft-spoken man, he struck me from the get-go as a staunch and unwavering believer in the ‘fact’ that Sathya Sai Baba was God incarnate. He rose in the organisational ranks, and became the leader of region 7, Northern Europe, a position he held for many years.
As I only had second-hand information as to his current view on Sathya Sai Baba’s alleged transgressions, I decided to contact this important spokesperson directly. Doubting if he would speak to me at all if I gave away the fact that I have long since become a non-believer, I presented myself as a wavering devotee of old, who had ‘just’ heard some alarming information. Reassured by this small piece of misinformation, he first of all confided in me that he still received several angry calls a day by anonymous people, shouting things like ‘Satan Sai Baba!!’ This had been going on for years, he told me. He had grown accustomed to this kind of abuse, and knew how to brush off these kinds of verbal attacks. I told him how I had become a psychologist also, not yet retired like him, and was interested to know his direct comment as a fellow academic concerning matters I had come across on the internet. Mr. Reerink then congratulated me on my very good fortune to have become a devotee so early in life, and such a dear one to swami. He had gotten a copy of my translation of the first Sandweiss book signed by Sai Baba himself, he went on, which I had produced and found a reputable publishing house for.
He also remembered the unusual amount of attention that Sai Baba had showered on me, both publicly and privately. Upon asking his opinion on the serial sexual abuse issue, he stoically replied that he knew about this matter, but that it was all done for the best. Who better to ‘cure you of karmic debts and sexual lust’ than the ‘psychiatrist of all psychiatrists’? he asked me in earnest, meaning Sathya Sai Baba of course. As Sai Baba, being God incarnate, could only do good, everything he did must necessarily have been good also, no matter how strange it might have come across, his thought process seemed to run. Did he never harbour any doubts concerning these allegations? I queried in disbelief. ‘No’, he answered. To every bit of disconcerting news I subsequently brought forth, he had a similar, decided response: the untimely death of the master at 84, actually probably 81 (‘No, swami reached the predicted age of 95 alright, according to the Hindu moon calendar’), the massive decline in devotees since the turn of the century (‘In 1985 Sathya Sai Baba already predicted a definite separating the wheat from the chaff.’*), the trick materialisations and healings (‘Why, Chris, they were REAL!’). As a last word of fatherly advise, he urged me to stay on the straight and narrow, not waver or let myself be influenced by blatant lies, stemming from disgruntled, troubled former devotees. Better not to read all this garbage at all, rather concentrating on my ‘inner net’ rather than on the ‘internet’.
The experience left me dumbfounded. How could an educated man, a child psychologist of all people, condone the abuse of children and youngsters? And not only condone, but turn it into a GOOD experience for the many victims?? It eerily resembled VIP-devotee Yaani Drucker’s maddening rationalisation of her own rape, see here, and many, (some much) earlier attempts to suppress the truth by important Western leaders, like John Hislop and his notorious 1981 letters. What was crystal clear to me was the fact that this human being, in spite of all his undoubted good works and his professional education, harboured no doubt whatsoever concerning the Godstatus of his late guru. More, nothing, not even the most abject thing, could change his mind. His belief was blind. He had seemingly entered into a superior state of total surrender, leaving behind any sense of critical questioning, keeping any morsel of news that could disconfirm his belief system at arm’s length or twist it in the most egregious ways to make it fit the desired picture. Apparently, he thought of me as an ageing doubting Thomas, a turn for the worse in his eyes. It is one thing to know that remaining devotees of Sathya Sai Baba are deaf, dumb and blind as far as their master’s shortcomings are concerned, but to hear a former fellow traveler utter these brazen rationalisations regarding serious misdeeds shook me more than I had imagined. ‘Help ever, hurt never’ was one of many one liners of the late master. It is precisely the second part of this proverb, hurt never, that people like mr. Reerink, and other VIP-devotees (Goldstein, Tigrett, Sandweiss), violate with their unquestioning belief. Their comments hurt others, who do not or do no longer believe in the inverted wonderland Sathya Sai Baba created, and refrain devotees of lesser stature from investigating matters independently, so they go on believing. Theirs is a default superior position, apparently unbeknownst to themselves, which can create as much guilt as the late master was capable of. Sathya Sai Baba’s universe revolved around himself and was thoroughly moralistic and egocentric. For all the charitable works devotees like mr. Reerink perform, in my opinion this does not absolve them from a duty to society and to fellow believers to no longer bury their heads in the sand. Wrongdoings cannot and must not be covered up. Rose-coloured fairy tales, no matter how utterly believable to oneself, must not be spread. The cost is simply too high. Turning a blind eye to me constitutes a sin of omission.
*See a searing, apt comment by another fellow psychologist (Swedish Asa Samsioe) on Sai Baba’s actual, inexplicable behaviour here and a debunking of the ‘sexual healing’ myth here.
Mind your Mind 