Guest guest Posted October 14, 1999 Report Share Posted October 14, 1999 Dandavats. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Hare Krsna. The real question is where the marriage money - Rs. 3 laks per day + other- parties 1.5 lakh per day, food per plate during marriages/functions minimum 375/- to max. 900/-, income is gone? Where is the statement of datewise income from that property? In whose name the cheques were given? Where are the details/ And Where is the cash received which is the lion share in this business? This is the main issue Which I raised to begin with even with Mahajan in Mayapur, way back in February. When I saw that Radhapada is not the only donor claim then I responded from whatever I knew from Adridharan prabhu himself. I have told same things to many devotees whenever I was asked about this property. Admitting that Vijay thakkar and tenants who have sacrificed money for ISKCON should also be appreciated and recoganized. > Dayarama's latest offering regarding the financing of the property at 22 > Gurusaday Road is noticeable in that: > 1) He offers no evidence to back up his claims. > 2) Neither does he even attempt to dispute the 5 different sources of > evidence I originally gave.[ For reference please note that these were: > > The person who sold the property - Mr Vijay Thakkar and his wife. The > person who bought the property - Myself Many prominent industrialists - > the donors themselves > The GBC - Hari Vilasa - who conducted a whole investigation into the > affair And the actions of Radhapada Dasa and his family. ] > > 3) On the Contrary he simply offers as the source for his claims - myself > ! > - > thus simply validating me as a bona fide source of evidence. I repeated what Adri had told me accepting it to be true. > 4) In desperation he also offers the testimony of a convicted child abuser > - Satadhanya Dasa. No desperation. Everyone knows that Satadhanya was definitely involved in the property matters and legal matters as much as Adri if not more. He fought M M De case even after his fall down made him change his Asram. > 5) Finally he attempts to change the subject having been clearly exposed > on the issue at hand - who financed the purchase of 22, Gurusaday Road. We > will now demonstrate all this below. Dayarama's comments will be enclosed > in speech marks, with my comments following beneath. > > " Absolutely correct - I am repeating what was fed to me by Adri himself. > [ ...] And I have simply repeated what Adri himself fed to me." > > So here we have the basis for Dayarama's claims - Adridharana Das!! Not > papers, documents or any other verifiable evidence, but the words of a man > he is now trying to convince the world is a shamefaced liar. And what is > the proof for this? The supposed words of the same shamefaced liar! > Leaving aside the fact that I did not tell him what he claims, the very > fact that he attributes me as the source of his allegations, proves that > he has no substance to support his position except his false claims about > a source he himself admits is not to be trusted. If I am supposed to be > lying, and yet if I am the sole basis for the substance of Dayarama's > claims, then that makes Dayarama's position absurd, and self-defeating. All right baba. So, I went and met Radhapada and Chaterjee his secretary. This is what Radhapada told me. Before the property was purchased Radhapda was taken around the property at 22 Gurusaday Road by Adri. He was told not to enter the property as that would increase the price of the property. He liked the location and wanted to donate it right then. Radhapada gave initially 11 lakhs in 1981 and paid totally 25 lakhs i.e balance of 14 lakhs right after registration of the property. He clearly remembers that Rs. 10 lakhs were borrowed and he paid not only that money but also interest accumulated on it. And he gave extra for development work. He never accepted in the meeting with Harivilas that there are many others who paid for the property but accepted that there are others who have contributed towards getting and developing the property and therefore they should be appreciated, which he still admits therefore they were called contributors and not donors in that meeting. To him it meant they have contributed by efforts, advice, sacrfice of profits or for developing the property- freeing from tenants or paying for vacating them, furnising the building etc. But not paying for the purchase of the property. Chaterjee who was and is Radhapada's secretary and who also attended the meeting told me that there was no discussion of amount of money paid by different people along with Radhapada for the purchase of the property. Also When Radhapada's plaque was put up on the property no other plaque was put up. when other plaques were put up later on as donors then Radhapada immediately complained about it as it was contrary to the agreement reached between himself and Adri with Harivilas Prabhu. He has copy of his complaint letter to GBC. > "And the incident of GP Goenka giving up the flat without taking a paisa, > due to his wife falling sick on Janmastami day was narrated to me by > Satadhanya, who at that time was the Regional Secretary of > Calcutta-Mayapur, and a very close friend of Adri - closely involved in > the property transactions." > > 1. So having so far quoted me as the proof for his claims, he now offers > an even more 'impeccable' source - the child abuser Satyadhanya Dasa. He > must be getting really desperate if this is all he has! > > 2. Also Satyadhanya Das was my regional secretary, but definitely not my > 'close' friend. Indeed the only person he is a close friend of is Dayarama > Das and his Guru Jayapataka Swami, who have hired him to defend them in > the Calcutta High Court - that is when he is not busy making pizzas for > them and rendering other PAID services in Mayapura. Satadhanya was very close to Adri. It's a fact and the devotees residing in Calcutta temple then 1980 to 85 can bear testimony. I was then just freshy, out of school,new full time devotee, during Satadhanya's Swami days when his fall downs occured. I started to take responsiblities in Mayapur and became so called leader after Satadhanya had already put on white and was married. What to speak of being close to him during those initial days Satadhanya had almost kicked me out of Mayapur. > "Vijay had approached me at least two-three times to buy some property > near Mayapur to be given to one of his friends, [...] which clearly > indicates that he was not only developer but also a broker." > > 1. Dayarama himself states that Vijay was going to BUY the property in > question for a friend. A broker simply takes commission for showing a > property to someone else - he does not have the money himself to buy. > > 2. In any case his wife can testfiy that he was not a broker, but one of > the biggest developers in Calcutta, and any favours he did for friends can > not change this basic fact. > > "Mrs. Vijay Thakkar is a close acquaintance of Adri, she has been very > instrumental in employing the law-firm that has been fighting these court > cases against the GBC." > > 1. I used this law firm 2.5 years ago in a land deal - that is why I used > them. > 2. Mrs Thakkar will confirm that she was not 'instrumental' in hiring > them. > > Please note, how unlike Dayarama's empty claims, all my points can be > independently verified - whether it be from GBC's or other life members - > wheras Dayarama's claims can only be verifed by asking me - who has > rejected them! > > > There were *4* tenants, not 2, and one of them is still there! They > > were:> Duncan Tea Company> ITC> A Pan Shop> Shanghai Laundry > > "Here is another true but misleading statement. There is a big building at > the center of the property. The property came up for selling at a much > lower price than it is worth, since this building was tenanted. These two > tenants were two big companies and to get them out was not an easy thing > for developers etc. These were two tenants were - Duncan and ITC. Other > two tenants were at the periphery. Therefore, when the two tenants left, > the property became quite fully usable." > > 1. Dayarama's original claims related to the whole property - not only the > building at the center: > "There were two tenants on the property and both of them were requested > many times to vacate the building but refused and asked for big money." > [Dayarama Dasa, 27/9/99] > > Indeed his whole article was about the 22, Gurusadaya Road Property - not > just a building in the center: > > "Radhapada paid all the laksmi for the property at Gurusaday Road. [...] > In this sense Adri calls all of them donors, but the fact remains that all > the money to buy that property was given by Radhapada. [Dayarama Dasa, > 27/9/99] > > 2. I never denied that the property was not usable after we had got the > first two tenants out. On the contrary I stated that one of them is still > there today - implying that we have been using the building even with that > tenant. > > "How would this be possible if there were tenants occupying the building?" > > I never stated that tenants were occupying the building. As already shown > above, the discussion was about the property at 22, Gurusadaya Road. > > "What I have stated, is what Adri told me. He very definitely did not tell > me at that time that many more people paid for it." > > 1. This a lie - I never told him this. I can't prove it as I didn't have tape recorder with me. It's my clear recollection and not once as I remeber Adri told me on two different occasions. Is this a same lie as the lie we are telling about reconciliatroy meeting of Gopal Krsna Maharja, Bhakti Charu Swami, Jayaptaka Swami,Satadhanya, myself, Adri, Madhu Pandit, Sattvik, Sundaer gopal had on 22nd March in Calcutta temple this year. Just like Adri completely forgot this meeting which was in two sessions of over 2.5 hours each including a big lunch and which took place only few months ago then he can definitely forget something which took place many years ago. > 2. Even if I HAD told him this, it still does not change the actual FACTS > - that others DID donate for the property - as listed on the board - and > as can be verified by all these donors and other witnesses - and this is > the issue at hand - who actually paid for the property - not the accuracy > of Dayarama's recollections of what he claims I told him many years ago. > > "But Radhapada paid ALL the money for purchasing the property at the > discounted price that it was obtained." > > I gave 5 sources of evidence that proved that this was not the case. So > far Dayarama has neither been able to dispute this evidence, nor offer > counter evidence himself. So all he can do is repeat the original lie, > hoping that simply by repeating it, people will believe it. If Adri has taken money for this property without Radhapada's knowledge-just like Jagganath dress case, from many other person(s) then definitely each one of them will say that yes 'I am donor.' But that doesn't mean that Radhapada didn't donate whole money for the purchase of the property. He says that he gave it and more than 50% of the cost of the land even before the land was purchased and balance with interest in few months after the registrationn of the deeds + development money. > "So, if this is what Adri did, then in this instance, it is true that from > Radhapada's perspective he was the only donor, but from Adri's > perspective, applying the logic of Adri-ology, Radhapada WAS NOT THE ONLY > DONOR!" > > Radhapada came to offer the full money a whole 18 months after the > property had been purchased - a purchase he had even contributed to at > the time. So how could he possibly have got the idea that he was the sole > donor? That he was not the sole donor for the purchase of the property was > a fact he also accepted at the meeting with the GBC appointed to mediate > on this issue - Hari Vilasa - as Hari Vilasa prabhu himself has testified. Radhapada denies it completely. He said that he paid all the money as explained before. > "Was all this money donated to ISKCON by donors (in whatever capacity) to > run a marriage-business in which he can just make unaccounted money?" > > 1. Now Dayarama is even beginning to admit that he has no case by trying > to completely change subject - proof if ever there was - that he has been > wrong all along. The fact that there were other donors who directly > purchased the property, is what this whole issue is about - the very topic > which Dayarama himself raised. Let him first concede this point THEN we > will happily discuss whatever else he wishes to discuss. > 2. He never makes a single mention in his last article about how the issue > was what the donors thought they were giving the money for. On the > contrary he even called the article: > "More recollections on the financing of the Calcutta pandal property" > > Only now that he has been exposed as stating a bunch of false claims, is > he raising this new issue. > > Conclusion > > Trying to change the topic when you have been defeated is the oldest trick > in the book. However Dayarama will not escape that easily. I showed > through 5 different sources of evidence that Radhapada was not the sole > donor for the purchase of 22 Gurusadaya Road. Very tellingly Dayarama in > his response has not challenged this evidence, nor has he offered any > evidence of his own. On the contrary he has completely destroyed his case > by admitting that the only basis he has for his claims is myself! > > Thus these omissions by Dayarama have only further confirmed that > Radhapada dasa was not the sole donor for the purchase of 22 Gurusadaya > Road. > > Ys, Adri Hare Krsna. Your servant, Dayaram das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.