Move to malign Sai Baba fails

[Guest guest]

http://www.dailypioneer.com/166239/Move-to-malign-Sai-Baba-fails.html

 

Move to malign Sai Baba fails

 

Sandhya jain

 

On March 14, a lingering, insidious smear campaign against Sathya Sai Baba

quietly fizzled out when Channel Nine MSN removed a biased anti-Baba broadcast

from its official Website. Ardent Sai defamer Robert Priddy admitted on his blog

that Channel Nine MSN " would not have removed the video had there not been

legitimate complaints about the content and disinformation in their video " .

 

Sai Baba devotees following the so-called sex scandal case were gratified to

find that over the past few years many accusers were exposed as liars and worse.

The main accuser, who inspired a BBC documentary, withdrew his California court

case against the Sai Baba Society on realising exposure was nigh.

 

As usual, when false accusations are made against Hindu gurus, a high-decibel

media campaign begins. But when the innocence of the accused is established, the

cacophony melts into stoic silence. It is to the credit of devotees that

anti-Sai Baba information has been purged from US Government and UNESCO

Websites, among others.

 

Mr Alaya Rahm's sexual abuse allegations against Sai Baba gained international

notoriety when featured on the documentaries, Seduced By Sai Baba and Secret

Swami. His allegations were published in Britain (The Daily Telegraph) and India

(India Today). An army of anti-Sai activists translated the allegations into

several languages and spread them via the Internet. At first, the claims seemed

disturbingly true; now they have simply vanished!

 

Mr Rahm filed his lawsuit, Alaya Rahm vs Sathya Sai Baba Society, in the

Superior Court of California on January 6, 2005 (Case No. 05cc01931). Under

California's statute of limitations, an individual can file a lawsuit for

alleged sexual molestation up to his/her 26th birthday, if the alleged events

occurred before the age of 18. Mr Rahm filed his case two days before this

expiry date.

 

The trial was set for April 28, 2006, but on April 7 the plaintiff

self-dismissed his own lawsuit. He attempted to sue for money damages, but no

offers of settlement were made and no money or other consideration was paid; the

case was dismissed " with prejudice " and is binding under the international

doctrine of res judicata. This means Mr Rahm can never file another lawsuit

against Sathya Sai Baba, in the US or in India, for the same claims made in this

case.

 

Mr Rahm never sought medical or psychiatric treatment for alleged trauma and

could not itemise any wage losses. Moreover, no other alleged victim came

forward to testify in support of his allegations, though anti-Sai activists

claimed there were " over a hundred " alleged victims in the US. He gave no

reasons for quitting; no deposition was filed and no witnesses were identified

to the court on his behalf.

 

Although Mr Rahm's accusations received publicity, his claims were not

thoroughly investigated until the lawsuit was filed. During the subsequent legal

process, it was found that Mr Rahm and his family members made speeches at a

number of retreats and conferences between 1995 and 1999, the period in which

the alleged sexual abuses took place. Many talks were recorded and found to

contain no suggestion of wrongdoing. Rather, there was enthusiastic praise of

the Baba; Mr Rahm even wrote a love poem to him.

 

The legal process identified witnesses present at the Indian ashram when the

events allegedly occurred. One witness, Mr Lewis Kreydick, purchased Mr Rahm's

ticket and accompanied him to India in 1995 and in 1997; he was present in some

meetings in which Mr Rahm later claimed to have been sexually abused.

 

Mr Kreydick inter alia testified that he had close links with Mr Rahm from 1995

to 1997, and spoke with him daily when at the ashram in 1995 and 1997,

discussing details of each meeting Mr Rahm had with Baba. Though Mr Rahm shared

confidential details about his sexual past with Mr Kreydick, he never related or

suggested, in this period, that any misconduct, wrongdoing or sexual actions had

transpired between him and Baba. In fact, he only narrated positive and

miraculous experiences.

 

Mr Kreydick signed his typed deposition on April 7, 2006. The same day, the

defendant (the Sathya Sai Baba Society) filed Mr Kreydick's deposition as part

of the official record, and Mr Rahm self-dismissed his case! Obviously, he did

not feel confident to take his case to trial, though he was represented by an

experienced sexual abuse trial lawyer.

 

Further, in Form Interrogatory No. 6.3, Set One, Mr Rahm admitted to being a

daily user of illegal street drugs and alcohol from 1995 to 2005. Thus,

throughout his allegations and the filming of the BBC Documentary Secret Swami

and the Danish Documentary Seduced By Sai Baba, Mr Rahm was under the influence

of illegal street drugs and alcohol. This was suppressed from the general public

by his family and anti-Baba associates.

 

The controversy persisted because of the doggedness of ex-devotees, possibly

persons who infiltrated the ashram in the guise of devotees, with the intention

of maligning Baba later. Key blogs in the defamation were

robertpriddy.wordpress.com; barrypittard.wordrpess.com;

briansteel.wordpress.com. None of these gentlemen was sexually abused, nor had

personally witnessed any incident of alleged abuse. Interestingly, some eminent

Western `Hindus' joined the anti-Sai crusade with startling enthusiasm, fuelling

suspicions about the possible political agendas of these faux converts.

 

No alleged victim ever filed a police or court case against Baba in India for

alleged improprieties, though former devotees kept chanting that `hundreds',

indeed ``thousands'' of ``minors'', ``children'' and `male youth' were molested

by Sathya Sai Baba.

 

Who inspired these venomous former devotees to launch investigations into vile

rumours? Devotees say the `Anti-Sai Movement' is an extremist hate group which

habitually makes wild allegations, including the laughable claim that the Baba

is allied with terrorists! One magazine published a fake picture of Sai Baba

holding hands with Idi Amin!

 

The truth is that neither Sai Baba nor any organisation associated with him has

been charged or implicated for sexual abuse, either directly or indirectly, and

that reputable media agencies and independent journalists have not been able to

confirm a single instance of sexual abuse linked to Sai Baba or his

organisations. Gutter allegations tend to choke on their own stink.

 

http://www.dailypioneer.com/166239/Move-to-malign-Sai-Baba-fails.html