Apropos of the “Court Diary"

We have the deconstructionist Rich Carlson of the post-Ron dubious sciy who writes that the Diary contents are by RY Deshpande. What was an email forward from him has become in his hand “recent report by R.Y. Deshpande”. There cannot be anything more ridiculous than this, that here is a report by RY Deshpande. But this is not unusual of Carlsons to put on an aura of rational rationalists, and distort things. But they don’t realize that none is going to buy this kind of deconstruction except perhaps their faithful but unthinking cohorts.

Further to the Court Diary / Information Release 19.1.2010 posted by the General Editor on 2 February 2010, let me add here just a couple of points. Apropos of the “Court Diary”, let me first reproduce in the following how the topic was introduced by iyfundamentalism.info and sciy.org on the respective sites:

[1] http : //iyfundamentalism .info/j/ content/view/136/188/
The following “court diary” was received from RY Deshpande, who sent it to Paulette in Auroville. She posted it on the Auroville Compats email list on Wednesday, Jan 20. Since it shows no author, and in the absence of further information, we are left to assume that it was either written by Deshpande or that he was a willing go-between for others who wrote it.

We sent the document to Peter Heehs, who provided important factual clarifications on what actually took place, as well as a copy of the court order (see below). In short, the entire “court diary” is a fabrication. We feel it is important to make this clear, since this “diary” continues the pattern of rumor, misinformation, and outright lies that have been used to smear Peter Heehs, especially in relation to the legal cases brought against his book The Lives of Sri Aurobindo.

Although the “diary” is a fiction, and contains almost no true statements, the fact that it contains specific details (such as who was present) does make clear that whoever wrote it is in close contact with the lawyers. The publication of the “diary” is a further action by the group trying to have The Lives of Sri Aurobindo censored, and now are trying to have Heehs deported.

[2] http : //www.sciy. org/2010/01/24/ the-lies-about-the-lives-of-sri-aurobindo/
The Lies about “The Lives of Sri Aurobindo” author Peter Heehs
Posted by rcarlson Published: January 24, 2010

After the court cases were found to be without merit, and just when one thought a measure of sanity had prevailed in the controversy regards the publication of the Lives of Sri Aurobindo and its author Peter Heehs a new front for battle has opened up. In this instance Mr. Heehs visa and right to stay in India are under attack. And just like the attack on the book the instruments of warfare is the lie. The persistence of the attacks on Mr. Heehs in fact confirm Ashis Nandy’s view of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram that: “Increasingly and inevitably, it acquired the trappings of a well organized modern cult and of a church as corporation.”

What follows is the deconstruction of a recent report by R.Y. Deshpande regards Mr Heehs appearance in court to defend his Visa...

On the Auroville Compats email list there was a lot of hullabaloo and Paulette felt that she should not have posted the Diary on the list. In fact she wrote the following to me. “How can a scientist forward such text without ascertaining the contents? Only because of your authority I lightly fell into the trap…” This was followed by an email from Savitra to who Paulette passed on my id without my permission: “I am surprised that a person of your stature would pass on such material without first ascertaining whether it is a reliable and trustworthy document. In this light, could you kindly clarify the following: Did you write this yourself? If not, who did and why didn't they identify themselves as the author? Why did you send it on to Paulette? Did you intend for her to forward it to the AV Compat list? If so, why didn't you verify the accuracy and truthfulness of the report before sending it on for public posting?”

All this comes to me as a funny statement when I’d repeatedly written to them that if the Diary is a misrepresentation, let someone who has an authentic version post it on the forum. This was never done; it has not been done even now. My answer to Paulette is in the following. I’d also requested her to post it on the AV Compat list which has not happened. I wrote to her:

“I'd received the said ‘Court Diary’ as independent e-mails from a couple of my contacts. It was not a question of my believing it or not, but here was something which could not be dismissed. I now understand that the ‘Diary’ was actually written by one who was himself present in the Court. You may say that what is presented in it is his version, which also means that there could be another version. But I'm yet to see another version; instead what is seen is a ‘confutation’ which does not really impress me much. If my opinion has any value, I'll not go by any of such versions even if they are claimed to be from persons who were present in the Court. The question is: who is going to decide the veracity of these reports? I don’t know.”

Instead, we have the deconstructionist Rich Carlson of the post-Ron dubious sciy who writes that the Diary contents are by RY Deshpande. What was an email forward from me has become in his hand “recent report by R.Y. Deshpande”. There cannot be anything more ridiculous than this, that here is a report by RY Deshpande. But this is not unusual of Carlsons to put on an aura of rational rationalists, and distort things. But they don’t realize that none is going to buy this kind of deconstruction except perhaps their faithful but unthinking cohorts.

What is actually expected is a version from their sources stating the facts as seen by them. I still maintain that if the present Diary is a misrepresentation, let someone who has an authentic version post it on the websites. But let me also add what I’ve been told about the “Court Diary” when it was shown to the Chief Justice of Madras High Court. He had refused to look into the matter presented to him by the lawyer concerned.

But the most unfortunate twist given is very damaging when we read the following kind of statements: “The author(s) of this “diary” are trying to force the Ashram and the Managing Trustee into a corner. It should be obvious by this point in the document that the author(s) are not merely trying to have Heehs deported, but have designs against the Sri Aurobindo Ashram itself.” Strange forces seem to be active. Surely, this needs to be looked into with greater attention. I’ll appreciate if someone who has the relevant facts with him does it.