[The following letter was written by three senior Ashramites – Kittu Reddy, Ranganath Raghavan & Sumita Kandpal
(retired Collector) – to Manoj Das Gupta, Managing Trustee of Sri Aurobindo Ashram
Trust. The letter stated the views and concern of most of the Ashramites and devotees
of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother regarding the Peter Heehs issue. The letter is still
relevant to the present situation which has more or less remained unchanged as far
as the intransigent attitude of the Managing Trustee is concerned.]
We thank you for the meeting held in your office on the 9th of May 2010.
When we
asked you for a second meeting to discuss further issues surrounding Peter Heehs’
book, you asked us to give you our questions in writing. Hence, we are placing
before you the following which we request you to consider carefully and answer
the questions that we are asking you.
All
that follows below is being put forward in a benevolent and friendly spirit
keeping the best interests of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram, whose continued
existence and welfare is more important than that of any individual or group of
individuals.
Before
we proceed, we wish to present these self-evident propositions:
a) As
the Mother has said, Sri Aurobindo is the Supreme Himself descended into the
manifestation. Therefore any attack on Him, the Incarnate Divine, whether a
single derogatory word or a criticism, open or veiled, is necessarily a Hostile
action, even if it masquerades under the guise of an “objective assessment”.
b) The
Sri Aurobindo Ashram has been founded by the Mother and Sri Aurobindo and its
roots are deeply imbedded in an eternal Truth. Any administration or
management, which is temporary, ever-changing, can never be its true representative.
Therefore a clear distinction must be made between the two entities, between
the Truth that Sri Aurobindo and the Mother stand for on one side, and the
administration and trustees on the other side. They must never be confused and
a false identification must not be claimed. Today, many inmates are confused
between loyalty to the Mother and Sri Aurobindo on one side and the Ashram
Trust on the other. This is a disturbing trend which can be disastrous for the
Ashram and for the spiritual life of its inmates.
c) The
SAAT is a public body, subject to the laws of the land. It is open for examination
by any national official body having authority to do so. There can be no claim
for privacy and secrecy of views, actions or decisions. Everything must be
open, transparent and frank, and any enquiry should be respected and answered
clearly with conviction.
d) The
beneficiaries of the Trust have the right to information regarding all decisions
made by the Trust Board.
Having
these points in view, we would like to state the following:
1. The
inaction by the Trust board or the reluctance to act openly and fully regarding
Peter Heehs and his book on Sri Aurobindo, has shocked and angered the members
of the Ashram. Your impression that only a small group is critical of the
stance of the Trust is absolutely false and illusory. A very large body of
Ashramites does not approve of the inaction or the half-hearted, reluctant and
inadequate action against Peter Heehs, and the turbulence this has caused in
the Ashram life is potentially dangerous. You have said that this feeling of
deep hurt and sensitivity among the Ashramites will die down and pass away with
the passage of time. We disagree with you on this. On the contrary we find that
it is only getting worse with time. Just because the large majority of
Ashramites does not make public demonstrations and loud noises, choosing rather
to suffer in silence, it does not mean that they approve of the action of the
Trust in favour of Peter Heehs. The entire community is seething from within.
You must take decisive action soon, before things get out of hand, as Pranab-da
had already warned.
2. You have said
that you have given Peter Heehs the Financial guarantees for getting his visa
twice already in the last six months, and will continue giving it to him “as
long as he is an Ashramite”. A person should not get the financial guarantee
automatically merely for being an Ashramite. The guarantee is sacrosanct
because it represents the Ashram’s full support and guarantee of “good conduct”
of the person in the eyes of devotees worldwide, the general public and the
Indian Government. We have to take into consideration Peter Heehs’ behaviour in
the recent past. We cannot stand guarantee for one who has abused the trust of
the Ashram inmates to abuse Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. By giving a guarantee
in this case, you are betraying Sri Aurobindo and the Mother’s own guidelines,
and are placing the entire Ashram community at great risk, and throwing away
all the public goodwill that the Ashram has.
3. You have said
that this issue is an “internal and private matter” of the Ashram and so a
public statement need not be made. An Ashramite writes a book using internal
and confidential documents without informing the authorities and publishes it
in a foreign country with the falsely claimed authority of being “Founder” of
the Ashram Archives creating a controversy that is causing pain and anguish to
all devotees all over the world; yet you say this is an “internal matter” of
the Ashram! You have said that the Ashram cannot make a public statement
dissociating itself from the book written by Peter Heehs and that it is enough
to quietly instruct SABDA not to sell the book. We do not agree with you in
this matter also. Such a public statement will go a long way in assuaging the
hurt feelings of devotees all over the world and the danger of “outside”
official interference may be averted by the issuance of such a public notice.
4. We cannot
agree that the Ashram has nothing to do with the Columbia University Press and
that we cannot write to them directly. What harm can there be in stopping the
distribution of a book (distributed all over the world) derogatory to our Guru?
Even if CUP does not do our bidding, we would have acted in the right Spirit.
In fact the very act of trying to stop the book will send a strong signal that
we reject the false statements and factual distortions in this book, and reject
its perverse conclusions.
5. We are
informed that the first payment of royalty from Peter Heeh’s book totalling Rs
90,000 has come to the Ashram. Will the SAAT accept the Royalty from CUP
whether directly or through Peter Heehs? Has it already received the royalty?
It is evident that you were fully aware of the contract between Peter and CUP. Our
question is how did you allow things to come to such a pass? Is this not a case
of gross dereliction of duty?
6. You have said
that hostile attacks of this kind cannot be terminated by expelling one
offending member because tomorrow somebody else will do the same thing. And
therefore you do not wish to act. We disagree with you on this also. Does that
mean we should shelter all these elements snugly in our midst, offering them
free right and play to criticise the Guru even while living in the Ashram and
enjoying all its conveniences? In fact by keeping silent you are actively
supporting the hostile force, encouraging others to follow Peter’s example and
even inviting others like him to settle here to pursue their mischief. By
taking timely and decisive action now, you will discourage the hostile force
and weaken its physical and psychological base in the community.
7. You
have also told us that once the controversy dies down, you may permit Peter
Heehs to return to the Archives. We find it surprising that after all the damage
that he has caused to Sri Aurobindo’s reputation and to the Ashram community,
you are ready to gift Peter Heehs all that he needs to deliver his next blow!
It can be stated confidently that if ever Peter Heehs comes back to the Archives,
there will be nothing short of a revolt within the community and outside
interference cannot be ruled out.
8. When
a serious and non-frivolous complaint is made regarding financial irregularities
in the Ashram’s working, the proper attitude of the highest officials should be
to make a departmental enquiry and try to get to the bottom of the matter. Your
retort saying, “Give me proof” is irresponsible, and unworthy of the head of an
institution. In this case, we spoke to you of the unaccounted Rs 20 lakhs from
New Guest House. Instead of asking us for proof, you have only to look in your
own office for the audit report of the Ashram auditors pointing out this
discrepancy in their official report! By challenging us with a cynical, “Give
me proof”, you are exposing your own duplicity in the matter. The proof is
sitting in your own office. Its exposure to the public could be a damaging to
you personally and to the Ashram institutionally.
9. We
have some information regarding the case of Raghavan House. An FIR No 2/2003
dated 13.3.2003 was filed in the Pondicherry court by Mr Selvaraj against his
son Murugavel, the document writer, the Registrar and the 4th accused
was Manoj Das Gupta and others. Yet some time later the 4th accused became a
prosecution “witness”. How did this miracle take place? It is reported that a
sum of Rs 50,000/- was paid as anticipatory bail on behalf of Manoj Das Gupta
by one of the devotees. Is this true? Are you aware that you were about to be
arrested and that this was stopped due to the intervention of two devotees with
the then Lt Governor of Pondicherry? We would like the full details of the
Raghavan House episode to be revealed.
10. How
much money has the Ashram officially spent on court expenses in the last ten
years? How much of this was spent to defend the Trustees personally? The
community deserves to know these facts.
11. You
have claimed that unpublished materials from AB Purani’s diaries are not property
of the Ashram Trust. This is patently false. Peter Heehs has himself admitted
to having taken unpublished materials from AB Purani’s diaries without
permission. When Anuben, the daughter and legal heir of AB Purani, passed away
all these materials came to the Ashram Trust for safe keeping, and are kept in
the Ashram cold storage as part of the Ashram’s historical records. They are
therefore the Ashram’s property without any doubt. To say that it is not our
material and therefore “no theft has been committed” is a blatant lie that does
not stand scrutiny by any standards.
12. Do
you agree with Peter Heehs’ claim that he is one of the founders of the Ashram
Archives? If not, what action have you taken to make a public declaration that
he is not?
13. You
have said that you informed Pranab-da that Peter Heehs has apologised for
writing the book and hurting devotees. Is his apology in writing? If not, it has
no value against the published book. If yes, you must make his letter public.
14. You
have said that you were thinking of removing Peter Heehs from the Ashram, and
that it was Pranab-da who stopped you. This is unlikely. From the beginning of
the controversy, before and after you met him, Pranab-da’s position on the book
and on Peter Heehs has consistently been the same. His notice demanding that
the Ashram sever all contacts with Peter Heehs is still on the display board of
the Ashram. He has written to you several letters subsequently asking you to
take action to write to Columbia University Press. How is it that you quote one
highly unlikely statement that you claim he orally made to you to justify your
inaction, and yet you continue to ignore all his written requests before and
after, asking you to take urgent action to remove Peter and stop the book? If
you truly respect Pranab-da and wish to follow his advice, there is still time
left to take action and withdraw the book from Columbia University Press.
15. Ever since this controversy began, you have been quoting from the Mother’s comment
that it is better to watch impartially than to be disturbed as your excuse to
not act. That particular quotation from the Mother was given to emphasise that
standing back undisturbed is better than being disturbed. It is not a blanket
fiat to cease to act! It is strange that you have totally ignored the explicit
guidance from the Mother rejecting any attempt to bring Sri Aurobindo down to a
low gossiping level. Strange that you have ignored Sri Aurobindo’s own guidance
to Sahana-di that one should fight when such falsehood is spread about Them.
These quotations have been given to you through many letters ever since this
controversy began. You should also know that to be in a state of equality is
not to be passive. Sri Aurobindo warns against this common misunderstanding.
You have surely read his entire chapter on “The Action of Equality” in The
Synthesis of Yoga.
16.
Since you claim that you did not act against the book, because you did not get the
guidance from Mother, are we to understand that when you decided to expel
Bailochan, Shrikant, Kamal Dora, the five sisters and Ambika, you got the
direct guidance from the Mother to do so? Was your legal notice threatening
Abala, or your action to remove her from the Dining Room work also from the
direct guidance from the Mother?
17. You
have repeatedly stated that throughout this controversy you have “followed your
conscience”. The impression we got from our interactions with you is that you
consider yourself accountable only to the Mother. Does this same principle
apply to other inmates of the Ashram or is it your sole prerogative?
18. We
believe that the Trustees of the Ashram are as human and vulnerable to ignorance
and error as any other Ashramite or human being. In decisions that affect the
entire community, they are answerable to all the inmates. They cannot take
decisions in secrecy. As Trustees, your first responsibility is to serve the
Mother and Sri Aurobindo, and the Ashram community as a whole.
19.
Regarding Raghavan House and many other dealings, it seems that SAAT is following
the “practical” line of getting things done by using any means. Is this the
example that Sri Aurobindo Ashram is meant to show to the world? We remind you
of what Sri Aurobindo writes in the Human Cycle. The choice is between the line
of Sri Aurobindo and the “practical” line adopted by you. This is what Sri
Aurobindo writes:
“But in other spheres of life, in the
spheres of what by an irony of our ignorance we call especially practical
life,— although, if the Divine be our true object of search and realisation,
our normal conduct in them and our current idea of them is the very opposite of
practical,—we are less ready to recognise the universal truth. We take a long time
to admit it even partially in theory, we are seldom ready at all to follow it in
practice. And we find this difficulty because there especially, in all our practical
life, we are content to be the slaves of an outward Necessity and think
ourselves always excused when we admit as the law of our thought, will and
action the yoke of immediate and temporary utilities.”
(Sri Aurobindo, The Human Cycle, CWSA, Vol.
25, p 148)
There
are many other points to be discussed, but this should suffice for the moment. We
repeat that this communication to you is in a benevolent and friendly spirit keeping
the best interests of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram in mind. We wish to warn you that
your present attitude unmindful of the dangers of outside intervention whether through
the courts or through the government, is disregarding the interests of the Ashram
community. Please act with humility and maturity before it is too late.
Signed
Ranganath Raghavan
Kittu Reddy
Sumita Kandpal
No comments:
Post a Comment