“What is the point Adri is trying to make by spinning so much fluff?”

— DAYARAM DAS
     

Dayaram dasa is the temple president of ISKCON Mayapur, India.

ISKCON Mayapur is presently under flooded waters as the Ganges has overflowed her banks.

Dandavats. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Adridharan prabhu had this to say about my presentation on the wedding pandal in Calcutta: “Firstly some background. The property in question was purchased around 1981 by myself on behalf of ISKCON Calcutta. Dayarama Dasa did not even join ISKCON, and only years later took initiation from Jayapataka Swami in Bombay.”

It’s true that I was not in ISKCON then. As I remember, I had just started chanting while continuing my studies. However, just as Adri has stated that there were 4 tenants and not 2, I would like to point out that I got initiated in Mayapur and not in Bombay.

Adri is absolutely correct when he states “Dayarama is repeating what he has been fed by someone else.” The fact is that I am repeating what was fed to me by Adri himself.

When Radhapada’s controversy came up, I asked him why he was not putting the plaque, and then he explained to me his logic of how there were more donors in terms of the two tenants and Vijaya Thakkar. And I have simply repeated what Adri personally fed to me.

And the incident of GP Goenka giving up the flat without taking a paisa [Indian coin], 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.

Regarding Vijay Thakkar: Vijay had approached me at least two-three times to buy some property near Mayapur to be given to one of his friends, for developing organic farming and also for tree cultivation for business purpose. And when I told him that it is not possible to get such a large piece of land at one go for the price he wanted, he said he would arrange somewhere else. His friend there was definitely not ISKCON or other charitable institution, which clearly indicates that he was not only developer but also a broker.

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.

Adri’s statement regarding the number of tenants is also true but misleading. 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. As they were member of ISKCON there was a hope that they could move out for ISKCON’s religious-charitable objectives.

These were two tenants were - Duncan and ITC.

Other two tenants were at the periphery. After all, where else could a Pan [beetle-nut vendor] shop, be located, except on the periphery of the property at the side of the road? That couldn’t affect the usage of the property very much.

The laundry also is located off the main section, at the periphery. One can still see it at that spot.

Therefore, when the two tenants left, the property became quite fully usable.

If this is not true, then how could Adri have held these extravagant, marriage functions at that place by using the whole building for catering, and the grounds for pandal etc.? Anyone in this world knows what an Indian Marriage function entails - music, hundreds of people, lavish food preparations.... etc. etc. For which he charged Rs. 3 lakhs/day, apart from the catering costs - Rs 375-800 per plate.

How would this be possible if there were tenants occupying the building?

Apart from this, a couple of times the building was given to Bhakti Charu Maharaja for the use of his shooting of Abhay Charan - and many who were there at that time claim that the whole building was in possession of the temple - one part being used for the catering business, and the other rooms were used for various purposes.

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. He quite clearly told me that although Radhapada paid for it, there are others also who have contributed like - Vijaya Thakkara, by foregoing his profit, the two tenants for vacating the property (one of them for nothing, and the other for much less than the prevailing market price.)

In that sense, they are also donors and Radhapada cannot claim to be the only donor of that property.

But Radhapada paid all the money for purchasing the property at the discounted price that it was obtained.

However, let us examine Adri’s statements. On close scrutiny, we might realize that he may be speaking the truth - of course, when you apply “Adri-ology” to the facts.

Let me explain myself with the following example. It is a well-known fact that Adri used to approach various donors in Calcutta to sponsor Jagannath’s Ratha-yatra outfit. Each one of them, of course, was under the impression that they were the “ONLY” ones sponsoring the dress. But, this was far from the truth!

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 Adri’s logic, Radhapada was not the only donor!

This is a modern day example of acintya-bhedabheda-tattva! [Lord Caitanya’s philosophy of simultaneously one and different.]

Now, stepping back into our everyday-world logic, another point to note that when the property was purchased the value of the US dollar was about Rs. 9/-.

Therefore, the US dollar figures calculated by Adri at Rs. 40/- are quite correct, but as in tune with the rest of the story presented by him, completely misleading!

The fact remains that Radhapada had also personally told me that he paid all the money for acquiring the Gurusaday Road property, 3C, Albert road building (present temple), Monalisa flat which is used by Sattvick, Mahajan and others near 3C Albert road.

I would request Adri prabhu to not try his wool-spinning techniques on us. Simply answer one point. Was all this money donated to ISKCON by donors (in whatever capacity) really intended to run a marriage-business in which he can just make unaccounted money? And further, not be accountable to anyone?

What is the point Adri is trying to make by spinning so much fluff? Let’s please get to the crux of the issue.

Hare Krsna.

Your servant, Dayaram das

© CHAKRA 8th-Oct-1999

Go to the “Calcutta Page”