“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?”

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. 4) In desperation he also offers the testimony of a child abuser - Satadhanya Dasa. 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.

I 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.

“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. 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 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.

“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 tio someone else - he does not have the money himself to buy.

2. In any case his wife can testify that he was not a broker, but one of the biggest developers in Calcutta, and any favors 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 is not true - I never told him this. 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.

“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.

“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 I 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.

© CHAKRA 9th-Oct-1999

Go to the “Calcutta Page”