“Where is the statement of date wise income from that property? In whose name were the checks given? Where are the details? And where is the cash received which is the lion-share in this business?”

Dandavats. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Hare Krsna.

The real question is where has the income from the Calcutta Pandal gone? This includes Rs. 3 lakhs per day + other parties at 1.5 lakh per day, plus the charge for food per plate during marriages/functions charged at a minimum Rs. 375- to a maximum of Rs. 900.

Where is the statement of date wise income from that property? In whose name were the checks given? Where are the details? And where is the cash received which is the lion-share in this business?

I see this as the main issue that I raised to begin with. I discussed this with Mahajan in Mayapur, way back in February.

When I saw that Radhapada was not the only donor claim then I responded from whatever I knew from Adridharan prabhu himself. I have told the same things to many devotees whenever I was asked about this property. I admit that Vijay Thakkar and the tenants who have sacrificed money for ISKCON should also be appreciated and recognized.

Adridharan has challenged me, “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. 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.”

I repeated what Adri had told me, accepting it to be true.

Adridharan says, “In desperation he also offers the testimony of a convicted child abuser - Satadhanya Dasa.”

There was no desperation. Everyone knows that Satadhanya was definitely involved in the property matters and legal matters as much as Adri if not more. He fought in the M. M. De case even after his fall down made him change his Asrama.

Adridharan says, “Finally he attempts to change the subject having been clearly exposed on the issue at hand - who financed the purchase of 22, Gurusaday Road. We will now demonstrate all this below.”

I went and met Radhapada and Chaterjee, his secretary. This is what Radhapada told me: Before the property was purchased, Adri took Radhapada around the property at 22 Gurusaday Road. He was told not to enter the property, as that would increase the price of the property. He liked the location and wanted to donate it right then. Radhapada initially gave 11 lakhs in 1981 and paid in total 25 lakhs, i.e. the balance of 14 lakhs, right after the registration of the property. He clearly remembers that Rs. 10 lakhs were borrowed and he paid not only that money but also interest accumulated on it. And he gave extra for development work.

He never accepted in the meeting with Harivilas that there are many others who paid for the property but accepted that there are others who have contributed towards getting and developing the property and therefore they should be appreciated, which he still admits. Therefore in that meeting they were called contributors and not donors. To him it meant they have contributed by efforts, advice, sacrifice of profits or for developing the property- freeing from tenants or paying for vacating them, furnishing the building etc. It did not mean paying for the purchase of the property.

Chaterjee, who was and is Radhapada’s secretary and who also attended the meeting, told me that there was no discussion of the amount of money paid by different people along with Radhapada for the purchase of the property.

Also, when Radhapada’s plaque was put up on the property, no other plaque was put up. When other plaques were put up later on with people listed as donors, Radhapada immediately complained about it, as it was contrary to the agreement reached between himself and Adri with Harivilas Prabhu. He has copy of his complaint letter to GBC.

Satadhanya was very close to Adridharan. It’s a fact and the devotees residing in Calcutta temple in those days (1980 to 1985) can bear testimony to this. I was then just fresh out of school and a new full time devotee during “Satadhanya’s Swami days” when his fall downs occurred. I started to take responsibilities in Mayapur and became the so-called leader after Satadhanya had already put on white and was married. So there was no question of my being close to him during those initial days. Satadhanya had almost kicked me out of Mayapur.

I wrote before, “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.” Adridharan replied by saying, “This a lie - I never told him this.”

I can’t prove it, as I didn’t have tape recorder with me. It’s my clear recollection and not once as I remember Adri told me on two different occasions. So it’s my word against his.

Is this the same lie as the lie we are telling about a reconciliatory meeting of Gopal Krsna Maharaja, Bhakti Charu Swami, Jayaptaka Swami, Satadhanya, Adri, Madhu Pandit, Sattvik, Sundar Gopal and I had on the 22nd March in Calcutta temple this year? Since Adridharan completely forgot this meeting which was in two sessions of over 2.5 hours each including a big lunch and which took place only a few months ago, then he can definitely forget something which took place many years ago.

Adridharan wrote that he gave five sources of evidence that proved his case and that I am wrong. “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.”

If Adridharan has taken money for this property from many other person(s) without Radhapada’s knowledge-just like the “Jagannath dress case,” then definitely each one of them will say that yes “I am donor.” But that doesn’t mean that Radhapada didn’t donate whole money for the purchase of the property. He says that he gave it and more than 50% of the cost of the land even before the land was purchased, plus balance with interest in the few months after the registration of the deeds and the development money.

Adri wrote, “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.”

Radhapada denies it completely. He said that he paid all the money as explained before.

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Dayaram das

© CHAKRA 21-Oct-1999

Go to the “Calcutta Page”