If you want to follow all this, Dayarama dasa and Adridharan dasa are arguing over whether Radhapada dasa funded the Calcutta Wedding Pandal that recently burned down.

Dear Dayaram Prabhu, Please accept my humble obeisances. All Glories to Srila Prabhupada.

You wrote that the real question is where the marriage money, “Rs. 3 laks per day + other parties 1.5 lakh per day, food per plate during marriages/functions, a minimum 375/- to max. 900/-?”

No, the real question is that Dayarama has no evidence to substantiate his claims that Radhapada is the only donor. Let him settle this issue then we can discuss so many financial affairs. As we already mentioned, Dayarama only brought up this issue once he had been defeated in his claims regarding who donated what. Therefore he is trying to change the subject. Either admit defeat in this issue or continue to defend it - but do not try and pull a fast one by changing the subject.

We also have many questions about the finances in Mayapur, land purchases & Harikesa’s missing money as well as 30 lacs forked out to the Income tax Dept. at the Madras airport being caught red handed after one of his dollar changing scams. I am sure that Dayarama will be just as keen to answer our questions.

And while we are at it, I am sure he will also be very keen to help answer some questions others have about the collections taking place in Bombay and Dehli etc.

Anyway we are happy that Dayarama is very keen to examine ISKCON’s financial affairs with a microscope, and once the main issue isetlled we will happily assist him in his investigations.

Dayarama wrote: “When I saw that Radhapada is not the only donor claim then I responded from whatever I knew from Adridharan prabhu himself.”

We never brought up that ‘Radhapada is not the only donor’ -point since this was already accepted and settled. It only came up when Radhpada tried to assert it recently, and then we had to present the facts.

Dayarama wrote: “I went and met Radhapada and Chaterjee his secretary. This is what Radhapada told me.”

So now you admit that your evidence is simply the say so of Radhapada - hardly independent. Compare that with our sources of evidence:

1) The person who sold the property - Mr Vijay Thakkar and his wife. 2) Th person who bought the property - Myself. 3) Many prominent industrialists - the donors themselves 4) The GBC - Hari Vilasa - who conducted a whole investigation into the affair. 5) And the actions of Radhapada Dasa and his family.

Since we have two conflicting accounts, we will simply let the readers decide who is telling the truth. But please note that apart from Radhapada’s say so, Dayarama offers no evidence.

Dayarama wrote: “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 they were called contributors and not donors in that meeting.”

Well this would mean that HariVilasa is also a liar now. It seems that the whole world is lying except whoever Dayarama happens to be going to bat for.

Dayarama wrote: “Also when Radhapada’s plaque was put up on the property no other plaque was put up.”

The plaque clearly said ‘principal donor’ - meaning there were other donors. There was no complaint. And please prove that this complaint letter from Radhapada was mailed IMMEDIATELY. The other plaque was added.

Dayarama wrote: “What to speak of being close to him during those initial days Satadhanya had almost kicked me out of Mayapur.”

But, since his child molestation fall-down, Satyadhanya’s attractiveness has increased for you and your Guru, since after that time you have all been very keen to engage him in very important affairs of the society.

Dayarama wrote: “I can’t prove it as I didn’t have tape recorder with me. It’s my clear recollection and not once as I remeber Adri told me on two different occasions.”

Well if you cannot prove it, and since it is one persons’ word against another, that’s why we had an independent adjudicator appointed by the GBC - Hari Vilasa - decide. So at least accept his words.

Radhapada ‘says’ so many things. But let him prove it. And when Hari Vilasa looked at all the evidence we presented he concluded from a neutral viewpoint that he was not the only donor.

Dayarama admits that he has no evidence - only a claim. We can all claim so many things. If you wish to have your claims taken seriously please present evidence, not stories.. Hari Vilas and the GBC have already settled this issue. So unless you have any new evidence to present to the discussion, please stay quiet, since you are not adding anything new to an issue that was already settled by the GBC.

© CHAKRA 26-Oct-1999

Go to the “Calcutta Page”