© 1999 VNN
|
EDITORIAL October 6, 1999 VNN4876 Related VNN Stories Marriage-Business BY DAYARAM DAS EDITORIAL, Oct 6 (VNN) — Dandavats. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Adridharan prabhu has stated the following about my presentation: > 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 studies. 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. > Whereas the property in discussion is in Calcutta. Thus how he could > possibly know the facts regarding who put money into my hand around 1981, > defies belief. We can only assume that Dayarama is repeating what he has > been fed by someone else. Absolutely correct - 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, 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 himself fed to me. 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. > Vijay Thakkar was *not* a property *broker*, a fact that can easily be > verified by his wife (Vijay unfortunately passed away in 1996). He was a > property *developer*, who owned many properties and one of the closest > friends of ISKCON. 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 will 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. > 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 buidling 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 easything 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 (where else could a Pan {beetle-nut vendor} shop, be located, except on the periphery of the property at the side of the road?), and couldn't affect the usage of the property 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 builing was in possession of the temple - one part being used for the catering business, and the other rooms were used for various purposes. > I will now state, in some detail, the exact sequence of events by which > the property in question was purchased. 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 tenats 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 can not claim to be the only donor of that proeprty. 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, were 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 the logic of Adri-ology, Radhapada WAS NOT THE ONLY DONOR! Modern day example of acintya-bhedabheda-tattva!!! 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) 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 Related VNN Stories  Comment on this storyContact VNN about this storySend this story to a friend
NEWS DESK | EDITORIALS | TOP |
