Sociological evidence on the Sathya Sai Organisation

On the Question of Scientific Sociological Theory and Method: One theoretical instrument considered thoroughly here was R.K. Merton's structural functional analysis, which allows investigation of how far a middle-range institution (including organisations like the Sai Organization) fulfill their stated ('manifest') functions, how far they fail to do so, or also fulfill other, unstated ('latent') functions. Merton's instrument also considers to what extent various interactions may be 'dysfunctional' (i.e. working against the declared aims). (Robert K. Merton: 'Manifest and Latent Functions' from Social Theory and Social Structure (Glencoe, Il. Free Press. 1957). Subsequently, it suggests which functions (manifest or latent) and arguable 'dysfunctions' arise from these roles in respect of the declared values and aims of the organisation as a whole. Combined with general role theory, Merton's ideas are useful in directing attention to aspects of an institution one may otherwise overlook, but they are not precise empirical scientific tools, so conclusions will be of the nature of a working hypothesis which can be modified if or when further convincing data becomes available.

The relative unavailability of information is itself a feature of the Sai Organization, which minimizes internal discussions on controversial questions and releases few facts about its decision-making. It makes no overview public on the specific activities of Sai Organization centres around the world and works largely clandestinely to effect it's decisions and policies. It was therefore decided no feasible to attempt any full, scientifically adequate examination of the Sai Organization. What analysis is made is based on available source materials, documents, various reports and participant observations. Limited use is, however, made of tools from structural functionalism and role theory where appropriate.

Sai Organization as a charismatic religious personality cult: On the possible reason for or function of having an organisation, the following account by Donald Taylor is illumining:-

"Although the Sai Council is in legal-rational terms an autonomous body, Council members believe themselves to be influenced by Sai Baba's miraculous powers of omniscience. All decisions of the Council are believed to be known by Sai Baba at the moment of their being taken, and thereby making a pure formality f the administrative procedure of sending reports back to the World Council of Sai Organization in India. Members believe too that Sai Baba visits them in dreams and advises them how to vote or act, so that 'right' decisions are taken by the Council. Once again charismatic authority supplants the emerging legal-rational authority of the movement."

There is evidence however, that this charismatic authority is in the process of being routinized. For example, in June 1985 at an audience given to a group of devotees from Great Britain , Sai Baba materialized a crystal lingam which he gave to the leader of the group. He instructed him to pour water over the lingam and to give the water to the sic, as this would do them good. Every week at a certain Centre in London where the leader of the group is the president, the ritual is carried out by him. He is the only person allowed to touch the lingam. The water is distributed to the many sick people who come to the meeting, and gathered into containers to be distributed to those who cannot be present. Here the powers of Sathya Sai Baba are tacitly being routinized in ritual, and the person who performs the ritual is gradually being given the status of a ritual functionary. This is one case that I know about from first hand; there are others that I have been told about.

In sum, the primacy of Sathya Sai Baba's charisma is assumed by almost everyone in the movement. He is regarded as the founder of each trust that is formed, as well as the governor of the whole movement. His divinity transcends the legal-rational organization of the movement. Yet his charismatic authority is open to routinization and this, in turn, suggest the eventual ascendancy of legal rational authority.

Challenge to Authority Muted challenges from within the movement sometimes result in the withdrawal of membership. Dr Bhagavantham, formerly on the Council of Management of the Central Trust (also formerly scientific adviser to the Government of India), has recently left the movement; and another, Dr Gokak, formerly in charge of the education programme, has tried to demolish the myths that surround Sai Baba. Other Indian academics have also left; and it is claimed that 'many more devotees including most foreigners have already deserted the flock' (Rajghatta, 1985: 48).

The legal rational structure of the movement is still, however, secondary to the charisma of its founder Sathya Sai Baba. The case of the presidency of the Sai Council of Great Britain is an example. Mr Sitaram had been made first president of the Sai Council, set op by Indulal Shah in 1975. However, for personal reasons, Mr Sitaram stepped down from office in 1976. Sathya Sai Baba was displeased, and refused the appointment of a new president. This state of affairs continued until 1982 at which time he called for the names of candidates; and in that year a new president was appointed and Council constituted. Throughout the entire six-year period of administrative vacuum the devotees continued to meet in Sai Centres and, indeed, some were the recipients of the miraculous powers of Sai Baba in their own homes. Because of the devotees' compliance with Sai Baba's charismatic authority, the movement was perpetuated in Britain .

Other challenges within the movement are more subtle, and also result in some devotees exhibiting miraculous powers, such as producing holy ash and bringing about miraculous cures. So far these powers are claimed to be derived from Sathya Sai Baba. But it is not difficult to see that such activities are challenges to Sai Baba's authority. Unless they are met, the movement could disintegrate into numerous thaumaturgical sects centered upon charismatic individuals. One of the ways to meet this sort of challenge is to routinize charisma, thus transforming the structure of the movement to a legal-rational type.

Another way in which Sathya Sai Baba has met these challenges has been to secure his position at the Centre, by claiming to be the incarnation of the universal godhead, such that devotion to Christ, Allah, or whoever automatically comes to him. This sort of claim is not altogether unusual in Hinduism. It is interesting to note, however, that the Sai Baba advanced this claim in 1968, at a time when the movement was expanding into foreign countries, such as the United States , Australia , and Britain , and recruiting membership among emigrant ethnic Indians as much as western people.

A further way in which Sai Baba has met a potential challenge to his authority is to thwart any discussion about his successor. In 1963 he announced that he was the second incarnation in a series of three. The first had occurred in the human form of the Shirdi Sai Baba who was the incarnation of Sakthi. The second, himself, was the incarnation of Siva-Sakthi; and the third would be the incarnation of Siva as someone called Prema Sai to be born in Mysore State eight years after his own death. By defusing the problem of succession, he also defused the problem of authority. All authority remains firmly in his hands as long as he lives. Anyone else who claims this authority in Sai Baba's lifetime will be recognized as a usurper or imposter."
Excerpt from 'Charismatic authority in the Sathya Sai Baba movement' by Donald Taylor in Hinduism in Great Britain, Richard Burghart (ed.), 1987, London/New York: Tavistock Publications, pp. 119-133.
(Transcribed by Alexandra Nagel, The Netherlands)

World Council Member Ron Laing: On a visit to the highly-respected Peggy Mason of The Embodiment of Love, and her husband and co-author, Ron Laing in UK in 1987, Ron spent most of two hours telling me in detail of his negative experiences on the World Council and in the Sai Organization, strongly criticising the Sai Organization and not least Mr. Indulal Shah. After resigning from the Sai Organization, Ron Laing wrote, in the Spring 1988 edition of Peggy Mason's 'Sathya Sai Baba - quarterly magazine', as follows:

Organisation has been the bane and pollution of all world religions. How can administrators and bureaucrats not fail to misinterpret and travesty the teachings of the great mystics who have founded the world religions and who have not been able to embody their spiritual insights into limited human language? There is bound to be distortion, misunderstanding and man-made theology. In my opinion, with man's growing consciousness, this is why the age of churches is dying out, and the age of spiritual truth is emerging.

It is vital to understand that in the Sai Movement the Organisation is quite separate from the Divine Mission. This is why Swami has recently said: "Those who are organisation-minded are those who do not understand the meaning of love. They continue to believe in reports and organisational detail, none of which is important." Love knows no rules. There is room for freelancers and individuals in the Sai Movement.

It is relevant to note that the ambiguity of the Charter on many issues and its loopholes, together with the disempowerment of its members before the dictates of the International Chairman and his executives have produced much freelancing and 'individuality', but perhaps not quite as Ron Laing envisaged it, for the results that can hardly be said to have removed bureaucracy or resolved other related problems. Conflicts are known to be endemic to many countries (according not least to reports in some talks by a couple of Central Coordinators!)

"THE SAI ORGANISATION. Today you see confusion in the Organisation in some parts of the world, people struggling for power and position, even trying to project their own images and personalities. This is not good.
The chance to serve the Lord is a unique opportunity given to man. Do not waste that opportunity and do not betray the trust which the Lord has placed in your hands. Remember always that the Organisation is for the devotees of the Lord."
(There is a good deal in the same well-known vein, then) "One day, a great wave will come and sweep away much of what exists today. New people will emerge who will guide the Organisation along more spiritual lines. They will be motivated by one thing only, LOVE, their love for the Lord and their love for their fellow men. It will be a time of great awakening and enlightenment as a new era is born. (etc.)"

Comment: Whether or not such 'messages' are influenced by the subconscious mind of the recipient, the Organisation gets a similar treatment to the one given in this analysis. There is perhaps a veiled threat, like the very vague hints of retribution found in many of Baba's pronouncements, in the words "do not betray the trust which the Lord has placed in your hands".
Apropos the "great wave that will sweep away much of what exists today", there is no telling how literal it is intended to be. Millennialism was rife among Sai devotees, and persistent accounts of what Sai Baba has said to people from many parts of the world in interviews gave much sustenance to this. Lucas Ralli ( Sai Messages for You and Me Vol. 3)

Sai Organization's chauvinist and vertical structure: Alejandro Agostinelli was a TV producer (America TV) and editing secretary for Descubrir magazine. Presently he is in the Multimedia Area of Editorial Perfil in Buenos Aires, Argentina. He said in 2001 on a TV programme entitled 'Divine Sin' that investigated Sai Baba:

"I have Monica Socolowicz, the woman who introduced the Sathya Sai Organization to Argentina, in front of me. I am at her Foundation for Practical Spirituality. Monica's first visit to India was in 1979, when Sai Baba greeted her in a way that made a deep impression on her: "You came at last!" he said to her. The teacher asked her to start the first Sai Center in Argentina and so she did. For a period of ten years she took more than 400 groups of Argentineans to Puttaparthi, the village in the south of India where Baba's ashram is located. In 1992 she left the Organization because she didn't agree with its "chauvinist and vertical" structure."

The problematical Charter's history - some background and comments: The original Charter, 'granted to' the Sai Organization by SB in 1981, was penned by Dr. S. Bhagavantam (famous for the possibly 'dharmic achievement' of making India's first atomic weapon) together with the ex-politician and initiator/head of the so-called Sathya Sai Seva Organisations, Mr. Indulal Shah. Sai Baba had accepted this, however, and it was printed for sale. That first brief Charter was narrowly conceived in respect of any global, inter-cultural relevance and was soon replaced with a longer version, which also evidently was soon found too problematical as a basis for organisation work internationally, being widely criticized by Westerners. It was unfortunately packaged in largely unintelligible bureaucratic language, a kind of formal or pseudo-legalistic jargon.

Around 1990, all countries were instructed to hold series of meetings to discuss the Charter and send in their comments. Several committees drawn from European countries worked on the final recommendations in 1991 at 'Mother Sai House' at Divignano near Milan. Bernhard Gruber of Germany, the excellent leader of the European region at that time, sent off those recommendations - but in the end not one had any real effect on the final result (again penned in its final form by the International Chairman, I. Shah, and eventually accepted by Sai Baba). The new UK leader at that time, after the dismissal by Shah of Lucas Ralli from the office of President of the Sai Organization in the UK , was Harry Mansbridge, who soon (apparently) resigned. He had sent in a fax with many pages of amendments gathered from UK devotees. Neither was more than a word or so of all these recommendations incorporated. That is how far democracy stretches in the Sai Organization.
The Charter has gone through some small changes since then - officially dividing the Sai Organization into two variants, one for the Eastern and one for Western hemispheres. Later the Sai Organization was re-divided into five world zones, which allows for a certain amount of (unspecified) regional differentiation in actual practice because five different leaders presumably interpret the Charter somewhat selectively in respect of specific events according to the needs of their zones.

The Charter has repeatedly proven a stumbling block because of the requirements it prescribed, including rituals that are largely impracticable in Western countries or non-Hindu cultures. Therefore, it was - and still is -frequently ignored in practice both centrally and locally as and when leaders (or sufficient numbers of engaged ground-level members) see fit. One example of this should suffice. In Prashanthi Nilayam at the time of its world conferences, the Sai Organization grants to any foreign visitor who happens to be staying at the ashram as a member and country delegate, even those who are merely boarding there for convenience and have never even been to a single darshan in their lives and never even find out that they are 'member delegates'. Needless to say, this is wholly contrary to the rules for membership in both Charters. It did not help matters in countries where qualification as a member is no automatic right, but requires acquaintance with the practices developed locally like active participation and other requirements for membership.

Locally, one often ignores other culturally unacceptable limits prescribed by the Charter when inappropriate (e.g. Hindu rituals, stated membership criteria, and various other rules). Such deviance from the paragraph is common to all organisations, but the degree and nature vary. It is particularly relevant in the Sai Organization to examine certain common deviations from the rules as an expression of problems or conflicts met in social and spiritual practice.

At the 70th birthday world conference, I. Shah walked nonchalantly out of the Poornachandra in full view of all as soon as delegates began to state their views, though it had been on his own invitation that those delegates who wished should be allowed to ask questions from the rostrum. Actions sometimes show what public statements do not.

World Council disbanded 1989: In 1989, Sai Baba officially - not least through an internal circular from the Prashanthi Nilayam Central Office run by Mr. Hejmadi - announced that the original ruling ‘World Council’ was disbanded, of which Indulal Shah was the International Chairman. Sai Baba withdrew accreditation to all office-bearers world-wide until further notice. The UKmember of this Council, nominated by Baba in person, Mr. Ron Laing, had already resigned previously. At the same time Baba suspended Indulal Shah plus all office-bearers in the entire Organisation – of which branches all over the world were informed by Baba acting through Mr. Hejmadi of the Central Office at Prashanthi Nilayam. But the Sai Organization went on just as though nothing had happened (though perhaps not quite fully so in India). Indulal Shah had great influence with leaders of national branches and key centres around the world, having travelled to many of them himself on behalf of Baba. He had a special pull on Marathi Indians of his own clan, who were often central in local organisations, for this is a kind of family or clan throughout the Indian diaspora. So he was able to contravene Baba’s own requirement that the Central Office at Prashanthi Nilayam, headed by a mild-mannered and understanding person, Mr. Hejmadi, should receive all future reports from centres and groups. Shah required that all his Indian friends and those foreigners ‘in his camp’, including several CCs, should send reports to himself in Bombay. In this way Baba the Sai Organization still reported through Shah and Baba eventually let this continue as before, changing Shah’s title from President of the World Council to International Chairman of the Sai Organization. I was so informed by V.K. Narasimhan – once India’s foremost investigative journalist in his day – who knew much about the organisation and of the whole career of Indulal Shah since he had been in Nehru’s government.

The illusion of democratic decisions:
1) A small example illustrates how 'democratic decisions' are made locally, but are easily circumvented: one meeting I attended discussed a request from a Jewish member to allow the Jewish Star of David symbol to be used in the Scandinavian Sai Organization's logo, as it is officially used in the USA. The entire meeting agreed that it should be allowed, apart from the Chairman (T. Meyer), who at least promised to put the matter before Baba. This was not done, but the minutes of the meeting later informed us that devotees should not concern themselves with such matters, but rather spend their energies in self-examination, good work etc.

2) The coordinator of Scandinavian and some European countries in the 80s & 90s, T. Meyer -widely known for never answering even important letters before it is too late, if at all - roundly criticised the Oslo membership before the collected representatives of other European national organisations without having any current information about us or our activities where we had been unable to send any representative. Our members naturally voiced their disappointment with this by letter, if in all too mild and friendly terms than were justified. We were answered in a most hypocritical way, that Baba told him to tell everyone that there are three types of leader, those who explain themselves, those who complain and those who inspire! This message through a man - unsuccessfully explaining his faulty criticisms of us away - who was so uninspiring and difficult to communicate with that he had been rejected as Scandinavian coordinator by the three countries in the early 1990s with the aid of the upright Central Coordinator, B. Gruber. (Unfortunately from the viewpoint of the functioning of Sai work in Scandinavia), T. M. was later reinstated in the same role by his patron and collaborator, Mr. Indulal Shah, who clearly had no adequate conception of Scandinavia or the cultural differences within it. Since then there has been a virtual decimation of the Sathya Sai Organizationlution of the working membership in Sweden, Norway and Finland. (In Norway it has collapsed and the remaining stragglers in the Oslo group have left the Organisation. Only a few semi-active volunteers remain in the entire country.) All this is typical of how the organisation is run in many countries, which I know from personal contact with five national leaders who were subsequently sacked by Shah for not fully toeing his line or else resigned... and from any number of other office-bearers. Not surprising that the Sai Organisation is far smaller than the well-cooked statistics claim!

Control of communication:
1) Serguei Badaev, the President of the Moscow centre and deputy of the National Coordinator and National SSEHV Coordinator until his dismissal, reported: "I know T. Meyer of Denmark very well as I was a National SSEHV coordinator in Russia . For 4 years I have not got from him (or from his ESSE Institute) any support or inspiration. All my initiatives in SSEHV were answered with silence. All our SSEHV reports to the ESSE Institute got no comments. But at the same time when I tried to contact Sathya Sai school in Zambia and Carol Alderman in UK and informed S. Piculell with e-mail copies of the messages I got a quick reply from TM with harsh words and demand to promise not to cross in future international regions borders with correspondence without prior permission."

Almost exactly the same neglect as Badaev describes, was experienced by all at the Oslo centre to all enquiries (but for a couple that suited him personally) to T. Meyer and the 'ESSE Institute' through about 15 years. At European meetings in the early 1990s, the representatives of some countries including Switzerland and Holland reported in plenum that the they had been treated in this way and that - despite TM having promised when confronted to send important papers, he had never done so - which had seriously hindered the progress of their educational programmes. Almost all leaders in Europe I have had reason to talk to about this have had the same experience of him. He was removed in 1992 from the post of Coordinator for Scandinavia on the advice of his superior, the conscientious and upright Bernhard Gruber of Germany, who perceived the common conviction about his unsuitability and lack of genuine leadership qualities. The Scandinavian Organisation was resolved into its several national organisations. However, all this was revived and TM was reinstated just the same capacity in 1996 by Indulal Shah, who overrules everyone at will.

2) S. Badaev writes in his web article, "UNESCO Conference without UNESCO", the following: "In a draft of the declaration the Institute of Sathya Sai Education ( Thailand) suggested to play the role of a coordinator or the Secretariat for the creation and maintaining the information exchange network. Similar proposals were announced repeatedly during the previous other seminars. Up to now such network has not been established even inside the Sai Organisation. Moreover, my non-sanctioned contacts as a national educational coordinator with other educators from different regions were forbidden by the zonal chairman T. Meyer."

Sai Baba's name's fame hyperbole: The hyperbole in Sai Baba's claim to be known to almost everyone alive far surpasses all reasonability. The entire world may know about the Dalai Lama, the Beatles, Lady 'Di' Diana, David Beckham, Madonna, the Pope, Mohammed Ali, Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein & many another... but definitely not Sathya Sai Baba. Billions have certainly not heard of him and, of those possibly tens of millions who may recognise the name, relatively few could tell anything about him. Only in parts of India, or progressively within the Sai movement, or within the ashrams can it be said that Sathya Sai Baba is a name known to everyone.

On Sai Baba's Christmas Discourse, 2000: (as published in Sanathana Sarathi - Jan. 2001, pps.1-11) Please see text and comments here.

The VIP statusconferred on the CCs and some other high office-bearers in the Sai Organization gives them privileges not accorded to others, such as being able to cut into first place in any food or various other queues, a privilege most of them make use of regularly. At the ashrams they are allowed to sit in special places, where Baba most often goes during darshan. Outside India their 'very important' status is emphasised in various ways. They are invited by national coordinators to visit various countries, hold talks and lectures. They often pay their own fares, however, so I am not suggesting that their private intentions are to benefit personally from the Baba gravy-train... but they are generally freely feted and fed as part of the package. see further The Sai Organization's 'men in suits'.

VIPs in action 'Love in Action' was the motto of a Meeting of Sai Organisations of Europe, Hamburg 12-15 May, 1989. About 1000 persons from the whole of Europe attended (in all from about 14 countries). The VIP visitors, including Phyllis Krystal, Al Drucker, Dr. Jumsai, Victor Kanu and various other of their kind or 'rank' were housed together in their own hotel and were also allotted special tables at meals in the locale where the meeting was held (the Curio-Haus, Hamburg) so that they were largely separated from the rank and file. This was how love appeared in action, hardly an expression of unity. But it was only a direct reflection of how things are at Baba's ashrams. See further VIPism