UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS & AN ANONYMOUS LETTER
Part Four (.... continued from Gerald Moreno's wild speculations on the authenticity of an anonymous letter about Sai Baba sexual abuses sent to and published by - B. Premanand)
Mr. Moreno's comments appear in bold red face, and mine are black in regular case.
by Basava Premanand
Reply to Mr. Gerald Moreno on his article published on his website
under 'BASAVA PREMANAND : DECEPTION' The article's title is: The Basava Premanand Anonymous Letter : vested Interests and Striking Similarities. July 2001 Basava Premanand's Questionable Involvement Updated : May 5th, 2005.
Mr. Moreno’s comments appear in bold black face, and mine are in regular case black type.
GMs Response No.1 : The only way for Premanand to vindicate himself, and his highly questionable involvement in writing this letter, is to provide the general public with the name and contact information to the person who allegedly wrote it. That would solve this matter completely. Period.
The fact that Premanand refuses to divulge a name or contact information, only serves to highlight his secrecy and circumventive tactics that do not befit a scientist or rationalist. Dr. Kovoor amply demonstrated the problems with anonymous stories and how they cannot be believed. Premanand acts contrary to the standards that Kovoor utilized against Gurus (and the anonymous claims made about them).
As I stated, on my first response, using Dr. Kovoor's standard, I challenge Premanand with the following (using Dr. Kovoor's own words with a slight modification): "I feel it is unscientific even for a scientist to believe this type of cock-and-bull story without verification, I request you to kindly let me know the name and address to the author of this letter so that I may verify the truth about it. Your failure to help me to conduct this investigation by withholding this information, will lead me to suspect your sincerity and honesty, and discard all what you have said...as utter falsehood deliberately propagated with ulterior motive and vested interest." Premanand is basically saying that he does not have to follow the same standards he demands from others. Hypocrisy, clear and simple.
As I stated on my previous response, Premanand and the Anonymous writer of the Betrayal article, are the only people (I could find) who used the term "vibuthi ball". All other Anti-Sai Activists, Skeptics and Former Devotees used the terms "pellets", "pills", "beads" or "tablets". Despite his heavy reliance on an English dictionary, Premanand is accusing all of these other people of using inappropriate words. Apparently, the only people who used the "most appropriate word" were Premanand and the Anonymous writer! Click Here to view nine references where Anti-Sai Activists, Former Devotees and Skeptics described the vibuthi in terms of "pellets", "pills", "beads" or "tablets". None of them referred to a "vibuthi ball".
My reply to Response No.1 :The general public GM mentions is really only a figment of GMs imagining. He evidently insists on what amounts to my risking the lives of those involved, but he does not even give his own name and address. Rather, the only way Sathya Sai Baba can prove his innocence is to get affirmations from the persons mentioned in the Betrayal document. The real fact is that Sathya Sai Baba, VC and GM refuse to question the students and prove that the statements in the article "Betrayal" are false. Sathya Sai Baba is not practising what Rama did (his alleged earlier avatar) when an anonymous washer woman questioned the chastity of his wife Sita, and she was ordered to prove her chastity by going through the fire ordeal. (It did not end there, for Sita when pregnant was discarded in a forest). What has the present so-called Avatar Sathya Sai Baba done? - though he asks his followers to practise Ramas principles to bring Rama Rajya? (That is, rule by the divine). Rather, he is notorious for widespread and highly credible allegations of sexual abuse, murder involvement and fraudulence on a BBC documentary which was challenged legally but unsucessfully on every point when it was shown world-wide. .
I have already answered to the full about using the phrase "vibhuti Ball" and that there is no amazing similarity of writing style between my articles and the article "Betrayal". As he attempts to do daily on his GM is trying to draw people away from the real issues by constantly regurgitating drivel
GMs Response No.2 : Premanand acknowledged he used the description "ball" in relation to vibuthi (which was done by the anonymous writer as well).
My Reply to GMs Response No.2 : So what? Big deal!
GMs Response No.3 : I already discussed this article on my previous response. I incorrectly attributed this quote to Premanand. I made the necessary correction.
My Reply to GM's No. 3 : No comment required
GMs Response No.4: "Practice" is not only spelled that way in the USA. It is also spelled that way all around the world, including India (because American English is a linking, international language). I am simply pointing out this known similarity.
My Reply to GMs Response No.4 : Grammar or spelling mistakes have nothing to do with the specific points in "Betrayal". More GM petty hair-splitting to decoy readers and try to save face after his ignorance of non-US English usage - which is the norm in India, and NOT American - was shown up.
GMs Response No.5 : Premanand is right. The above quote is not his. I made the necessary correction on my webpage by removing the quote and link.
My Reply to GMs Response No.5 : GM faked anothers mistakes to be mine. Making corrections in his web page does not absolve him. He is known (by his own claim!) to be an accomplished forger of documents
GMs Response NO.6 : Just earlier, Premanand said, "According to the dictionary "practise" in the US is spelled and pronounced as 'practice'. Usage : Both the noun and the verb are usually spelt with a 'c' in American English. In British English, only the noun has a 'c' the verb has an 's'." However, in the first sentence, Premanand used the word "practice" as a noun, not a verb, meaning that "practice" is the correct spelling (using "British English") and "practise" is not. If Premanand understood the difference between a noun and a verb, he would not have added "(or practise)" after the correct spelling/usage. Since this is "surely known to all properly educated people", what does this say about Premanand's education?
"Premand" was a typo. It has been corrected. Actually, the general practice is to write (using the example of 100): [Rs 100; Rs- 100; Rs. 100; Rupees 100; 100 Rs; 100 Rs. or 100 Rupees], which can be verified with any Indian newspaper (online or otherwise). I am simply pointing out this known similarity between Premanand and the anonymous author's handwriting styles.
My Reply to GMs Response No.6 : GM writes on and on with a fixation of paranoid obsessive type! As repeatedly explained, Prof. Kovoor never accused Dr.Bhagavantam. GM wants to defame me on the irrelevant and tendentious side-issue of educational qualifications, which is childish when the facts of my background and status are known. Yet he has no proof of having any education himself, and still demonstrates rather the contrary (i.e by holding that writing Rs.100/- proves I use the "Betrayal" authors writing style). Or, many times using the world site when he should have used the word cite. Comical! But for GMs further elementary education: A recent advertisement in Hindu dated 24.10.2005 by Southern Railway which shows the general practice practise with Indian government also writing Rs.100 as Rs.100/-
GMs Response No.7 : I never claimed that Premanand had a "trademark" or "patent right" on the term "etc.", nor did I claim that he used it inappropriately.
Again, I am simply pointing out the similarities between Premanand and the anonymous writer's handwriting styles.
My Reply to GMs Response No.7 : Not "amazing similarities" any more? What of the similarities with all other users of common words, including newspapers!
That GM stated that my "etc" is a fetish and a trade mark just shows how terribly hard up for a criticism he is not even a remotely sensible one either!
GMs Response No.8 : Yes, the "very same idea". Which is the reason why I included it as a "similarity" between what Premanand and the anonymous author wrote. I suggest Premanand pull out his trusty English dictionary (that he relies so heavily upon) and look up the word "similarity". However, I can save him some time:
1) The quality or condition of being similar; resemblance. See synonyms at likeness.
2) A corresponding aspect or feature; equivalence: a similarity of writing styles. (Ref. 1)
Premanand is overlooking a very simple fact: It is my opinion that the person who wrote this letter tried covering up his handwriting style, by using terms and phrases that he would normally not use. This would mean, of course, that the anonymous writer's handwriting would not be an exact "copy" to Premanand's. However, there are striking similarities (call them "coincidences") between Premanand and the anonymous writer's handwriting styles. That alludes to the valid perception that Premanand was somehow involved in writing this letter.
My Reply to GMs Response No.8 : What complete and utter hair-splitting bosh! Plain similarity or 'coincidences' (not even striking ones!) now! What next? GM suffers from compulsive paranoid behaviour in his desperation to defend his own pitiful little fallacies and full-blown, baseless conspiracy theory about Betrayal.
GMs Response No.9 : This time, I did not attribute this quote to Premanand. I attributed it to the Indian Skeptic site (which is based on Premanand's "Indian Skeptic Magazine"). When I attribute a quote directly to Premanand, I specifically reference his name. I found it peculiar that Premanand's fellow skeptics would happen to be using the very same term that was used in the Betrayal article. This would suggest that the person who wrote this letter was also a skeptic.
My Reply to GMs Response No.9 : GMs theory that people who use the same term have the same philosophical position is only worthy of a big guffaw.
Whether GM calls it coincidences or any thing, there is no iota in the writing style to prove that it is similar, nor does it prove any cover-up of my identity. Note also that "etc.," is not there in Betrayal. I know the truth of it, of course, but GM does not and probably thinks that, by sheer repetition of his foolishness, he may convince some poor soul that he is right. There is nothing more to it!
GM"s Response No.10 : I am simply pointing out that the two lists share the identical and consecutive words, "...lockets, talismans...". I also did not attribute this quote to Premanand. When I attribute a quote directly to Premanand, I specifically reference his name. I attributed it to the Indian Skeptic site (which is based on Premanand's "Indian Skeptic Magazine"). Again, the fact that these consecutive words appear on a skeptic site and on the anonymous letter, give the impression that the person who wrote this article was a skeptic.
My Reply to GMs Response No.10 : GM gets the impression because he is so impressionable for anything that might remotely help him defend his indefensible guru. Visit any jewellery shop, or read almost any devotees book about Sai Baba and we can find the same words in use.
GMs Response No.11 : My personal opinion, regarding the Betrayal letter, is that I believe it is fraudulent and has no factual basis. This letter was published in 1999 and absolutely nothing has come from it, despite providing full names to alleged sexual abuse victims and perpetrators. The anonymous writer alleged that some of these sexual abusers were "confirmed" and "shot into the limelight" for their alleged actions. However, there are no police or court documents that substantiate these claims in any way, shape or form. The anonymous writer also makes blind judgments based on what he thinks are indications of sexual abuse. One such instance is the reference to a German man named "Shyama". How did this anonymous writer know this man was sexually involved with Sathya Sai Baba? The reason given was, "One look at his face will tell you what happens to him inside the inner interview room." This letter also provides the names to alleged sexual abuse victims. Nevertheless, not even one Anti-Sai Activist has been able to confirm any of the claims made in the letter.
Premanand asked, "I wonder why he did not touch the main subject of the article "Sexual abuse of students" by Sathya Sai Baba? Is it because they are true and unquestionable and indisputable?" These questions only serve to highlight Premanand's double standards and deceit. There are many claims to Sathya Sai Baba's miracles. Since Premanand has not ascertained the validity to each and every one of these claims, does this mean that "they are true and unquestionable and indisputable?" On one hand, Premanand is saying that unconfirmed stories against Sathya Sai Baba are noteworthy and may be true. On the other hand, Premanand is saying that unconfirmed stories in favor of Sathya Sai Baba are not noteworthy and are not true. Premanand has never claimed to have spoken to any of the students named in the letter. Consequently, Premanand is basing his beliefs on unconfirmed and unsubstantiated stories! Since absolutely nothing has come about from the contents to this letter (in 6 years), the only thing that is "unquestionable" and "indisputable" is that this anonymous letter has no tangible, legal or documented basis against Sathya Sai Baba. Unlike Premanand, I believe that people are not gullible and will not accept anonymous claims as the truth. Funny that he, as a skeptic and rationalist, is engaging in the very same behavior he castigates believers for engaging in.
My Reply to GMs Response No.11 : GMs personal opinion on the authenticity of the letter however much of it he underlines worthless. He is totally biased, hung up - hacking away blindly in his self-importance - and incapable of understanding simple matters, let alone very complex and sensitive ones like the sex abuse and murders issues.
His response is not about other skeptics writing, but specifically about me, meaning to prove that the writing style is same. But articles appearing in Indian Skeptic need not at all be my articles, http://www.indian-skeptic.org/html/svw_count.htm
Sathya Sai Baba, his Vice Chancellor and GM have not even tried to meet the persons mentioned in Betrayal and question them. Ah, but this is the sort of preliminary work that GM, if he were to have been the half the investigator he cracks himself up to be, should have undertaken, but no he has preferred to rush into print stabbing away at anything that looks even remotely like a target. which ought to have been the preliminary work of GM. Then if the author of "Betrayal" has stated that these sexual abuses were "confirmed" and shot into the lime light" for their alleged action, GM should have contacted the author. The mention of "shot into the lime light" in Betrayal refers to Sai Giridhar, but the entire case was buried by Sathya Sai Baba and he was pardoned. The allegations are against Sathya Sai Baba and not against me. If it was against me I would have investigated them seeking proofs and exposed them as I knew that I have not sexually abused any one nor I have claimed to be with supernatural powers like Sathya Sai Baba. (By the way, unfortunately for GM, even though he has conveniently withdrawn it, my legal representatives are able to produce certified screenshots of GMs no doubt careless admission that he thinks it likely that Sai Baba has committed sexual abuse. So does this mean for GM that Sarvadaivatva Swaroopa commits sexual abuse?)
In "Betrayal" there is a clue as the names of some students and perpetuators are mentioned and it would have been very easy for Sathya Sai Baba, VC or GM to investigate them and expose the author of the "Betrayal". If they have kept silent it would certainly suggest that they are true, unquestionable and indisputable.
I have not stated that unconfirmed stories against Sathya Sai Baba are noteworthy and may be true or that unconfirmed stories in favour of Sathya Sai Baba are not noteworthy and are not true. Because these stories give no clue to investigate. I have not based my conclusions on unconfirmed and unsubstantiated stories.
How can there be police or court documents unless someone complains to the police and registers a F.I.R.
GM asked about the blind judgement to the reference to a German man named "Shyama" (actually, he is not a man but a male youth) and questions how the author knew he was sexually involved with Sathya Sai Baba. The authors son was a student.
There is no need for anyone to confirm the allegations in the "Betrayal" since I have ascertained them. The main subject of the article is "sexual abuse of students" by Sathya Sai Baba. My question does not prove double standard or deceit. On the contrary, it is not possible to investigate the many claims about Sathya Sai Baba as there are no clues to investigate them and they are only rumours spread by Sathya Sai Baba"s followers.
GMs unreasonable comments and responses on "Betrayal" without any documentations only try to confuse and derail the issue. GM has not cared to touch the sexual abuse which is the main point. But of course, for it would mean that he has no valid points.
GMs Response No. 12 : That is correct. The article entitled, "CHRIST IS TEMPTED - says St. Matthew in the New Testament Chapter 4", is an Anti-Christian article. I never claimed otherwise. This Anti-Christian article shows that Premanand is entirely familiar with Christianity and the Christian concepts of the "Day of Judgment", "Satan" and the "Anti-Christ". I was simply referencing this article to point out Premanand's familiarity with the Bible, despite being a staunch Atheist. The anonymous writer alluded to his personal, rationalistic beliefs when he said, "a little observant and not blind with emotion and pseudo-spirituality".
However, the abrupt introduction of God-related material, points to a cover-up. The anonymous writer all of a sudden starts talking about the Bible and Christian concepts, despite the fact that the Bible related all sorts of miracle stories. How can the anonymous writer reject Sathya Sai Baba's miracles, but then promote the Bible, which is full of miracles? Clearly, the anonymous writer was a rationalist (because he wanted people to view Sathya Sai Baba's miracles by being "a little observant and not blind with emotion and pseudo-spirituality"), and tried to cover-up his writing style. Consequently, my opinion that "the Christian undertone towards the end of the letter is clearly disingenuous and could have very easily been added to cover the writers true, personal beliefs", is entirely valid. I suggest Premanand pull out his trusty English dictionary (that he relies so heavily upon) and look up the word "disingenuous".
My Reply to GMs Response No.12 : GM is very confused when he asks: How can the anonymous writer reject Sathya Sai Baba's miracles, but then promote the Bible, which is full of miracles? This is an utterly preposterous question, not least in view of hundreds of millions of Catholics or other Christians who accept only miracles by Christ or His Father (who they most certainly do not regard Sai Baba as being!) GM thinks entirely valid his highly tentative opinion, which is actually entirely false. The only valid thing about it is that he holds that opinion, though more shakily than usual! As usual, GMs stiff-necked claim of fraudulence here has no factual basis.
The article GM mentions is not anti Christian and what I have quoted is from the Bible. There is nothing to show that it is against Jesus. This article was against the actions of those who claim that they are followers of Jesus and believe in the Bible but the riots by fundamentalist Christians against a drama about Jesus Temptation which is a part of the St Matthew version. It is true that I did not write "Betrayal" and nor did I help its author to write it. I could not find any Christian undertone in "Betrayal" - it was not insincere or crafty but a straightforward and candid. Qualities that indeed one would like to see in GM.
Yes, I am familiar not only with the Christian concept of the "day of judgement" "Satan" and "Anti Christ" but also those of the Hindu religion and Islam. I never said that I am not familiar with the Bible or the Hindu scriptures and Koran. I cannot be an Atheist unless I understand the religions. The author of "Betrayal" did not start talking abruptly about the Bible and Christian concepts. It was after the mention was made of the German student where he mentioned about the Bible, Satan and the Anti Christ. The author of "Betrayal" not only had immense faith in god, but believed that all religions lead people to god.
Let GM ask himself (not me) - What about the author stating that neither Lord Rama, Krishna nor Jesus was a homosexual? GM has not explained how the sentence a little observant and not blind with emotion and pseudo spirituality can cover up the authors writing style. Another empty, fatuous claim.
The word disingenuous can be concretely defined here simply by pointing to the dishonesty of GM in his writings. The alleged Christian undertone does not in any way cover up the authors true and personal beliefs, as Dr. Kovoor believed in god and all religions as leading to god.
GMs Response NO.13 : "Being, insincere and dishonest", "conspiring", "propagandizing" and having some sort of "vested interest", were actually the accusations that Dr. Kovoor made against Dr. Bhagavantham for distributing anonymous material. Consequently, Premanand is criticizing Dr. Kovoor.
Also, "most certainly appears" is not a statement of "100%" certainty. "Most" does not mean "all". "Most" denotes a majority, not an absolute. Consequently, "it most certainly appears" and "cannot be said with 100% certainty" are not contradictory. This is another example of Premanand's snippy and obsessive nitpicking.
Premanand said he will only reveal the name to the anonymous person, who allegedly wrote this letter, to the "Apex Court". What is amusing about this comment is that Premanand believes that the courts are covering up for Sathya Sai Baba and are corrupt (which Premanand attributes to his many failures in courts). So why would Premanand reveal the anonymous author's name to the "Apex Court" when he believes the judicial system is corrupt and covers up for Sathya Sai Baba?
My Reply to GMs Response No.13 : GM has not pointed out where I was criticising Prof. Kovoor. In order for me actually to criticise Dr. Kovoor, I would have to have had that intention, which I did not. It was always Bhagavantam who was under criticism, but GM wants to turn it inside out, like almost everything else.
GMs use of "most certainly appears" shows how he tries to deceive by creating ambiguity. The meaning of "most" is greatest in number or quality. The word certainly allows of no exception. Use of most certainly is verbal overkill. However, the word appears is ambiguous since it can refer to 1) what appears but is not necessarily real or alternatively what is immediately given to perception as being real. Thus, with most certainly appear GM wants to have his cake and eat it to assert certainty but to have a way of retreating when challenged, all to try to bolster by this verbal trickery his very weak imaginings and undocumented and fact-free suggestions. This is typical of all GMs uncertain statements, which are asserted with apparent force while being heavily veiled by his very frequent use of terms appear, seem, as if, may be, could be, perhaps (etc. etc.), which can all give a conflicting impression. These wiles of Gerald Moreno are those of poorly educated tricksters below college standards; and wilful demagoguery, nothing less.
How many times is it necessary for me to say that certain clear and distinct undertakings have to be given by the Court, guaranteeing the safety of the writer and family before their details are released? Little wonder that GM feels the frequent need to conjecture for he cant (or doesnt want to) understand situations that would be clear to any sensible, responsible person.
GMs Response No.14 : All the names listed on the Betrayal letter are: 1) Mr. B.N. Narasimhamurthy; 2) Mr. Sai Giridhar; 3) Sai Ram; 4) Ratnakar Chawla; 5) Narahari; 6) Manish Sharma; 7) Anand Sur; 8) Hidesh Gupta; 9) Ganga Manchanda; 10) Mr. Khayaldas; 11) Dante; 12) Hidayat Ulah; 13) Sri Sai Surendranath; 14) Mrs. Munni Kaul; 15) Chettiar; 16) Mr. Aswathnarayan and 17) Shyama.
Webpage I referred to: home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/articles/list.html (taken from the QuickTopic Forum, which in turn was taken from the guestbook at saipages.com which is no longer online) Webpage I missed referencing: home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/articles/pedofacts .html (which was taken from the QuickTopic forum, post number 65, which in turn was taken from the guestbook at saipages.com, which is no longer online).
Alleged Sexually Abusive Instructors: 1) Mr. B.N. Narasimhamurthy; 2) Mrs. Munni Kaul.
Alleged Sexual Abusers: 1) Ratnakar Chawla; 2) Narahari - Alleged Sexually Abused Students: 1) Sai Ram; 2) Manish Sharma; 3) Anand Sur; 4) Hidesh Gupta; 5) Ganga Manchanda; 6) Mr. Khayaldas; 7) Dante; 8) Hidayat Ulah; 9) Mr. Sai Giridhar (a Sai student and lecturer).Other: 1) Sri Sai Surendranath (neither accused of being sexually abusive/abused, but was accused of supplying Sathya Sai Baba with boys); 2) Chettiar (neither a student, instructor or accused of being sexually abusive/abused); 3) Mr. Aswathnarayan (neither a student, instructor or accused of being sexually abusive/abused); 4) Shyama (A alleged German man, who had an Indian name, was not a student or instructor and who was suspected of being involved with Sathya Sai Baba because if you were to take "one look at his face", it would "tell you what happens to him inside the inner interview room").
Removing the 4 "Other" names, because they were neither students, instructors or accused of being sexually abused/abusive, this leaves us with 13 names: 1) Mr. B.N. Narasimhamurthy; 2) Mrs. Munni Kaul; 3) Ratnakar Chawla; 4) Narahari; 5) Sai Ram; 6) Manish Sharma; 7) Anand Sur; 8) Hidesh Gupta; 9) Ganga Manchanda; 10) Mr. Khayaldas; 11) Dante; 12) Hidayat Ulah and 13) Mr. Sai Giridhar (an alleged Sai student and lecturer).
One of these individuals is not listed on the ExBaba site. 12 are. The one person not listed is: 1) "Hidayat Ulah" (an alleged sexually abused student).
Consequently, 12 names, from the Betrayal letter are listed on the ExBaba site (as being allegedly sexually abused or abusive). Premanand said, "Out of 13 students names mentioned in 'Betrayal', 6 are not in the list published on Ex-baba.com.". There are not "13 students", there are 9, possibly 11 (if one includes the 2 "Alleged Sexual Abusers" who were not specified as being students). Out of the 13 names, 1 is not listed on the ExBaba site. Premanand claimed "6 are not in the list published on Ex-baba.com".
On the ExBaba site: Mr. B.N. Narasimhamurthy's name is mentioned ("The matter was reported to the then warden Sri B.Narasimhamurthy as well as Swami"); "Sai Giridhar" is listed under number 89 (as "R. Sai Giridhar"); "Sai Ram" (listed on under the comments: "N. Radhakrishnan, E.K.Suresh Kumar, Sai Ram, Sai Kumar Mahajan, all ex-students were victims that night"); "Ratnakar Chawla" is listed as number 12 (in the "List of Paedophiles of Sai Baba"); "Narahari" is listed as number 10 (in the "List of Paedophiles of Sai Baba"); "Manish Sharma" is listed under number 90; "Anand Sur" is listed under number 41; "Hidesh Gupta" is listed under number 42; "Gagan Manchanda" is listed under number 91; "Mr. Khayaldas "is listed under 112 (as "Deepak Khialdas"); "Dante" is listed under number 87 (as "Dante Gabriel")
On the Betrayal letter, "Mrs. Munni Kaul" is referenced (the Head Mistress of the Primary School who was accused of being a "confirmed child molestress" without any sort of police or court documentation provided neither at the time the Betrayal letter was written or since). At home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/articles/pedofacts.html (which was duplicated at the QuickTopic forum, post number 65), "Munni aunti of primary school selects girlish/kinks/smooth/gayish boys and sends them in front of sb to get them f**ked, she bathes these boys who are 12-14 years old & in puberty old herself along with some selected pervert female staff members." The Betrayal letter also refers to "Munni Kaul" as "munni aunty".
To be literally accurate, I changed the wording, where I said, "...all of the names to the alleged sexually-abusive instructors and sexually-abused students, were taken from a list provided on ExBaba.com..." The word "all" was changed to "most".
My Reply to GMs Response No.14 : Here again GM is faking Prof.Kovoors letter dated 11.9.1972 to Dr.Bhagavantham, by adding were actually the accusations that Dr. Kovoor against Dr.Bhagavantham for distributing anonymous material.
What Professor Kovoor stated was "will lead me to suspect your sincerity and honesty and discard all what you have said about Sathya Sai Baba as utter falsehood deliberately propagated with ulterior motive and vested interest.
Here GM has deleted the first part of the sentence and added his speculation "were actually the accusations that Dr.Kovoor made against Dr.Bhagavantham. (Bold letters are mine for emphasis).
One thing GM forgot was that Kovoor continued his investigation ie. the "Seiko Watch" issue. He got the address of the manufacturers from the Japanese embassy and sent a letter and the reply was that the report of Dr.Bhagavantham is completely unfounded.
But in the article "Betrayal" there are many clues to which, if verified, GM should have got the answer. Instead he wrote his deceptive deception series and claimed that he is following Professor Kovoors method, i.e. the very person whose method and its results he tries to undermine!
GMS response No.15 : I updated my article by removing this entire section, where I said, "This list was removed from quicktopic after many students complained about their names being on it. Those students who complained, stated that they were never sexually abused and someone with ulterior motives submitted their names without their consent!" Although I remember these comments, I believe they were made on the guestbook at saipages.com (which was the original source for the QuickTopic posts), which is no longer online since November 2003. Consequently, I cannot factually substantiate this claim, so I am removing it. There are, however, many people who did complain about this list that are still recorded on the QuickTopic forum. Click Here to view the complaints and critical comments about this list, which is still online at QuickTopic.com. One will also notice that Sanjay Dadlani, an Anti-Sai Activist, claimed he could personally verify that three of the students, on the list, were never sexually abused! This proves that someone got a list of names of Sai students, and purposely lied about them. The person who posted these names did so under the guise of anonymity. Premanand also said, "This list of sexually abused students is continued on Ex-baba.com and no one has seriously complained", meaning that someone did complain.
Premanand just suggested that the Judicial System, in India, is corrupt and the students would not get justice if they filed criminal complaints in a court of law. However, earlier, Premanand said that he was willing to reveal the name to the anonymous writer (of the Betrayal letter) to the "Apex Court". Since Premanand contends that the students allegedly cannot get justice in the courts, under what circumstances, exactly, will Premanand reveal the name to the anonymous writer in an "Apex Court", especially when students cannot get justice in them? This points to the hollow and meaningless assertions that Premanand makes about providing the name to the anonymous author in a Judicial system he deems corrupt and conspiring with Sathya Sai Baba.
My Reply to GMs Response No.15 : GM now confesses that he cannot "factually substantiate his claim that many students complained about their name being in it". GM stated that the list was removed from quick topic. But I was able nonetheless to copy the list on 7.9.2005, after reading GMs comments. This speaks much about GMs lack of integrity, again faking over the issue because it is the base of all his responses against sexual abuse by Sathya Sai Baba. With this single confession, the whole structure he has built up has crumbled down. When GM is so careful even in saving irrelevant materials from Ex Baba sites, it cannot be true that he has not saved the original source for the Quick Topic Posts. And he now presents a weak alternative explanation that - although he remembers the materials from the guestbook at Saipages.com - he cannot factually substantiate his claim. This was the most relevant material he claimed he had to prove the falsity on the 155 names of students!
Sanjay Dadlani left Sathya Sai Baba some years ago and has now firmly repudiated that he actually knew that three students were not abused, but fondly believed it then only because he knew some female members of the family).
As to the circumstance required for releasing the name of the author, it is simply that the Supreme (Apex) Court guarantees the safety of the author. Where and when the judiciary thus shows that it becomes free of the influence of Sai Baba devotee judges, the name will be released. GM makes the meaningless assertions wherever he avoids the issue of safety of the critic of powerful Sai Baba.
GMs Response No.16 : Once again, Premanand is resorting to reverse logic. On the contrary, why didn't even one alleged sexual abuse victim file a court case, against Sathya Sai Baba, in an Indian court of law? After all, there are no less than one hundred fifty five (155) Sai students who allegedly put their names on a public list as being sexually abused by Sathya Sai Baba! Why would these one hundred fifty five (155) students be more than willing to put their names on a public list, but then refuse to contact Barry Pittard, or any other Anti-Sai Activist, and ask for free "world class legal resources" to help them bring Sathya Sai Baba to justice? Also, these alleged Sai students refuse, for some unknown reason, to provide contact information, affidavits, or even written testimonies to back up the allegations attributed to them. Nevertheless they were more than willing to collectively make a list, revealing their full names!
Anti-Sai Activists have been trying to bring Sathya Sai Baba to justice for many years now. However, here we have a public list of one hundred fifty five (155) names, to alleged sexual abuse victims, and absolutely nothing has been done for them. Why haven't Anti-Sai Activists even attempted help these alleged students file a court case, first-hand, in an Indian court of law? After all, these students grouped together, in a plea for help, and made their full names (in most instances) public. Premanand (a rationalist and skeptic) sees nothing suspicious about this!
Surely, if these one hundred fifty five (155) students grouped together (as they allegedly did to make this list), and took it to the media, it would simply a matter of time before someone, somewhere, would be forced to address this issue either in person or in court. However, nothing has been done. If Premanand is a true rationalist and scientist, he would have verified the identities to these alleged victims before accepting them as the truth. Anti-Sai Activists have also failed to publish this list in various media articles, in India. The reason why they have failed to do this is perhaps because these students would come forward and reveal that Anti-Sai Activists are liars, and they would be made a world-wide mockery (even more so than they are now). Anti-Sai Activists need to rely on anonymous forum postings and anonymous letters as "proof" against Sathya Sai Baba, because they have nothing else to cling to. All of these facts support my opinion that since Premanand defends this anonymous Betrayal letter so aggressively, he has questionable involvements in its creation. A true rationalist or skeptic would, at least, express some skepticism. Premanand, however, refuses to acknowledge that there is anything wrong or suspicious with this letter at all. This directly puts Premanand's integrity and involvement in writing this anonymous letter into question.
My Reply to GMs Response No.16 : Why should the 155 students sexually abused by Sathya Sai Baba provide the anonymously-hiding GM with their contact information, affidavits or even written testimonies to back up their allegations?
He would doubtless misinterpret and deny everything they provided even then, besides slandering them, as he has done to many sexually abused persons already! Sathya Sai Baba himself knows that he has sexually abused them, otherwise would not his legal luminaries have gone to court for defamation by the accusers to be severely punished under law? The students have collectively made a list revealing their names which could be verified from the records of the educational institutions and confronted by Sathya Sai Baba. That is sufficient for genuine researchers!
It is not I who am aggressively on the defensive, and I simply and factually defend Betrayal, whereas Morenos activities represent an onslaught, and on virtually any day of the week. In a court of law, Morenos disgraceful attacks and wild surmises would not be countenanced.!
GMs Response No.17 : Once again, it is apparent that Premanand has no clue that the District Collector and Hon. Governor of AP do not regulate the internet. Guess Premanand's trusty English dictionary doesn't mention this fact under the entry for "internet".
My Reply to GMs Response No.17 : It is not my view that the law enforcers regulate the internet. But there are laws to regulate the internet. GM has himself mentioned the Canadian law. There is also US copyright law and invasion of privacy laws, which he has wilfully broken. Also, this whole international area on internet accountability is developing fast and, considering Morenos website, the greater the jeopardy he will find himself in. He has deeply offended a lot of young sex abuse victims and many other people by defamation too.
GMs Response No. 18 : Premanand admits that his articles were not written by him alone. He apparently needed help in typing and editing his answers! Even with the help of "colleagues" (plural, denoting 2 or more), Premanand has miserably failed to exonerate himself from his questionable involvement in faking this anonymous letter. As a matter of fact, he further implicates himself by refusing to hold himself to the same standard that Dr. Kovoor used, in dealing with anonymous material.
My Reply to GMs Response No.18 : What has this to do with the article "Betrayal"? GM is trying to change the subject by bringing irrelevant subjects.
Editing for better English and my secretaries keyboard work do not mean that the replies to GMs deception series are not authored and finally checked by me alone.
GMs Conclusion : First of all, let me say that I am human and I make mistakes. I am not perfect. I have a policy on my site that encourages people to bring factual discrepancies to my attention. When these errors, typos and discrepancies are brought to my attention, I promptly correct them. I am more than willing to admit to and correct my mistakes (unlike Anti-Sai Activists who ignore their own mistakes and fail to correct them).
Let us look at the errors I made, compared to the errors that Premanand made.
My errors: I incorrectly attributed two quotes and one link to Premanand, that belonged to Piet Vroon. I corrected my article by removing the quotes and the link.
I incorrectly attributed a quote to Premanand, that was taken from themronline.com. I corrected my article by removing the quote and the link.
I stated that "...all of the names to the alleged sexually-abusive instructors and sexually-abused students, were taken from a list provided on ExBaba.com..." I changed the word "all" to "most" even though 12 out of the 13 names (taken from the QuickTopic forum) were published on the ExBaba site.
I stated, "This list was removed from quicktopic after many students complained about their names being on it. Those students who complained, stated that they were never sexually abused and someone with ulterior motives submitted their names without their consent!" Although I remember these comments, I believe they were made on the guestbook at saipages.com (which was the original source for the QuickTopic posts), which is no longer online since November 2003. Consequently, I cannot factually substantiate this claim, so I removed it from my article.
My Reply to GMs Conclusion : These are very far from being the only mistakes GM has made. His entire agenda is in error, for he is knowingly defending the cover-up and avoiding all important facts throughout his entire website. GM has not so far corrected properly when his discrepancies are pointed out and with his juggling of words he adds more falsehoods. GM was not willing to admit and correct his mistakes. I have nothing to correct in my replies to GMs deception series as there are no discrepancies in them. He thinks he has found 19 errors in my reply to his deception series on the article "Betrayal", but those are actually all his mistaken opinions.
GM continued : Premanand's errors: Errors 1-15 were taken from my First Response Article. Errors 16-19 were taken from this Second Response Article:
1) Premanand claimed that the letter is not an anonymous story, i.e., "It is not an anonymous story but a true fact". The letter is not signed and the person who allegedly wrote it refuses to be identified. This qualifies the article as being "anonymous".
My reply to 'error' 1) : The letter is signed, the "Betrayal" article is not a photocopy of the original letter but is a transcript without signature included. The original will be produced in court if the court protects the life of the author and his family and take action against the persons pointed in the CB-CID report in the 6 murders in Sai Babas Bed Room on 6.6.1993.
2) Premanand claimed that I had "no proof" about him receiving the Betrayal article in December 1998. The proof was taken from Anti-Sai Sites.
My reply to 'error' 2) : I only know about ExBaba.com, no other Anti-Sai sites. GM fails to prove anything, he only claims I got it then. If GM were to want proof from Anti-Sai sites, he can find plenty to show that Sathya Sai Baba is a sexual abuser, an accomplice to murder and much more. Why not consider tangible evidence instead of his piddling points.
3) Premanand misunderstood my words and tried to misrepresent them. The quote in question was, "Basava Premanand claimed he sent a registered letter on December 9th 1998 to the (unnamed) Vice Chancellor of the Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning asking to investigate the claims made in the letter".
My reply to 'error' 3) : Nothing in my letter requested the VC of SSIHL to investigate the claims made in "Betrayal". The Vice.Chancellor was not unnamed, nor did I ask the VC to investigate. GMs logic is awry: if I misunderstood, then it was not misrepresentation, and vice-versa. In fact, it was neither, but it is GM who tries to misrepresent everything.
4) I said, "Basava Premanand alleged that several letters were sent to him from Sathya Sai Baba students, alleging sexual abuse" . Premanand tried to refute this by claiming he had a photocopy of an original letter from a lawyer (not students). His response does not confirm he received letters directly from students (which he alleged to the VC).
My reply to 'error' 4) : I did not refute your statement but as proof I quoted the letter from Mr.Hariram Jayaram who held a responsible position in Sathya Sai Baba Org in Malayasia. Nor did I claim that I received it directly from students. I have the original letter from Mr. Hariram Jayaram addressed to me and not a photo copy. I published the photocopy in my book 'Murders in Sai Babas Bed room'.
5) Premanand said, "Now why did he not carry the full article...". I did publish the full Betrayal article. Premanand was unaware of this fact.
My reply to 'error' 5) : As GM knows, I know almost nothing about the Internet. A student helps me to copy GMs articles.
6) Premanand tried making the case that "Ji" was a common suffix (or as he called it, a "prefix"), but conceded that it is used as a "friendly gesture to anyone one likes". This actually argues in my favor for the suffix being positive. Consequently, a former devotee or skeptic would not use that suffix when it means something positive.
My reply to 'error' 6) : GMs juggling with the two words does not prove anything about "Betrayal". Irrelevant hair-splitting.
7) Premanand said, "I could not find the words 'cheat, liar and fraud' in the article "Betrayal" and may be that was also why he did not publish the full article in his Deception series..." Premanand misrepresented my words as I never claimed that those three words were in the article. Those were my words. Furthermore, the Betrayal article was published, in full, on my webpage.
My reply to'error' 7) : This is what GM commented "the anonymous letter allegedly received by Basava Premanand, was not written by a devotee, but by some one who clearly disliked Sathya Sai Baba and saw Sathya Sai Baba as a cheat, liar and fraud". These are GMs words which he cannot change.
8) Premanand also compresses several untruths in the following paragraph: "But what he has published is only 14 lines with 20 words in each line while the article contains more than 400 lines with about 18 words in each line! What was the purpose of him publishing only 14 lines as the anonymous letter? Was it because it was not possible for him to refute the main part - that is, the text quoted by him is just the first two paragraphs of the article! He also has dishonestly not given the details of the website! He has not verified from me whether it is a anonymous letter and his assumptions are only to defame me." First of all, I did publish the entire Betrayal article on my webpage. I did not publish only "14 lines with 20 words in each line" The first 14 lines are composed of 262 words. The Betrayal article is composed of 5,461 words. Premanand failed to read the other 5,199 words to the Betrayal article that I published on my site (that he claimed were missing).
My reply to 'error' 8) : So what? I am not concerned how many words and lines and paragraphs it has. These petty trifles have nothing to do with "Betrayal.
9) Premanand said, "If GM had given the full text of the article in his Deception series the students would have known the truth.". Once again, I provided the full Betrayal article on my site.
My reply to 'error' 9) : He does not prove it (eg. with click here). GMs hacking away with deception is not worth answering.
10) Premanand incorrectly stated that "It is written in third person because if the writer's identity was discovered he would have been long since dead.". A person who writes in "first person" does not need to divulge his/her identity.
My reply to 'error' 10) : He did not want to be identified. A person who writes in first person would normally want to identify himself. But then, not a coward hiding his identity behind a name no one can verify!
11) Premanand has now divulged that the article was written by an alleged "father" to a Sai Student. All along, everyone was led to believe that it was a Sai Student who wrote it.
My reply to 'error' 11) : Who knows what GM or everyone believes about this? If one has read the article "Betrayal" it is quite clear that it was by someone connected with Sai Students.
12) Premanand contradicts himself when he said that he "alone" received the letter, but later stated that the letter was distributed "earlier", by the alleged "father".
My reply to 'error' 12) : If GM reads the last para of "Betrayal" which is to the students in Sathya Sai Baba educational institutions it is clear that it was distributed to the students. The article was sent to me alone (meaning only in Indian usage) to get them justice. So there is no contradiction.
13) Premanand said (again), "GM has not published the article "Betrayal" fully for this simple reason that his deceit would be exposed." Once again, the full Betrayal article was published on the page in question.
My reply to 'error' 13) : In No. 13, GM repeats it all yet again. Already refuted, see my reply to No. 9.
14) Premanand claimed "None of this information is there in my article!". However, my very wording never insinuated that the information came from Premanand's article. I specifically attributed my quote to the anonymous writer.
My reply to 'error' 14) : When GM makes strong repeated (false) claims that I am really the anonymous writer, who is he attributing it to? What a fraud GM is!
15) Premanand said, "All religions talk about the judgement day. This is not the monopoly of Christianity alone", trying to make the case that the anonymous writer was not expressing a Christian viewpoint. The Betrayal article specifically said, "In Bible only one individual is supposed to love homosexuality, The Satan or the anti-christ...On the Day of Judgment you will have to pay for your sins...It is common-sense that when Satan appears, he will never proclaim himself as Satan he will only 'act' as God and confuse and destroy the faith of mankind and cause confusion and mayhem as you see in world today and talk about bringing love, peace and harmony where are they?" The concept of Satan "appearing" and acting as God, comes from the Book of Revelations. Islam does not accept the Book of Revelations. Consequently, this reference is Christian. Consequently, Premanand is not only unfamiliar with the Christian claims made in this letter, he is also mistaken about my comments.
My reply to 'error' 15) : False conclusions! How far I am familiar or not with the Christian religion is my concern. When I mentioned the judgement day it was on the basis in the next to last para of "Betrayal" and this word and related ideas are a part of several major religions and sects.
16) Premanand said, "Out of 13 students names mentioned in 'Betrayal', 6 are not in the list published on Ex-baba.com. ". There are not "13 students", there are 9, possibly 11 (if one includes the 2 "Alleged Sexual Abusers" who were not specified as being students). Out of the 13 names, 1 is not listed on the ExBaba site, 12 are. Premanand claimed "6 are not in the list published on Ex-baba.com".
My reply to 'error' 16) : I stand by my figure 6.
17) Premanand said, "After stating the self-defeating 'most certainly appears', GM somersaults again and states,' Although this cannot be said with 100% certainty'." "Most certainly appears" is not a statement of "100%" certainty. "Most" does not mean "all". "Most" denotes a majority, not an absolute. Consequently, "it most certainly appears" and "cannot be said with 100% certainty" are not contradictory.
My reply to 'error' 17) : "it most certainly appears" is and a sly attempt strongly to imply 100% certainty, as I already showed. It is a language trick to deceive the average reader.
18) Premanand attributed me with quoting him regarding the word "deft". I did not quote him.
My reply to 'error' 18) : The alleged coincidence GM finds between my writing style and the author of "Betrayal", the word deft is mentioned in coincidence (7) as if I had used the word, taking it from the article authored by Prof. Piet Vroon.
19) Premanand said, "According to the dictionary "practise" in the US is spelled and pronounced as 'practice'. Usage : Both the noun and the verb are usually spelt with a 'c' in American English. In British English, only the noun has a 'c' the verb has an 's'." Even using a dictionary, Premanand later said, "The general practice (or practise) in India..." Premanand used the word "practice" as a noun, not a verb, meaning that "practice" is the correct spelling (using "British English") and "practise" is not. When Premanand said, "(or practise)", he failed to differentiate between a noun and a verb.
My reply to 'error' 19) : Now GM has belatedly researched and discovered for himself the difference between practice and practise (as noun or verb) and makes this a Big Deal! Did he finally get himself that cheap Collegiate Dictionary (doubtless as a substitute for having no college education to show)? He is a boastful pedant possessed with petty things to avoid issues.
GMs Conclusion : To Basava Premanand (in the words of Dr. Kovoor): "I request you to kindly let me know the name and address to the author of this letter so that I may verify the truth about it. Your failure to help me to conduct this investigation by withholding this information, will lead me to suspect your sincerity and honesty, and discard all what you have said...as utter falsehood deliberately propagated with ulterior motive and vested interest."
Reply to GMs Conclusion : Dr.Bhagavatam did not reply to anything, but. Prof.Kovoor did not stop there. He found the "Seiko Watch" claim and investigated it to the end. But Gerald Moreno did not continue his investigation when I gave him a clue. So GMs bragging senseless "bashing" here is in no way comparable.
GMs Postscript : I had received several emails claiming that the Betrayal letter was actually written by a group of Ex-Sai Students who had joined forces with Premanand. I never published this claim because the people involved did not give me permission to duplicate their names on my site (with good reason). However, recently, I came across a post from Hari Sampath, that was made on the SathyaSaiBabaDiscussionClub: Message 4320: Posted on Mon Feb 4, 2002, in which he claimed exactly what I was told in private emails. Hari Sampath said (about the Betrayal letter), "These accounts are put together by direct first person testimonies given to Basava Premanand by former students at the Sathya Sai Higher secondary school, Prashanthi Nilayam, as well as the Sathya Sai Institute of Higher learning." (Referenced Here) This lends credence to the dubious origins regarding this anonymous letter. Premanand claimed that the father of a Sai student wrote it. Hari Sampath (an Anti-Sai Activist) claims otherwise. Either Hari Sampath lied or Premanand is lying. Either scenario is very troubling.
My Reply to GMs Postscripts : No-one has joined forces with me, but if GM has received several emails that it was actually written by a group of students, why does he not reveal their identity? It is surely not a matter of life or death for these e-mailers? As the author of Betrayal did, GM could at least have published the several emails without identifying the authors. I am not concerned with anything Hari Sampath wrote. The question here is not whether Hari Sampath or Premanand is lying but that the article Betrayal contained full facts and the truth.
GM"s confession : I updated my article by removing this entire section, where I said, "This list was removed from quicktopic after many students complained about their names being on it. Those students who complained, stated that they were never sexually abused and someone with ulterior motives submitted their names without their consent!" Although I remember these comments, I believe they were made on the guestbook at saipages.com (which was the original source for the QuickTopic posts), which is no longer online since November 2003. Consequently, I cannot factually substantiate this claim, so I am removing it.
My reply to GM's confession: has been proven wrong and even he has had to accept it despite his state of total psychological denial concerning his guru Sathya Sai Baba (who actually molested him in a sexual way, despite his denial of what this act really was) has had to accept it. But he cannot accept his many other errors and proven unfairness.In the click here to view the complaints and critical comments about this list. References provided by GM not a single student mentioned in the 155 students list had complained. The names of those who complained were:
No.9 Sanjay Dadlani 09.11.2001 06:18 pm ET (US)
No. 73 Ravi K.Pindiproli 06.12.2002 04:36pm ET (US)
No.101 Devar R.Rajesh 08.19.2002 01:27pm ET (US)
No.120 Srini 05.25.2003 10.22 am ET (US)
No.124 Believer 07.27.2003 07:04 am ET (US)
No.125 Mahesh 09.03.2003 0:35 am ET (US)
No.126 Kick your dog 10.10.2003 08:53 am ET(US)
No.131 M.P.Sureka 11.01.2003 05:09 am ET (US)
No.135 Putu-Sai-Putra 11.28.2003 06:40 am ET (US)
No.140 Bhimlal Rijal 02.03.2004 08:35 pm Et (US)
No.173 Gridhar P 08.08.2004 0:5:36 pm ET (US)
No.177 XXX 08.27.2004 03:33 am ET (US)
No.202 Sarah 06.29.2005 01:38 pm ET (US)
None of them were on the list of 155 students sexually abused by Sathya Sai Baba and were only outbursts by the pro-Sathya Sai Baba devotees. (As noted: Sanjay Dadlani now repudiates that he actually knew that three students were not abused, but fondly believed it then only because he knew some female members of the family).
See previous articles on this issue:-
1: Refutation of Unfounded Allegations against an Anonymous Letter - part one
2: Refutation of Unfounded Allegations against an Anonymous Letter - part two
3: Refutation of Unfounded Allegations against an Anonymous Letter - part three
RETURN TO HOME PAGE - CLICK HERE
NOTE! Unless otherwise stated, every article on these pages is the registered copyright of the author and/or website owner and unauthorised copying will be pursued legally . Permission to be sought in writing via the owner of this website