UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS & AN ANONYMOUS LETTER
Part Four (.... continued from Gèrald Morèno's wild speculations on the authenticity of an anonymous letter about Sai Baba sexual abuses sent to – and published by - B. Premanand) Mr. Morèno's comments appear in bold red face, and mine are black in regular case.
by Basava Premanand e-mail, click here
Reply to Mr. Gèrald Morèno 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.
My reply to Response No.1 :The general public GM mentions is really only a figment of GM's 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 SSB can prove his innocence is to get affirmations from the persons mentioned in the "Betrayal" document. The real fact is that SSB, VC and GM refuse to question the students and prove that the statements in the article "Betrayal" are false. SSB 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 SSB done? - though he asks his followers to practise Rama's 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. .
My Response: Premanand believes that you, the reader, are a figment of my imagination. The fact of the matter is that everyone, you and I who reads these pages are members of the general public. If the general public did not exist, one can only wonder why Premanand is defending a public petition against Sathya Sai Baba. Probably because the petition reflects the views of a couple of people who keep spamming it with false signatures.
Premanand should posit the Betrayal Letter with an independent media organization (that has an established reputation of integrity and impartiality) and have them privately speak to the author and verify its contents. Premanand will not do this because if an independent media organization investigated it, they would discover exactly what I discovered; the Betrayal Letter is false. Premanand rather solicit the letter himself than have a reputable, independent media organization support it. This makes Premanand's defence laughable.
It is amusing that Premanand, as a stauch and acidic Atheist, would cite the Ramayana and try to compare it with Sathya Sai Baba. Sathya Sai Baba has walked through the fires of scorn, sexual abuse allegations, slander, defamation, libel, public mocking and criminal accusations unphased. Proof is that Sathya Sai Baba is the still the largest recipient to foreign donations. This proves that Sathya Sai Baba is still very popular and well respected.
The BBC documentary was shown to be so highly edited, they completely misrepresented Alaya's testimonies and made Alaya into Aliar! Robert Priddy criticized the documentary for its poor research into the Water Project. The BBC, in the UK, has been repeatedly accused of bias. Even the Anti-Sai Activist, Andries Krugers Dagneaux, said that the BBC correspondent's were sympathetic to the Anti-Sai Movement.
Bill Aitken said, of the BBC, "The latest in these so called exposes is a BBC documentary whose agenda was so predetermined to denigrate Baba that it stooped to the unethical use of a spy camera. In a last farcical gesture, the producer hired some roadside entertainers to attempt to simulate Baba’s chamatkar. The result is so ludicrous that it leaves the viewer wondering as to who is funding this bizarre display of hostile reporting. The BBC is ultimately governed by the Anglican establishment, and churches in the west are losing out financially to the appeal of the Sai Baba movement. As a commercial broadcaster, the BBC’s opting for sleaze would have the dual advantage of discrediting a rival as well as getting good audience rating. The Church of England can have no objection to programmes that weaken perceived threats—like the papacy or Hindu holy men—to its (declining) influence in the world. Posing as a lion in Asia, the BBC is a mouse in Britain. It dare not criticise public icons like the Queen, who happens to be the supremo of the Anglican church."
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
My Response: Premanand is trivializing the fact that he and the anonymous writer both used the exact term "vibuthi ball". Others may call this a "miracle" or a "coincidence", but I choose to call it for it what it is, i.e., a startling and factual similarity between Premanand and the anonymous writer's description. The grim reality is that the only two people who used this exact term were Premanand and the anonymous writer. No one else used this exact term.
My Reply to GM's Response No.2 : So what? Big deal!
My Response: The "big deal" is that Premanand and the anonymous writer both used the exact term, described the process identically and have eerily similar handwriting styles.
My Reply to GM's 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.
My Response: If grammar and spelling mistakes have nothing to do with the "specific points in Betrayal", one can only wonder why Premanand was pointing out my spelling mistakes and trying to correct my grammar! More self-serving hypocrisy from Premanand!
My Reply to GM's Response No.5 : GM faked another's mistakes to be mine. Making corrections in his web page does not absolve him.
My Response: I did not "fake" anything. I made a mistake and corrected it. I made 4 mistakes and Premanand made 19 mistakes in return! I at least correct my mistakes and acknowledge them. Premanand, on the other hand, blames others for his own mistakes and casts slurs and aspersions against anyone who points them out.
My Reply to GM's 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" author's writing style). Or, many times using the world 'site' when he should have used the word 'cite'. Comical! But for GM's 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/-
My Response: Premanand is casting slurs and aspersions against me for pointing out his error. After Premanand tried to correct my grammar (even with the help of a Dictionary) about the correct usage of "practice vs. practise", he then misused the word himself! Premanand does not even have the integrity to acknowledge his errors.
If one goes to The Hindu Website, and peruse the site, one will notice that the overwhelming way they denote prices (using the example of 100) is "Rs.100". Premanand supposedly found one advertisement (not referenced either) that listed it the way he and the anonymous writer wrote it. Again, this fully supports my claim that the general practice is to write "Rs.100" or "100 Rs". I simply pointed out the similarity that both Premanand and the anonymous writer write rupee amounts in the same way.
One will also notice that Premanand is continuing to misuse the word "practise"! Even after correcting him, he continues to add the word "practise". Using British English, the noun version is always spelled "practice". Why is it that Premanand tried to correct me about the proper usage of "practise", but repeatedly misuses the word himself?
My Reply to GM's 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!
My Response: The Betrayal Letter is being distributed and endorsed by Premanand. I think it is more than coincidence that Premanand and the anonymous writer share an uncanny resemblance to each other's handwriting styles. That was the point to my article and I am sticking to it.
My Reply to GM's 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'.
My Response: Another example of Premanand's childish finger-pointing and over-emotional hissy fits. Premanand conceded that the similarity I pointed out was correct. Premanand said, about my comment, "Though it is the very same idea expressed by both, the question is whether I or the author of Betrayal have copied the same writing style.". I made a list of similarities between Premanand and the anonymous writer's comments. Premanand and the anonymous writer expressed the very same idea, hence my reference to it.
My Reply to GM's Response No.9 : GM's 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!
My Response: Premanand is stuck on his denial gramophone! I respectfully disagree with Premanand. There is more than an "iota" of similarity between Premanand and the anonymous writer's handwriting styles.
Premanand said, "Note also that "etc.," is not there in 'Betrayal'." Premanand is lying again. At http://www.indian-skeptic.org/html/is_v12/12-4-12.htm, where the Betrayal Letter is duplicated in full, one will see that there are no less than twenty-one "etc.'s" in the letter! Here is a quick look at them: "some pretext or the other, holding cards, trays etc...as a room leadership, watches, pens etc...'Chances' etc., for his dirty role...group discussions etc. are just a farce...courses like MBA, Research etc...Research Assistantship etc...(Form boys etc.)...(to warden etc.)...Hidayat Ulah (class IX) etc...Babaji for various dances, dramas, music groups etc., where these poor boys...trips to Kodaikanal and Ooty etc...such as MBA, PG and Research etc...unhandsome/dark complexioned etc., and hence...(example: Sai Giridhar Narahari, etc.)...Hidesh Gupta, Gagan Manchanda etc., are classic examples...flashy watches, golden pens, goldchains and pendants, rings, bracelets etc. which are...various trinkets and clothes etc., by Babaji, and even when they go inside...behind the curtain or on window sills of inner room or the sofa etc...Lockets, rings etc. are made of various types and sizes...lime-light an jaunts to Kodaikanal etc., perhaps this time by plane...MBA seat or a room leadership etc..." Obviously, Premanand is trying to deceive us (and not doing a very good job, by the way).
My Reply to GM's 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 devotee's book about Sai Baba and we can find the same words in use.
My Response: One will not find the same words consecutively. That was a similarity I found on the Indian Skeptic site. Premanand is so impressionable, that he parrots the lies fed to him, by his Anti-Sai buddies, like a brainwashed automaton.
My Reply to GM's Response No.11 : GM's 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.
My Response: As this articles progress, the only person who is looking more and more like a liar and a deceiver is Premanand. Anti-Sai Activists (including Premanand) have no "sensitivity" to the person being accused, i.e., Sathya Sai Baba. If a person wants to make public sexual abuse allegations, he/she should do so publicly. Doing so under the guise of anonymity, claiming that the issue is "sensitive", yet having absolutely no "sensitivity" and respect for the person being accused is disingenuous. All these allegations are many years old. Anti-Sai Activists have made no progress with these allegations and believe that others have no right to question them. Premanand, Priddy and others are accusing Sathya Sai Baba of complicity in murders, being a serial pedophile and being a fraud (among many other things). When one demands proof, they throw their hands in the air and shriek "sensitivity" and "confidentiality". However, let one person come forward and question them, and they demand full names, full addresses, full phone numbers, pictures and "attested affidavits"! Shameless and pathetic hypocrites!
His response is not about other skeptic's 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
My Response: Premanand is a skeptic. The writings on the Indian Skeptic website are written by skeptics. The anonymous writer's handwriting style mimics that of a skeptic. Therefore, I drew parallels between the anonymous writer and skeptics.
SSB, 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 SSB and he was pardoned. The allegations are against SSB 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 SSB. (By the way, unfortunately for GM, even though he has conveniently withdrawn it, my legal representatives are able to produce certified screenshots of GM's 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?)
My Response: How does Premanand know what SSB or the VC did or did not do? Premanand is speculating. However, put aside SSB, the VC and myself. Why hasn't Premanand "even tried to meet the persons mentioned in 'Betrayal'"? Why hasn't Premanand done any sort of preliminary work? Premanand makes reference to Sri Giridhar and said that "the entire case was buried by SSB and he was pardoned". Where is the proof? I cannot believe Premanand without proof. I am not a gullible and naive ex-devotee who has blinders on. I also cannot believe Premanand because he has resorted to vicious lies against me.
I am unconcerned about Premanand's indirect legal threats. He should be worrying more about the ramifications to his slander and lies against me.
On my FAQ's page, I said, "Being personally touched by sexual abuse through close friends (unrelated to SSB), I give the benefit of the doubt to any alleged sexual abuse victim. Several people have emailed me, questioning my position, asking me how I can believe these allegations when the alleged victims have never even tried to take their case to a court of law in India, despite being offered free 'world class legal resources'. There are also some alleged victims who are very vocal on the internet, but are unwilling (for some unknown reason) to file their cases in an Indian court of law. My response is that although I find these facts very disturbing, I am open-minded about these allegations and my current belief (which is subject to change with additional information) is that SSB did sexually abuse men. Having said this, I no longer believe the majority of accounts I first believed when I read about them. I believe that the alleged sexual abuse instances are rare. And in those rare accounts, there is a mingling of the miraculous with the seemingly mundane." The more I investigate and the more information I find, the more I find myself doubting the sexual abuse stories. When Alaya Rahm (the poster-child for sexual abuse against SSB) made very disturbing confessions about SSB literally changing his genitals from a male to female and vice-versa, writing love poems to SSB after allegedly being sexually abused dozen of times, changing his testimonies and reinterpreting SSB's comments, something tells me something is seriously wrong.
In "Betrayal" there is a clue as the names of some students and perpetuators are mentioned and it would have been very easy for SSB, 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.
My Response: Isn't it odd that Premanand keeps telling me that I should be the one investigating the contents to the Betrayal Letter? Why hasn't Premanand investigated it? If Premanand has investigated it, where is the proof? There are several reasons why these people might be maintaining their silence: 1) The names are fake; 2) They are following SSB's dictates of maintaining silence about these gutter accusations; 3) They are unaware of the claims and 4) There are many people who share their names (as India is the second most populous place on Earth and names are repeated often). Here we have a letter that could completely compromise SSB and land him in jail. Despite the importance of this letter, in Premanand's crusade against SSB, he has not verified the contents in Betrayal! Premanand has had five years to investigate this letter and gather evidence against Sathya Sai Baba. Five years later, Premanand is simply babbling and sputtering about the Betrayal Letter. Nothing has come from it.
I have not stated that unconfirmed stories against SSB are noteworthy and may be true or that unconfirmed stories in favour of SSB 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.
My Response: Let's break this down for Premanand, since he has troubling understanding English: 1) Premanand contends the Betrayal Letter is true; 2) The contents to the Betrayal Letter have never been independently verified by any reputable and impartial media organization or person; 3) Premanand contends that SSB miracles are false; 4) Premanand believes these miracles stories are false because they have never been independently verified by any reputable and impartial scientific organization or person. In one instance, Premanand accepts unconfirmed stories, and in another instance, he rejects them. Why doesn't this surprise me?
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 SSB. The author's son was a student.
My Response: Read Premanand's comment carefully. First of all, how does Premanand know that "Shyama" was a "male youth"? The Betrayal Letter never mentioned anything about "Shyama" being a male youth. The actual comment read, "He does the same with most of the smart foreigners too, one latest one is being lampooned as "shyama", a tall, smart looking German with long curly blond hair and homosexual looks and tendencies. One look at his face will tell you what happens to him inside the inner interview room." Premanand is adding information that is not mentioned in the Betrayal Letter. This raises more questions about Premanand's tendency to embellish and exaggerate.
Also, no one knew that "Shyama" (an alleged German man, with an Indian name) was being sexually abused. Whomever drew this inference did so out of subjectivity. Premanand (behaving like a gullible and impressionable cult member) blindly believes the letter. Where is the proof? It doesn't exist. If this information was given by a student, this would prove that the student was making reckless, speculative guesses as to what he thought was happening. The student was obviously sexually focused and looking for excuses to accuse Sathya Sai Baba of sexual impropriety.
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 SSB. My question does not prove double standard or deceit. On the contrary, it is not possible to investigate the many claims about SSB as there are no clues to investigate them and they are only rumours spread by SSB"s followers.
My Response: Premanand is lying. Premanand never made mention to contacting the alleged victims or alleged abusers. Where is the proof? Premanand wants everyone to blindly believe him, despite his repeated mocking of the blind belief in devotees. There is Premanand's "double-standard" and "deceit". Straight from his mouth, first-hand.
GM's 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.
My Response: I am not trying to confuse or derail the issue at all. Premanand is distorting the facts. Where is the documenation? Where is the proof? There is none. If there are no documents, proof or independent verification to the material in the letter, why should anyone focus on unsubstantiated and unverifiable sexual abuse claims? Why is Premanand wanting us to blindly believe him? "Blind belief is not something a true rationalist or skeptic accepts. However, this is exactly what Premanand is wanting people to do, i.e, blindly believe him. Tough luck, Premanand!
My Reply to GM's 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, GM's 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.
My Response: Premanand's response is laughable. He fails to see how someone can preach about Jesus and cite the Bible, yet (at the same time) reject miracles! Of course, Premanand is doing his best to bore people with his garrulous responses, hoping they will fail to see the gaping holes in his arguments.
Let us look at Premanand's original response, in which he said, "Now he is speculating on my article published on 15.4.1989 in Indian Skeptic titled 'Christ is tempted says St. Matthew in the New Testament chapter 4'. This is purely an Anti-Christian article. GM's assumption is 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." However, in this article, Premanand said, "The article GM mentions is not anti Christian and what I have quoted is from the Bible." Why is Premanand now saying the article is "not anti Christian", when originally he said it was "purely an Anti-Christian article"? More treachery from Premanand.
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.
My Response: Premanand is clearly stating that he is fully familiar with the Bible. How else can he be an Atheist, if he does not understand the various religions? However, on Premanand's previous article, he said, "I am very familiar with the article 'Betrayal' but not so with the book of Revelations." Obviously, Premanand never cared to understand the Bible thoroughly (Revelations is a major source to the Christian Faith, especially in reference to the Second Coming). Nevertheless, Premanand just said, "I never said that I am not familiar with the Bible...I cannot be an Atheist unless I understand the religions." I am sure Premanand skimmed over Christianity in the same way he skimmed over my criticisms.
Premanand is making my case nicely (again). It is my opinion that the anonyous writer clearly intended to deceive people into thinking that he was a believer in God, when he was not. Since Premanand is a self-professed Atheist, pretending to be a believer would give others the impression that Premanand did not write the letter. Nevertheless, one can clearly see the disingenuous profession to faith in the letter.
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 author's writing style. Another empty, fatuous claim.
My Response: The anonymous writer is making numerous claims against Sathya Sai Baba with no proof. So it doesn't matter what he said about Rama, Krishna or Jesus. The anonymous writer said, "If you are a little observant and not blind with emotion and pseudo-spirituality, you cam make a few simple observations." This statement was made before discussing SSB's miracles. It is my opinion that the anonymous writer is being duplicitous by asking people to be observant and not to be blinded with pseudo-spirituality, yet then profess faith in Jesus (whose alleged miracles are inseparable from his name). So we are left with 2 major possiblities: 1) The anonymous writer is pretending to be a believer in God, or 2) The anonymous writer is a Fundamentalist Christian with an Anti-Sai agenda. Either scenario is very troubling.
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 author's true and personal beliefs, as Dr. Kovoor believed in god and all religions as leading to god.
My Response: I am not talking about Dr. Kovoor. I am talking about Premanand and his vested interests, ulterior motives and continual defence for this anonymous letter, expressing no healthy skepticism whatsoever!
My Reply to GM's 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.
My Response: Dr. Kovoor felt that Dr. Bhagavantham's anonymous miracle story was unbelievable and said that if Bhagavantham did not reveal the identity to the anonymous Japanese watch-maker, Kovoor had no choice but to conclude that Bhagavantham was "being, insincere and dishonest", "conspiring", "propagandizing" and having some sort of "vested interest". However, when one applies the same standard to Premanand's anonymous story, he feels these accusations are unfounded and irrelevant! Thus, Premanand is criticizing and failing to implement Kovoor's standard.
GM's 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 GM's 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 Gèrald Morèno are those of poorly educated tricksters below college standards; and wilful demagoguery, nothing less.
My Response: One I thing I am absolutely "certain" about, is that Premanand did not author the above paragraph (Premanand said his "colleagues" were helping him write his responses). Premanand simply does not have the English aptitude to formulate the argument that is being attributed to him. Premanand attempted to correct my grammar once before (in reference to "practice vs. practise"), and then repeatedly used the word "practise" incorrectly! Premanand cannot differentiate between a "prefix" and a "suffix" and required his trusty dictionary to look up basic words. Now, however, he is miraculously twirling out grammatically correct paragraphs and using words like "demagoguery"! I personally don't mind if Priddy and others help Premanand write his responses. He needs all the help he can get!
It is my firm conviction that Premanand authored the Betrayal Letter. Although I have my reasons for believing this, I cannot state, with 100% certainty, that Premanand indisputably authored the Betrayal Letter. I must speak from a position that reflects my personal convictions and I have attempted to make it clear that I am not making accusations suggesting indisputability.
Far be it for Premanand to cast aspersions on my education when he never had any formal education himself!
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 can't (or doesn't want to) understand situations that would be clear to any sensible, responsible person.
My Response: Five years have passed and what undertakings has Premanand made? Once again, Premanand can request an independent media organization (with an established history of integrity and impartiality) to investigate the Betrayal Letter privately. Premanand refuses to do this. This undermines Premanand's lamentable argument completely.
My Reply to GM's Response No.14 : Here again GM is faking Prof.Kovoor's 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 Kovoor's method, i.e. the very person whose method and its results he tries to undermine!
My Response: It is clear the Premanand does not know the proper definition for "accuse". Guess I will have to define it for him, since he obviously misplaced his dictionary, along with his reading glasses.
From WordNet: Accuse: 1) bring an accusation against; level a charge against; 2) blame for, make a claim of wrongdoing or misbehavior against.
Kovoor "brought an accusation against" and "made a claim of wrongdoing or misbehavior against" Dr. Bhagavantham for failing to disclose the name to an anonymous Japanese watchmaker. Consequently, I did not "fake" anything. I gave my opinion that Kovoor "accused" Bhagavantham of withholding information. The only person "faking" is Premanand.
Premanand has never verified the contents to the Betrayal Letter. Premanand is a deceiver. I am not trying to undermine Dr. Kovoor's method at all. It is Premanand's method that is critically flawed. Premanand cannot even understand this simple fact. Dr. Kovoor would not accept an anonymous story as the truth, and demanded contact information so he could independently verify the story. I am making the same demands that Dr. Kovoor made. Premanand, however, is making all sorts of excuses about withholding information about this anonymous letter. Consequently, I cannot believe Premanand's "cock and bull story".
My Reply to GM's 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 GM's comments. This speaks much about GM's lack of integrity, again faking over the issue because it is the base of all his responses against sexual abuse by SSB. 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 SSB 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.
My Response: Again, Premanand is misrepresenting my position. The QuickTopic.com site is not the original site on which these posts were made. They originally came from SaiPages.com, and were subsequently duplicated on QuickTopic.com. I specifically remember reading that the list was removed by the moderator due to complaints. I could not find this comment on QuickTopic.com and wondered why. After researching this issue more, I discovered that the following posts were deleted: 30-24; 36-41; 43-45; 53-55; 60-62; 176; 179; 197. This may account for what I remember having read. Also, the name-list was re-added several times. Why would the name-list be re-added when it was already there? That is the truth regarding this matter. I also didn't see the post from "Raanjit Kiini" (post 189). He said that he and "Rahuul Kiini" were not abused. Raanjit Kiini said, "This information is absolutely false. I cannot speak for the experience of other Sai Students, my own experience was that I received good academic and moral education. Like anywhere else, the institution had its own limitations...but fortunately I was neither an abuser nor abused."
Yes, I can factually substantiate my claim that the QuickTopic posts came from SaiPages.com. At home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/articles/pedofacts.html, one will see how Anti-Sai Activists referred to posts made in the SaiPages.com guestbook. These posts are now found at QuickTopic.com. Furthermore, Click Here to view the archived version to the SaiPages.com guestbook.
Premanand cannot get his facts straight. Sanjay Dadlani defected from Sathya Sai Baba in May/June of 2001. On September 11th 2001 (after Dadlani left SSB and was an Anti-Sai Activist), Dadlani claimed, "The very fact that these three brothers are on this list fills me with laughter. I know this family very well and they are at a loss to explain why their names appear on this fabricated list. These Bharwani brothers who I personally know also verified that many other names on the list are totally false and were NEVER molested or in any way 'intimately conected' with Sai Baba. and I am awaiting the complete list of names (or non-names) from them. I personally believe that on the testimony of the Bharwani brothers that the entire list is fabricated, but in any case if this list is reposted in this or any other forum, I would like it if these three names were struck off from the list, as it has offended the family very much" (Reference). Consequently, if Dadlani changed his story (and where is it referenced at?), Dadlani either lied then or is lying now (Reference). Premanand is affiliating himself with liars. Birds of a feather, flock together.
Furthermore, it is not up to me to prove that these alleged students were not sexually abused. It is up to Premanand to prove that they were!
My Reply to GM's Response No.16 : Why should the 155 students sexually abused by SSB 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! SSB 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 SSB. That is sufficient for genuine researchers!
My Response: Premanand is resorting to reverse logic. Why wouldn't the 155 students, who were allegedly sexually abused, fail and refuse to contact Premanand and Anti-Sai Activists? After all, Barry Pittard said he could provide them with free "world-class legal resources"! None of these students have come forward with any testimonies stating they were sexually abused. Anti-Sai Activists are at a sore disadvantage to explain why they cannot bring SSB to justice when they have a public list to 155 students who were allegedly sexually abused by Sathya Sai Baba! Furthermore, the list of names could have been stolen from the hostel, or given to Premanand by former students who joined forces with him (according to Hari Sampth).
It is not I who am aggressively on the defensive, and I simply and factually defend "Betrayal", whereas Morèno's activities represent an onslaught, and on virtually any day of the week. In a court of law, Morèno's disgraceful attacks and wild surmises would not be countenanced.!
My Response: Premanand is very much on the aggressive. He has viciously slandered and disgracefully attacked me like a low-class pathological liar. I enumerated his slanders on Section II, Response 1. As a matter of fact, if it wasn't for me questioning the letter, no one would have seen how Premanand changed his story about whom allegedly authored the Betrayal Letter (first, Premanand attributed it to a student, now he is attributing it to a parent).
My Reply to GM's 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 Morèno's 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.
My Response: I have not broken any laws. Nor have I resorted to defamation (unlike, Premanand). I can fully support my opinions with caches, screen-captures and the words to Anti-Sai Activists, taken directly from their own mouths. If anyone has resorted to defamation, it is Premanand and his Anti-Sai coterie.
My Reply to GM's 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 GM's deception series are not authored and finally checked by me alone.
My Response: I am simply pointing out that Premanand does not have the capacity to respond to my queries by himself. He needs the help of others to respond to them. Even with help, he continues to compromise himself!
My Reply to GM's 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 GM's 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.
My Response: This is more self-serving hypocrisy from Premanand. He is resorting to ad hominem tactics. All Premanand has to do is point out factual errors in my articles, and I will update the articles accordingly. Premanand cannot (and has not) sent me any factual information to refute my articles. Therefore, Premanand is all talk and no action. Unlike Premanand, I fully acknowledge and take responsiblity for my errors. However, Premanand refuses to admit or acknowledge his errors. Premanand has no accountability.
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 Baba's Bed Room on 6.6.1993.
My Response: What effort has Premanand made to secure court protection for the anonymous writer? I am not aware of any efforts toward that end. Premanand refuses to answer any questions relating to court matters, so it is impossible to ascertain the truth regarding Premanand's bloated references to courts and legal cases. Apparently, in the last five years Premanand has made zero progess with this anonymous letter. The entire fate of Sathya Sai Baba rests with this letter, and absolutely nothing has come from it in the past five years, except the propagandizing. That's it.
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 SSB is a sexual abuser, an accomplice to murder and much more. Why not consider tangible evidence instead of his piddling points.
My Response: If Premanand "only knows about ExBaba.com", then why didn't he know about my reference? Alexandra Nagel said, on the ExBaba site, that Premanand received the letter in December of 1998. That was my reference, and it came directly from the ExBaba site. So I did not make the claim. Alexandra Nagel, an Anti-Sai Activist (who claimed to research the matter thoroughly), did. Another error from Premanand.
There is no "evidence" on Anti-Sai Sites. It is all conjecture, heresay and none of it has been taken to a court of law. As a matter of fact, not even one alleged victim has even tried! Enough said.
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. GM's 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.
My Response: Premanand is still making the same error I accused him of making. Once again (I know this getting terribly redundant), but I did not say that Premanand asked the VC to investigate. Premanand's poor grasp to the English language prevents him from understanding my repeated clarifications. At one point (earlier on this page), Premanand suggested he understood what I said (and even suggested an alternative wording for the sentence), but now, he is stuck in his denial-mentality, once again. Consequently, Premanand is still erring!
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 SSB 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 Baba's Bed room'.
My Response: That is right, Premanand did not refute my statement. This means he made the error, not I. Let us look at the original conversation thread:
"GM : Basava Premanand alleged that several letters were sent to him from SSB students, alleging sexual abuse.
BP: It is true and not an allegation. If GM has read pages 133 and 134 in vol.I in My Book 'Murders in Sai Baba's Bed Room', he would have seen a photocopy of the original letter no.2907/79/HJ/DH - dated 14th march 1981 - by a well known lawyer, who held a responsible post in SSB Org. in Malaysia. In one of his later letters he wanted me to contact the students from Malaysia studying in SSB educational institutions.
GM: Premanand just said he received a letter and "later letters" from a lawyer. In this comment, Premanand made no reference to receiving letters directly from "students" (which was his original claim on internet articles, in which no reference to a lawyer was ever made). Directly receiving letters from "students" and directly receiving letters from a "lawyer" are two different things. It is also important to point out that despite these letters being written in 1981, nothing has ever been done about them in 23 years."
My reply to 'error' 5) : As GM knows, I know almost nothing about the Internet. A student helps me to copy GM's articles.
My Response: If Premanand "knows almost nothing about the internet", why is he critcizing my webpages (that appear on the internet)? Also, Premanand had my articles printed out for him and no one informed him about his error. Earlier, Premanand said that the errors I attributed to him were my "opinions". As one can see, these errors are factual. Premanand said I did not publish the entire Betryal Letter. I did.
My reply to 'error' 6) : GM's juggling with the two words does not prove anything about "Betrayal". Irrelevant hair-splitting.
My Response: Premanand tried to refute my argument about the usage of "ji". This is his response. I simply replied to Premanand's comments about "ji". After I responded, now Premanand is accusing me of resorting to "irrelevant hair-splitting".
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 SSB as a cheat, liar and fraud". These are GM's words which he cannot change.
My Response: That is right. Those were my words. Premanand accused me of attributing the words "cheat, liar and fraud" to the anonymous author. I did not. Another example of Premanand's erroneous accusations against me, resulting from his reading mistakes.
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".
My Response: This is Premanand's response to yet another erroneous accusation that I did not publish the Betrayal Letter, in full, on my site. It is not a "petty trifle" when Premanand lies about me, and I have to correct his errors!
My reply to 'error' 9) : He does not prove it (eg. with 'click here'). GM's hacking away with deception is not worth answering.
My Response: See what blatant deception Premanand resorted to? Twice (so far) I had to correct Premanand about his false accusation that I did not publish the entire Betrayal Letter on my site. Premanand already conceded that he made a mistake when he said, "As GM knows, I know almost nothing about the Internet. A student helps me to copy GM's articles." Premanand cannot confirm my "click here" reference because he already admitted he is not viewing my webpages on the computer. He is viewing printed copies! Consequently, Premanand is arguing his defence out of ignorance.
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!
My Response: Writing in "first person", by saying "I", "me" and "mine", does not divulge one's identity. Premanand wants everyone to ignore this crucial fact, because this fact proved that a Sai Student did not write the letter. That is why Premanand changed his story and said that a parent (to a Sai Student) wrote it. Premanand withheld this information. One can only wonder why?
I already responded to Premanand's wishy-washy views on anonymous identities. When it comes to his associates, anonymous identities are okay. However, when it comes to others, anonymous identites are not okay and indicate hypocrisy! As I said before, I am not using an anonymous identity. Premanand refuses to believe me until I send him my full contact information, my picture and an "attested affidavit"! This from a person who openly slanders me!
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.
My Response: Premanand's recently divulged (after a five year gap) that the anonymous letter was written by a parent and not by a Sai Student. Everyone was mislead with this information. For the past five years, not even one Anti-Sai Activist ever attributed this letter to a parent of a Sai Student. It was always attributed directly to a Sai Student. This claim was made by Alexandra Nagel on the ExBaba site, Hari Sampath, the contributors to Wikipedia and SaiGuru.net. Even Premanand attributed the letter to a Sai Student (which is why everyone believed it came from a Sai Student). Premanand said, "As no reply has been received we have to presume that the experiences of the student is correct which we are publishing 'Betrayal by Sai Baba'...We have been getting several letters from your students about the sexual abuse of the students. I am sending herewith one letter so that after going through the same you inform me whether what is stated in the article is true or not." Premanand changed the story, about the origins to the letter, five years after the fact. This casts a dark shadow over Premanand's credibility.
My reply to 'error' 12) : If GM reads the last para of "Betrayal" which is to the students in SSB 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.
My Response: What part of "contradiction" does Premanand not understand? Premanand claimed that he alone received the letter. Later on, he claimed that others received it as well. This is a "contradiction".
My reply to 'error' 13) : In No. 13, GM repeats it all yet again. Already refuted, see my reply to No. 9.
My Response: Premanand did not refute anything. My original article contained the full Betrayal Letter. Premanand said I did not publish it on my page. I did. Premanand is simply trying to slither his way out of accepting responsiblity for his errors.
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!
My Response: The big question is: Why does Premanand keep confusing my references to the anonymous writer with himself? Premanand contends he did not write the anonymous letter, nevertheless when I make reference to the "anonymous writer", Premanand interprets my comments as if i am speaking to him. This supports my belief that Premanand and the anonymous writer are one and the same person. Thank you Premanand!
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.
My Response: I cited Revelations to show that the "day of judgment" reference was Christian, not Islamic (as Muslims do not accept the book of Revelations). As stated earlier, Premanand said he is fully familiar with the Bible. However, on Premanand's previous article, he said, "I am very familiar with the article 'Betrayal' but not so with the book of Revelations." Obviously, Premanand never cared to understand the Bible thoroughly (Revelations is a major source to the Christian Faith, especially in reference to the Second Coming). Premanand also stated, "I never said that I am not familiar with the Bible...I cannot be an Atheist unless I understand the religions." Now, however, Premanand is saying that his familiarity with the Christian religion is "his concern". It is "his concern" when he tried to say that the Christian reference was Islamic. It was not. I corrected Premanand's error and he doesn't like it. Tough luck, Premanand!
My reply to 'error' 16) : I stand by my figure 6.
My Response: Premanand can stand by his "figure 6" as much as he wants. Premanand originally said "Out of 13 students names mentioned in 'Betrayal', 6 are not in the list published on Ex-baba.com." I proved that only 1 name, out of the 13, was not listed on the ExBaba site. 12 were! Premanand was wrong then and he is wrong now.
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.
My Response: I said "most certainly appears". I did not say, "with 100% certainty". Any person, with half a brain, can see that "most certainly appears" and "with 100% certainty" are not one and the same. I cannot indisputably claim that Premanand wrote the anonymous letter. Once again, I am speaking from my own personal convictions, and opinions, that Premanand wrote the anonymous letter.
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.
My Response: Once again, I did not attribute this quote to Premanand. He said I did. That is his error. I was simply drawing parallels between a skepic's comment and the anonymous writer's comments (showing the anonymous writer wrote like a skeptic).
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.
My Response: Premanand's response is laughable! Premanand attempted to correct my grammar (even with the help of a dictionary) about the proper usage of "practice vs. practise". After attempting to correct me, Premanand misused the word "practise"! As if this is not embarrassing enough, Premanand did it again on this same page! I suggest Premanand toss his "cheap dictionary" and buy a Collegiate Dictionary in return (doubtless as a substitute for having no formal college education).
Reply to GM's 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 Gèrald Morèno did not continue his investigation when I gave him a clue. So GM's bragging senseless "bashing" here is in no way comparable.
My Response: I reiterate: 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."
My Reply to GM's 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.
My Response: I did not say that the emails were "actually written by a group of students" See how Premanand misreads my comments and then claimed I said something I did not? Unlike Premanand, I do not publish anonymous stories and accept them as the truth. To me, anonymous emails are nothing more than fluff. Until the author is willing to use his/her actual name, I personally do not believe the contents unless I can somehow independently verify it.
Premanand is trying to say it does not matter if Hari Sampath or he are lying! Such grotesque statements, I wonder how anyone take Premanand seriously! Once again, five years have passed and no one has been able to verify the contents to the Betrayal Letter. No one, including Premanand!
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:
My Response: This was already discussed earlier. Premanand is repeating it and giving another response. Probably because two different colleagues edited two different answers and no one cared to proof-read the article before publishing it!
I was never sexually molested by Sathya Sai Baba. This comment proves that Premanand is a liar, deceiver and bogus skeptic. He is a low-class pathological liar who must resort to slander because the truth simply does not argue in his favor. He is obviously a sexually-focused person (some would call a "pervert") who likes to see kinkiness where it does not exist, and never existed. This speaks volumes about Premanand and his total lack of credibility and integrity.
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 SSB and were only outbursts by the pro-SSB 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).
My Response: Let me repeat my former answer: The QuickTopic.com site is not the original site on which these posts were made. They originally came from SaiPages.com, and were subsequently duplicated on QuickTopic.com. I specifically remember reading that the list was removed by the moderator due to complaints. I could not find this comment on QuickTopic.com and wondered why. After researching this issue more, I discovered that the following posts were deleted: 30-24; 36-41; 43-45; 53-55; 60-62; 176; 179; 197. This may account for what I remember having read. Also, the name-list was re-added several times. Why would the name-list be re-added when it was already there? That is the truth regarding this matter. I also didn't see the post from "Raanjit Kiini" (post 189). He said that he and "Rahuul Kiini" were not abused. Raanjit Kiini said, "This information is absolutely false. I cannot speak for the experience of other Sai Students, my own experience was that I received good academic and moral education. Like anywhere else, the institution had its own limitations...but fortunately I was neither an abuser nor abused."
Furthermore, it is not up to me to prove that these alleged students were not sexually abused. It is up to Premanand to prove that they were!
Regarding Sanjay Dadlani, he either lied then, or he is lying now. Either way, Dadlani lied and is a liar. Maybe that is why Premanand cited him! Click Here to view my articles about Sanjay Dadlani. Furthermore, Dadlani claimed the following: "The very fact that these three brothers are on this list fills me with laughter. I know this family very well and they are at a loss to explain why their names appear on this fabricated list. These Bharwani brothers who I personally know also verified that many other names on the list are totally false and were NEVER molested or in any way 'intimately conected' with Sai Baba. and I am awaiting the complete list of names (or non-names) from them. I personally believe that on the testimony of the Bharwani brothers that the entire list is fabricated, but in any case if this list is reposted in this or any other forum, I would like it if these three names were struck off from the list, as it has offended the family very much" (Reference). Now, however, Sanjay is claiming he only knew some "female members of the family"! If Sanjay knows the family, this is a prime opportunity for Premanand to have Sanjay contact these brothers and indisputably confirm that they submitted their names to the list! Neither Sanjay, nor anyone else for that matter, has even tried to confirm this information, despite knowing members in the family (Reference)!