|The Betrayal Article: Response Two:|
REFUTATION OF UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS AGAINST AN ANONYMOUS LETTER - part two e-mail, click here by Basava Premanand
Reply to Mr. Gèrald Morèno's claims in his article published on his website
Whether intentional or not, Basava Premanand gave a non-operable link to my site. I have corrected the link above with my main domain URL.
The article - under the pages called 'B. Premanand Deception' is titled: The Basava Premanand Anonymous Letter : vested Interests and Striking Similarities. July 2001 :Anonymous Letter: Basava Premanand's Questionable Involvment Updated : May 5th, 2005
Gèrald Morèno's comments appear in bold black face and mine in regular case navy blue type.
(.... continued from Gèrald Morèno's wild speculations on the authenticity of an anonymous letter sent to B. Premanand)
GM : Others who have given their own interpretation, on how SSB materializes vibuthi, call the "balls" either "pellets" or "tablets". Strangely enough, the anonymous writer used the exact phrases that Basava Premanand uses, i.e., "vibuthi ball", "small ball" and "ball of vibuthi"! These indisputable similarities fully make my case that Premanand appears to have faked this letter.
Good gracious, Gèrald Morèno is only assuming when he states "appears" to have faked this letter.
I thought that he would compare every word of mine with that in the article "Betrayal" and prove fully that I had faked that letter. He got only one word "ball" to say that. But what other word is more appropriate? Pellet? Tablet?
The dictionary meaning of pellet is
1. A small, solid or densely packed ball or mass, as of bread, wax or medicine.
2. A bullet or piece of small shot.
3. A stone ball used as a catepult missile or as a primitive cannonball.
4. A hard mass of undigestable food that is regurgitated by certain birds, especially birds of prey
The meaning of tablet is
1. A small, flat pellet or compressed powdered medication to be taken orally.
2. A slab or plaque, as of stone or ivory, with a surface intended for or bearing an inscription
3. A thin sheet or leaf, as of clay or ivory used as a writing surface.
4. A set of such leaves fastened together, as in a book
5. A pad of writing paper secured along one edge
6. a small, flat cake of a prepared substance, such as soap.
If the vibhuti ball is hard it cannot be powdered with fingers so the question of using the word pellets or tablets would not be strictly correct The most appropriate word is "ball", and this word is not a property of any one and is in common use.
My Response: 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".
GM : At http://www.bcskeptics.info/resources/skeptopaedia/s/saibaba/5mater.html, Premanand again refers to the "vibuthi ball". At home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/articles/santaclaus.html, Premanand refers to a "ball of vibuthi". Coincidences?
I am giving fully what is mentioned in the first website : B.Premanand, lecture sponsored by Science World,Vancovver BC, Canada Dec. 15 1988: Videotape record with Science World: "He stopped doing that and now what he does is he keeps the ball (or holy ash or vibhuti, ed.,) between the thumb and the pointing finger. The additional vibhuti reference is by the editor of the BC Skeptics. For GM's information I was invited to inaugurate the planetarium.
My Response: Premanand acknowledged he used the description "ball" in relation to vibuthi (which was done by the anonymous writer as well).
In the 2nd mentioned web site there is no mention of vibhuti or vibhuti ball in the article the Sai Mafia : which I published in Indian Skeptic Vol 1 No.4 August 1993 along with the article by Prof: Piet Vroon titled "Santa Claus in India" and " ball of Vibhuti" is mentioned in this article authored by Prof.Vroon. Would GM explain why he is assuming that Prof:Piet Vroon's article as mine? Is it to fool his readers with false information and vilify me?
My Response: I already discussed this article on my previous response. I incorrectly attributed this quote to Premanand. I made the necessary correction.
GM : Basava Premanand and the anonymous writer spell "practicing" as "practising". Coincidence (2)?
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". GM ought to realise that there is also English and international usage, not only American! This is surely known to all properly educated people?
My Response: "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.
GM : At http://www.themronline.com/200505m2.html, Basava Premanand said, "In the guise of spiritualism and divine powers, the saffron clad frauds are prone to become moral wrecks." On the anonymous letter, it says, "boys who have become moral and physical (and physiological) wrecks, leave the institutions". Coincidence (3)?
The web site belongs to Dravida Kazhagam and they publish a monthly journal titled "Modern Rationalist" in English and the editor in Shri. K.Veeramani. The article which GM mentions is the gist of the Judgement against Swami Premananda of Trichy whom GM reveres so much (a convicted rapist and murderer) and the comments are by Shri.K.Veeramani. Here also what is stated is "Beware of the saffron clad so-called sanyasins-frauds" and not what GM quoted as mine. Will GM assume that K.Veeramani's comments are faked by the author of "Betrayal" or Vice-versa? I wonder!
My Response: Premanand is right. The above quote is not his. I made the necessary correction on my webpage by removing the quote and link.
GM : At home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/articles/whomurdered.html, Basava Premand refers to rupee amounts as "Rs. 5/-", "Rs. 10/-", etc. The anonymous writer makes mention of "Rs. 500/-", written in the exact way that Basava Premanand writes it. Coincidence (4)?
My name is not Premand but Premanand.
The general practice (or practise) in India that most of the people write as Rs.5/- Rs.10/- etc. Will GM allege if others write as Rs.5/- Rs.10/- etc those are also faked by me? I do not know the practice in other countries. If there are smaller coins it will be written as 10.75 or 10.50 or 10.25. Just go through any news papers in India - this is the usual way of mentioning currency in figures. Why doesn't GM assume that all the newspapers in India are faked by me? Why does GM come to such false assumptions without proper study other than to vilify me?
My Response: 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.
GM : Basava Premanand tends to site example after example and ends these examples with "etc.". Premanand's "etc." fetish is a trademark characteristic to his writings. In the anonymous letter, there are no less than 21 "etc.'s"! Couple this with the similar usage of parenthesis and things begin to appear very suspicious. Coincidence (5)?
As it is impossible to mention all the alleged miracles believed to be performed by SSB and names of the persons referred to in each sentence it is natural that etc., is added. One has to find whether the word etc., is appropriate in the sentence without coming to any conclusions.
I have no Trade Mark or Patent Right registered for the word "etc.!, nor I have used it in inappropriate places.
This word "Fetish" has several meanings in the dictionary:
1. A material object believed among primitive cultures to have magical power
2. An object, principle, activity, or the like that receives unreasonably excessive attention or reverence
3. An abnormal sexual attraction to some object or part of the body not normally considered erogenous.
Would GM dare to analyse his articles in his Deception series using the method of science and tell me who is really fetishist? It would do him good if he could consult a good psychologist who will be able to help him with his fetishes and obsessions.
My Response: 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.
GM : Basava Premanand is also well known to capitalize certain words and phrases in articles he writes, just like the anonymous letter does. Intriguing enough, the anonymous letter ends with the comment, "THINK and OBSERVE". Basava Premanand has reiterated this very same idea when he said, "The way in which I expose miracles, is by collecting as much as information on the miracle, then observe the miracle once, twice or many times and find out the trick behind it. The thing is to watch and reason out why they do each thing each move, and you get the answer. I am also happy that my visiting West Bengal has helped hundreds of youths to start thinking." Coincidence (6)?
"Think and observe" is the method used in science to find answers. 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.
My Response: 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.
GM : At http://www.indian-skeptic.org/html/is_v03/3-10-8.htm, Basava Premanand's Indian Skeptic site, there is mention to, "agile hands deft at conjuring tricks". On the anonymous letter, it makes mention to, "Babaji's deft hands" , "he deftly shifts one ball to the right hand" and "Babaji's deft toes are busy". Coincidence (7)?
GM has misquoted again. What he mentions as mine is taken from the article by Prof.Piet Vroon from his article "Santa Claus in India" I am wondering why GM so systematically misleads his readers with false information.
My Response: 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.
GM : At http://www.indian-skeptic.org/html/svm_cont.htm, Basava Premanand's site, there is mention to, "Producing lockets, talismans, medals, rings etc." On the anonymous letter, there is mention to, "chains, rings, lockets, talismans, even sweets". Coincidence (8)?
This is not a co-incidence; these words have to be used if the list is not complete and very long. Is GM pointing out that these tinsels alleged to have been created by SSB and recorded in hundreds of books are false?
My Response: 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.
GM : At http://www.indian-skeptic.org/html/is_v01/1-12-5.htm, Basava Premanand talks about Christianity. The Christian undertone, towards the end of the letter is clearly disingenuous and could have very easily been added to cover the writer's true, personal beliefs. Consequently, it most certainly appears that this anonymous letter was written by Basava Premanand. Although this cannot be said with 100% certainty, until Basava Premanand divulges the name of the person who wrote this anonymous letter, he will be suspected as having written it. Basava Premanand should know better than dispersing an anonymous letter anyway. According to Dr. Kovoor, Basava Premanand is purposely "withholding information", being "insincere and dishonest", "conspiring", "propagandizing" and having some sort of "vested interest" in distributing this anonymous letter. Furthermore, all of the names to the alleged sexually-abusive instructors and sexually-abused students, were taken from a list provided on ExBaba.com, at home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/articles/list.html, that was taken from an anonymous, online message board at quicktopic.com. 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! Despite this fact, Exbaba.com continues to provide this list on their site. If this list is genuine, why hasn't anyone helped these boys file even one court case against Sathya Sai Baba? No one has even tried to file a court case! This proves that this anonymous letter has no factual basis and was written using internet resources, rather than legitimate and genuine resources. Despite these facts, Basava Premanand continues to solicit this anonymous hate letter on his site, as well as on ExBaba.com!
Surprisingly GM has not even touched the subject matter of the article "Betrayal" so far but speculated on inconsistencies of the usage of words etc. I wonder why he did not touch the main subject of the article "Sexual abuse of students" by SSB? Is it because they are true and unquestionable and indisputable? Not a single coincidence was GM able to prove.
My Response: 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 SSB? 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 SSB? 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.
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. Consequently it most certainly appears that this anonymous letter was written by Basava Premanand.
My Response: That is correct. The article entitled, "CHRIST IS TEMPTED - says St. Mathew 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 SSB'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".
After stating the self-defeating "most certainly appears", GM somersaults again and states," Although this cannot be said with 100% certainty". He is an acrobat expert with words stating "until Basava Premanand divulges the name of the person who wrote this anonymous letter!" and calls me "being, insincere and dishonest", "conspiring", "propagandizing" and having some sort of "vested interest" in distributing this anonymous letter. There is no truth but GM's own speculation which even he himself is questioning.
And who said that I won't divulge the name of the person who authored "Betrayal"? Not I. But certainly I would not tell it to Gèrald Morèno, who does not even reveal his identity. But to the Apex Court - if they order to divulge the name of the author of "Betrayal". But on one condition: if the Supreme Court first takes legal action against the people mentioned in the CB-CID report which has been confirmed by Hon.Supreme Court in their orders, but closed by the state government of Andhra Pradesh on a confidential G.O based on the report of a mandal magistrate thus going against the Apex Court directions. A further condition is, the Supreme Court must take full responsibility to protect the author's life and his son and if they are murdered or disappear, trace the culprits and punish them. Not otherwise.
Then GM speculates and claims that all the names of the alleged sexually-abusive instructors and sexually-abused students, were taken from a list provided on Ex-baba.com and that was taken from an anonymous, online message board at quicktopic.com. If this allegation was true the author of 'Betrayal' would have used all the names in his article and it comes to about 155. Though the names mentioned in 'Betrayal' might be in the list mentioned by GM, the names mentioned there cannot be different from such names mentioned in the list, as they are real names. What more proof do you want that the names mentioned in "Betrayal" were not copied from the list?
My Response: "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 SSB 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 SSB?
Out of 13 students names mentioned in 'Betrayal', 6 are not in the list published on Ex-baba.com. This itself would confirm that these names in Betrayal are not from the list. Moreover out of 3 students two were studying in IX standard and the third in Xth standard. The SSB authorities could have easily found out which year they were studying and traced them. Whether they traced them also can be known from the registers if these boys left the school or were dismissed from the school.
My Response: 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 SSB 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 SSB 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".
GM states that this list was removed from quick topic after many students complained about their names being on it. Who are these 'many' students who supposedly complained, stating that they were never sexually abused and someone with ulterior motives submitted their names without their consent? One mail was posted anonymously complaining about a few students he knew, claiming they could not have been abused. Not one of them came forward to support him. This list of sexually abused students is continued on Ex-baba.com and no one has seriously complained.
Since GM is so sure of the complaints he should have the details of the students who had complained. If he had mentioned them it would have helped him to prove his statement. Then he laments, "if this list is genuine, why hasn't any one helped these boys file even one court case against Sathya Sai Baba?" When even the directives given by the Hon.High Court and confirmed by the Supreme Court in the Murder case has not been adhered by the State Government as to expect that - if students file a case in Court - they would get justice?
My Response: 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, to 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 question to GM is, why did not one student he himself mentioned file a case in court and prove that he was never sexually abused? There could have even been a mass petition of all those students to reduce the expenses in the court who had complained about their names being on the list and that they were never sexually abused by SSB. This would have cleared SSB's name from the allegations of sexual abuse! Why did SSB or his organisation not help them go to court when students were ready to affirm that they were not abused by SSB? I never knew that some of the students mentioned in the list had complained! If SSB and Gèrald Morèno had done this, I would have expressed that he followed the method of Prof.Kovoor.
My Response: 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 SSB! 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.
Web sites GM referenced are all but one at the Indian Sceptic website:
http://www.themronline.com/200505m2.html B. Premanand's writing sample 1.
http://www.indian-skeptic.org/html/ [B. Premanand's writing samples]
The web sites quoted by Gèrald Morèno
I am sending to the Law enforcement department, The District Collector and the Hon.Governor of AP a copy of this article for further action according to law.
My Response: 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".
(I want to thank my skeptic colleagues for relieving work pressures on me by key board work and editing of my answers)
My Response: 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.
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.
1) 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.
2) I incorrectly attributed a quote to Premanand, that was taken from themronline.com. I corrected my article by removing the quote and the link.
3) 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.
4) 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.
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".
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.
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".
4) I said, "Basava Premanand alleged that several letters were sent to him from SSB 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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
18) Premanand attributed me with quoting him regarding the word "deft". I did not quote him.
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.
In 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."
Go to Betrayal Response ONE