SURVEILLANCE, SECURITY, SECRECY
in SB's ashram, institutions and organisation

by Robert Priddy

Ashram bulwarks against physical and verbal attacks

All who visit any of SB's ashrams well know from experience how security checks with metal detectors are made on every person, and how every smallest item (however private) is checked and how even the smallest items that could in the wild fantasies be used as a weapon (eg. even computer diskettes, thick cushions etc!) must be deposited elsewhere before one is allowed into 'the compound'. Anyone can see that there are armed guards with Kalashnikov or Uzi machine guns ready to deploy close to SB at short notice. To be used against whom? The one who claims that everyone in the world loves him?

Few who visit, however, are aware that they are under constant surveillance by numerous paid undercover agents, employed by the ashram and paid from the apparently bottomless funds available through the Central Trust. Almost anything one says anywhere in the ashram (or even outside it) that can be picked up can be - if at all suspicious - be reported by snoopers, and by the average of 500 unpaid volunteers for the Seva Dal who also to partake in surveillance precautions since the 1993 grand slaughter in SB's own bedroom. They come in groups for a one or two week tour of guard and similar duties, usually for 12 hours of each day, organised on a rotating basis between the states of India. They are brought in shifts from all over India continually to guard Prashanthi Nilayam and now function as a backup to this security system, whether they quite realise their role or not. It is hard to see what kind of 'Supreme Peace' (i.e. 'Prashanthi') this may speak.

Who is the target of the feared attacks and why assume that there is reason to attack anyone? I shall be detailing these events that are the main turning point in the fortunes of SB and the reader can investigate my findings and then draw her/his own conclusions! SB has many times proclaimed that no one and nothing can harm him. He named his ashram 'The Abode of Supreme Peace' (Prashanthi Nilayam). In numerous books blessed by Baba it is stated that visitors to Prashanthi are under the protection of SB, no harm can befall them etc. The SS Org. encourages its members to visit SB ashrams, often arranging group visits and making their travel arrangements. The information given in advance to newcomers is, in all permitted literature and in talks given about conditions there is seriously lacking in frankness as to certain dangers that can be met, even within the ashrams. All information about deaths therein, murders, suicides, fatal accidents and other untoward incidents is suppressed. Those who have found out, usually by chance or private contacts about such events, have had to rationalise hard to sustain belief in all that SB promises about his protection and with his much-publicised motto 'Why fear when I am here?'

In my diary/notebook covering my visit to Puttaparthi in 1995/6, I wrote what V.K. Narasimhan told me on 1/1/1996 exactly as follows: "Sai is spending 50 lakhs a month on his own protection, with 50 private security men in plain clothes in the ashram and within his building, says Narasimhan. Why, if nothing can harm him? SB said it was for the benefit of devotees. Why did Sai announce in an interview that he would be killed during an attempt in October 1995?"

The official line, of course, parrots SB's sly claim that the massive security is for the protection of devotees... a convenient rebuff to those who begin to ask why the invincible Avatar of the Kali Age might need such excessive protection. Oddly, however, few of the most hardened believers actually deny that it is for protecting SB himself, at least since the alleged assassination attempt on him (which he has publicly denied was against him).

The view that there was an attempt of SB's life is convenient for those who have most to cover up, not least his younger brother, the multi-millionaire Puttaparthi property mogul, Janaki Ramiah, and other ashram and Central Trust officials, who publicly claimed that it was an assassination attempt on SB. SB himself was never actually attacked, as he made clear when refusing to bring charges against the two who were said to be the 'master-minds' behind the attack. Because of this they were freed, but this also meant that they were unable to defend themselves in court, and their motives and roles in the episode were thus officially covered-up. Nor could the claims set forth that one of the intruders' motives was to stop SB sexually abusing his students could not be examined in public. As another consequence, neither was the widely-held view that the intruders wished to stop widespread financial irregularities and other injustices within the ashrams investigated by any independent body

Here are very big and demonstrable 'vested interests' of several kinds. Whether the intrusion of June 1993 was an attempt at taking SB hostage and changing the ashram or actually did aim at killing him (for whatever reasons) makes fairly little material difference now, for the blackmail by SB officials of the police resulting of the execution of the intruders while SB stood by close at hand (meanwhile consulting with his officials) is by far the most outstanding judicial human rights issue. It is a make or break issue for faith, one which few devotees dare even consider! It may have been, as claimed by some, an attempt to stop the sexual slavery SB allegedly imposes on his most attractive and captive male students. The case has never been cleared up properly, as I shall detail here later. All in all, then, the safety of devotees today is seen most obviously to be a most secondary consideration at the ashrams, at best. There are no armed guards around their quarters, as there always are around SB's! It is well-known too that SB has had constructed for himself a veritably invulnerable abode with balconies that cannot be scaled from the ground and with rooms that are sealed off from the ground floor by a lift, which is deactivated when SB so desires, such as at night. Moreover, as anyone can observe, there are two sets of identical-looking apartments and balconies etc., one on either side of the Poornachandra Hall.

A very costly and massive array of Black Beret commandos take over at functions which the P.M. and President of India attend, often causing crowd crushes, such as at the bi-decennial birthday celebrations (i.e. 65th, 70th etc,) Bomb threats received by the ashrams are never made known (except by independent sources in the press), and devotees are left in the belief that there are no threats of such dangers. A bomb threat from Tamil Eelam was received prior to the 75th birthday, which was quietly reduced in size by the ashram authorities without giving the reason as reported in the Indian press.

Top sacred, top secret?

Serious discussion of certain types of fact, - matters such as I outlined in the first part of this series - is taboo in the Sathya Sai Org. Everything about SB and his works is regarded as sacred and, if it smells at all fishy, it is kept well hidden away. The conflict of belief and reality, and of word and action this involves raises many questions that are quashed by issuing spiritual directives on how it is best to mind one's own business, examine oneself instead, do not try to understand Sai Baba etc.

What appears harmful to us, it is repeatedly told, must be in accordance with the All-Good, All-Knowing Divine Will of SB. Everything that ever happens as all good, says SB but also - on the other hand - there is no good or evil anywhere! He teaches that it is better not to question anything about him because we cannot ever understand him or anything of what he does! The attitude one is supposed to take is that, if SB allowed an event to happen in his ashrams (or nearby or even anywhere in the world!), it must be for the best… be it contagious illness, serious injury, sudden death, murder, cover-up, harassment by his officials, beatings by his gatekeepers etc., the sexual abuse of minors etc. To anyone who has not through SB's subtle means been entranced and entrapped in the web of deceptions that surround him and which he covertly supports, this seems incredible and fantastic or even a form of induced madness. The question from outsiders, "How could you ever possibly have believed in all that?" is admittedly something very hard to explain. But we try… Most ashrams in India practice internal secrecy and censorship along with outward cover-ups of unfortunate, not to say criminal, incidents, and SB's ashrams are certainly no exception, to the contrary. For example, the International Chairman of the SS Organisation, Indulal Shah is a conniving accountant trained in Indian political manipulations - who is also on the super-rich and secretive SS Central Trust. He told pressmen about the six murders in Sai Baba's apartment on 6-6-1993, "the matter is purely internal and we do not wish to have any law-enforcement agency investigating into it" (according to the Staff Reporter of The Hindu 10-6-1993). The chief lackey, Indulal Shah, lied about there being official UNESCO participation in SS Org. matters, which in fact never occurred. This has been documented from his own published words! (See 'UNESCO conference without UNESCO' by S. Badaev). His statements says it all about the set-up over which Sai Baba rules.

Obtaining any plain facts, even about seemingly trivial matters, is mostly fraught with difficulty at SB ashrams, especially for foreigners, and not at all only due to language and cultural differences. Various officials are as sparing as possible with information other than that they wish to impress on visitors, and may become very recalcitrant and obstructive at any hint of taking issue with their decisions. There is a strong culture of "mind you own business" throughout the Sai movement. SB condones this, for he invariably does not react to letters of complaint against maltreatment by his staff (except in the case of a small handful of favourites like Mr. Kaw of Delhi, the late John Hislop etc.) Nor does he react against the ingrained culture of racial discrimination (esp. against Eurasians - which usually just means whites) met from some servitors by many a visitor sooner or later. The residents are also mostly very cautious, speaking only in lowered voiced privately about anything not thought to be wholly positive about the ashram or could reflect on SB. This secrecy creates an atmosphere of self-censorship and that aids power-wielders and those having any corrupt motives.

Care has doubtless to be taken by any serious spiritual movement as to what is made public knowledge, for any admission of wrongdoing is easily ripped out of its context and make into a feast by anti-spiritual media persons. An unproven allegation is sufficient for many newspapers to print; thin evidence of the slightest misdemeanour is often enough for a field day. Even when certain facts are known with considerable accuracy, they are often interpreted very differently, according to the commentator's character, beliefs or purpose. However, where murders and cold-blooded executions are involved, why do SB and his officials not wish people to know the facts? Nor, extraordinarily, do the majoity of Indian news media now want to report on or pursue the many and very weighty sexual allegations. I leave the reader to ponder over this. I firmly believe in the adage, 'Tell the truth always, even when the truth doesn't favour your viewpoint". This, unfortunately, is not practised at SB institutions and most definitely and despicably in many instances not by SB either, who boasts that his first name is 'truth' (i.e. Sathya). This has been well-documented on quite some scale both by others and I). Because of this, he is bringing down upon himself considerable public criticism and condemnation, which can only grow if he should ever become at all widely known in educated and more democratically accountable societies. The gradual emergence of the web of lies and half-truths that enwrap almost everything connected with SB eventually became too much for my wife and I to bear, especially when we found out definitively about the murders and the sexual abuses, so we had to break out of it. Now I am airing this for the benefit of others and for posterity.

That some criticisms of SB may not be properly justified does not alter the rightness of many of them. Yet his claim of personal perfection and moral superiority in all ways over all human beings dead or alive is the real petard by which he is hoisted. Because of his political influence at the highest levels in India, SB can afford to ignore criticism and leave all injured parties to rot, which he unconcernedly allows. Attempts to obtain justice and reparation by injured parties are suppressed through his network of followers in the Indian judiciary. The relatives of murdered devotees and many others are without recourse to legal compensation. However, foreign critics cannot be silenced so easily and the reduction in the flow of foreign visitors and the massive donations from abroad has already apparently caused him to let fly his wrath at anyone who will not bow to what he outspokenly asserts as his divine prerogatives. Until all this secrecy and misrule is radically changed, the criticisms and very substantial and well-documented allegations will surely not go away, and are already firmly attached to his chosen name 'Sai Baba', (itself perhaps the usurpation of the prestige of the former popular saint, Sai Baba of Shirdi, as claimed by many of that saint's followers).

Positive misinformation is, at bottom, no better than the negative sort... it may sway public opinion for some time and induce vicarious pseudo-experience. Both extremes, however, misrepresent human experience and so distort the truth. Everyone with any kind of decent upbringing practises some kind and degree of self-censorship in considering people's feelings and so forth, and we would not want it to be otherwise. Writing just anything in public cannot be a worthwhile goal except for total anarchists or, say, the mentally or emotionally disturbed. Therefore, instead of being against all forms of censorship, the question must be, where to draw the limits?

Granted, spiritual movements and persons do mostly fare ill in the media world, where worldliness is the grist on which both the jaws of gossips and the mills of the press feed. Total freedom of expression can lead to much confusion and ills, but the world increasingly agrees that secrecy and censorship are yet worse, much worse! The crucial importance of press freedom is that it ultimately supports the truth and helps honest journalists dig deeply into suspected injustices, wars, genocide, corruption, and every kind of crime and cover-up. Otherwise powerless individuals - and society as a whole - become the pawns of more or less despotic forces, of whatever ilk. Most Sai devotees are constantly faced by a dilemma, for they are kept in the dark about serious matters and told to have no doubts whatever, but they cannot avoid repeatedly hearing disturbing facts, uncontrollable ashram rumours of all kinds... and not least (indirectly) from those who have left the Sai movement. There are few covert grapevines to compare with those in SB ashrams! This dilemma of censorship vs. freedom of speech is nicely illustrated by an anecdote from occupied Norway, where the Nazis imposed a rigorous censorship (to enforce evil propaganda untruths and hide terrible crimes), broken often only on pain of death. One of the German occupiers was amazed to hear that there had been full press freedom previously, because he could not understand how one then could know what was the truth. This neatly sums up the attitude of SB, his officials, VIPs and office-bearers throughout the Sai Organisation.

Pressures by SB to stop contacts & friendships

In India the culture of official secrecy is endemic and those officials who become ashram staff continue and even intensify this, revealing only what suits them, no more and no less... as indeed the inscrutable God also does by all scriptural accounts. No one who has been at any SB ashram for long can have failed to notice the tight-lipped behaviour of nearly all SB officials. There is a culture of control and censorship of what can be said in nearly all Sai org. groups, never criticism or relating anything that can be considered as 'bad' about anything connected with SB. This is fully backed up by all the leaders in Sai Organisation, who comply with all cover-ups and unquestioningly accept everything handed to them - whether lies or not - as being "the will of the Lord" etc. (except for the considerable number who resign or are thrown out, of course!).

A well-known problem of most hierarchical spiritual organisations is that, as they grow, the leading figure necessarily delegates authority to others of a lesser level of supposed purity and insight. An astute and widely experienced observer of Indian ashrams, Paul Brunton, noted totalitarian tendencies in virtually all of the many he visited. Central spokesmen or other officials easily become a power in their own right as regards matters with which the guru does not concern him or herself, not infrequently including finances. Most of the Indian population is accustomed to not having to think for themselves, being told what to believe and to do by their superiors, so the are easy prey when wolves get among the flock.

To follow orders slavishly and to the letter is an ingrained attitude in caste societies where freedom of speech never was the tradition, even if it is supposedly allowed. Information is usually controlled by those in central positions, which makes it easy to get away with underhand doings and to cover up all kinds of negative incidents. Unscrupulous persons easily take advantage of the top-down order by insinuating the guru's likely wrath, exclusion, excommunication or worse to those anxious to speak out. This has been demonstrated in any number of sensational cases of major gurus with ashrams in India - and also Eastern gurus abroad - in recent decades, where murder has frequently been committed - even over long periods - before the facts were revealed in court cases. Unfortunately, Prashanti Nilayam is no exception!

All informal chatting while at the ashrams (at least) is discouraged by nearly all full-time believers or office-bearers, while anything like rumour-mongering or back-biting are thought to be cardinal sins of greater evil (because SB harps on about this time and again in the most unreasonable terms). One has to ask, of what is SB so frightened? The answer springs readily to mind, he does not want anyone to know of the many untoward incidents, well-founded accusations and so on. Such information would (and often does) soon reduce or kill faith in him and most of what he claims to be. Further, he needs to keep control of talk because his sexual preferences are so well known to most Puttaparthi villagers and other persons and have even been admitted to Westerners by a number of his close servitors through the years. Though such matters of homosexual relations with minors are all strictly passed over in silence in India - and thus tolerated and even accepted - SB has realised for some time that knowledge of this destroys the hugely-inflated reputation he has gained and shows him up as not even being a pure and decent, law-abiding person. For many years, he has evidently been awaiting the day when his doings would be revealed and accusations would hail down, and he has tried to avert this through rigorous censorship and brain-washing of the faithful (now backed up by cosmic threats) and by predictions of the accusations and fall-off that were bound to come... in an effort to back up his claim of omniscience.

Talking is discouraged in general, but more particularly about anything remotely negative. So there is a relative dearth of well-confirmed facts about anything that may be thought to reflect in any way upon SB and his works. Virtually every setback and difficulty is denied or explained away - or, at worst, hushed up from the considerable number of disappearances, suicides, and murders of both foreign and ethnic Indian devotees to the frequent epidemics of debilitating throat/chest ailments, dysentery and stomach infections at festivals. Further, all details of donations and finances are kept secret, as well as how and why accommodation is issued and any number of other internal matters.

Cover-ups are, in my fairly broad experience of affairs there, endemic to SB ashrams and the fear of leaking secret information is like a constant cloud under which all residents and leaders exist, however good they may be at rationalising each episode. Some examples: a villager's death caused by SB's driver; that man's self-immolation as a result; a male US visitor killed at Brindavan found with his testicles cut off, the murder within the ashram of SB's long-term violent bully and gatekeeper Kumar, a van accident on the way to Bangalore in which two students died, the death of a woman devotee under the 'wish-fulfilling' tree (!), the rape and murder of another foreign lady in Puttaparthi, the knifing to death by two thieves of a Swiss lady in her new ashram apartment, the Spiritual Museum dome's collapse causing the death of three Americans... plus a number of other deaths in veiled circumstances through the years. The first-mentioned incident is worth recounting. In the late1980s, SB's personal driver for over 20 years took his own life by immolating himself, dowsing himself in petrol and setting himself on fire under the Shiva statue in the Hillview Stadium. He had failed to follow a warning, repeated three times by SB, to drive more slowly. While testing one of SB's fleet of cars, he happened to knock down and kill a villager in a place near Puttaparthi. This was hushed up by secret monetary compensation by the ashram officials or, in a more accurate term, 'bribes'. The poor man was driven to this by words uttered by SB himself. According to what Narasimhan told me when I asked about this incident, the words of SB had been that, if one did not follow his directions to the letter after repeated warnings, one might as well set fire to oneself! However, the ashram officials must bear some of the blame, for they reacted to his 'crime' while SB was away in Brindavan by rigorously banning him from the ashram, knowing that he had no property or money, for he had been a selfless server of SB for decades, and so he chose to end it all. This is how the aphorisms so dear to SB, "Help ever, hurt never" and "Why fear when I am here" actually play out when his interests are seen to be threatened in any way, even by a road accident!

Time and again, it appears that, where SB is involved, the 'bottom line' in any major incident can not be accessed except by determined investigation, careful digging and correlating information critically from many sources. The very effective cult of tight wraps on information around SB, about what he does when not visible at darshan and about his many failed minor and major plans, has misled all devotees into believing that things are just fine! It can sometimes be that SB's influences the consciousness of people by paranormal means - and it seems on occasion he can manipulate their own sensory perceptions. This is not any well-known form of suggestion or hypnosis, however, but an ability that is so remarkable and fleeting as to be almost indescribable by those who experience it, as I myself have done on a number of occasions. Such phenomena have been described in connection with Tantric mystics and other gurus (including fallen or brashta yogis), not least by the world-famous Romanian writer and religionist of wide personal paranormal experience, a follower of Swami Shivananda of Rishikesh, Mircea Eliade, and - of course - by very many other convincing witnesses from all around the world in almost all cultures and eras. It is not the abilities that are in question so much as the ends to which they are sometimes put! (Nor do the abilities prove SB to be a divinity, of course.)

Professor N. Kasturi, both a historian and a journalist, who was in his 50's when first appointed by SB to write his biography, once struck me as a careful, but fair and frank, commentator on most events. I did not feel that he went out of his way in his talks or replies to questions to present an unduly rosy picture of everything that occurred around SB. He did not cover over all unpleasant facts, such as some attempts made to kill SB in his younger years, which he reports on in the four volumes of the main biography of SB, Sathyam, Sivam, Sundaram. He avoided negative reports about most persons visiting or living in the ashram - except where claims by persistently fraudulent persons had to be refuted and he was also his own strictest critic, in conversation as well as in print. Yet he still also wore rose-coloured glasses at all times and never reported untoward happenings in the ashram like suicides, killings in Puttaparthi of foreign visitors and other unmentionable facts. Still, his sympathetic accounts strike one as relatively realistic - at least in part - compared to the heavily glossed-over descriptions and blatant eulogy of almost everything connected to SB which have become the rule in all official writings in SB's journal and other organs. As more undeniable conflicting and revealing facts emerge about SB's early years to contradict the official version on point after point, it becomes more and more evident that Kasturi was a very pro-biased interpreter, lacking in critical acumen and comparative skills. In fact, he has functioned much more as a 'spin doctor' for SB than a reporter. The same goes for all those who followed in his footsteps, from Howard Murphet to Samuel Sandweiss to John Hislop and onwards into the mass of hagiologic eulogies. This development helps make its progenitor Kasturi seem more credible than most writers on SB, and more believable than he most likely is!

Persons mature and fearless enough openly to discuss any such awkward facts in a helpful and constructive spirit are in great dearth everywhere, and no less so at ashrams, which are virtually self-contained. These 'total institutions', as they are known in sociology, have their own rules and norms, existing mostly in isolation and with a high degree of independence from wider society. Group pressure to follow the rules - written and unwritten - is constantly present. This pressure can unify too, having some useful functions and positive aspects. For example, the variety of unwritten rules about how to behave, where to walk and sit, when not to move etc., in the huge crowd that gathers frequently for darshan at SB ashrams are soon picked up within the group and - when not observed - are helpfully applied or eventually enforced by those who have the duty of disciplining the crowd when necessary. Without such rules, the management of the vast crowds from every kind of background and all nations or cultures that gather there would doubtless lead to crushes and deaths by trampling, as occurs all too often in India at religious festivals.

Group pressures also invariably work to unify against suspicions or criticism coming from outside. When this comes from within, however, the organisation often turns to censorship and then censure of those who speak frankly. This is the great problem of total institutions, not least of most religious organisations and especially ashrams, to which SB's are certainly not exceptions. Many brush all hints of misrule and corruption under the carpet, believing that they become better devotees and increase their chances of receiving grace in one or another form. Sheepishly following is a trait encouraged and sometimes outwardly rewarded - at least in small ways - at SB's ashrams and other institutions, especially by those leaders who revel in power over others and internal prestige. SB's teaching blackens those who criticise, spread negative news or raise doubts, even when there are valid grounds and openness is justified. Thus, SB has even lately called dissenters 'Judases' implying that their actions can never be redeemed, even throughout any number of future births ( see his infamous Christmas Discourse, 2000). (He is doubtless also quite unaware of the modern Biblical research about Judas, Jesus' closest disciple, who it emerges did not 'betray' him at all.)

The doctrine that worldly facts are not truth is easily misused to cover up facts in ashrams - which are all also inevitably involved in worldly dealings. The claim is that facts have no significance beside the higher, divine truth and so can safely be ignored. Therefore one distorts actual matters and presents doctrinal half-truths in their place. But the old saying that 'a half-truth is often worse than a lie' holds true! Idealising propaganda by SB and his various officials it soon becomes largely self-induced and self-sustained. Fed by a flow of indoctrination and misinformation, this soon leads to a kind of brainwashing of a physically non-violent but yet more effective kind. The converse of all this is growing disaffection among those who feel most suppressed by it, while the 'outside world' that happens to observe it, finding its questions unanswered, feels all the more that many suspicions may well be justified.

All in all, there is a dearth of facts or any unbiased accounts of any events from anyone connected with SB - especially about anything like epidemics at festivals, finances, setbacks to Sai projects, how and why accommodation is issued to those who have donated for rooms, plus on any number of other matters. The law of complete unaccountability is absolute throughout all of SB's doings and institutions!

Sai Baba and the News Media

A section of the journalistic community world-wide has been writing against SB on a variety of very serious counts. Some of what is written by over-sceptical critics is not made on the basis of first-hand observations or properly checked information and often ignores his constructive educational institutions and health projects. But he has refused to answer, as his officials also do. Unfortunately, this applies to at least as much of what is written in favour of him too. Those who ignore, suppress or try to explain away with specious arguments the many shortcomings and human failings of SB are equally culpable of untruth. These failings are an indelible blot on the whole SB enterprise.

Some journalists and critics distort otherwise normal human communication by their lack of consideration for the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but this applies with at least equal force to those devotees who block channels of information and practise secrecy in affairs that affect many people and the general public. Censorship of negative facts as stringently practised throughout SB's institutions and self-censorship has been officially accepted by Indian authorities. Worse still, most Indian journalism now seems to be enamoured of SB because of his visible projects and his talking up of Indian values etc. They do not inquire properly into the many allegations from all over the world, or how SB has become socially invulnerable in India. He has attacked journalists verbally in public on some occasions when they were only trying to do their job, especially Andhra Pradesh journalists after the murder spree at his ashram in 1993. SB's has shown his ability in getting criminal investigations quashed by police, the judiciary, and government Ministers. This sent a very powerful warning shot across the bows of any Indian investigative journalists. The Indian press is clearly cowed by his demonstrated political power, an indictment of India's press freedom. That this is so is shown by their neglect of any mention of the Public Petition for Official Investigations of SB and His Worldwide Organization Petition, of which they are well-informed. The petition is most embarrassing for SB since it is signed by ca. 150 ex-devotees and leaders of the Sai Org., many of very long standing, plus about 100 other individuals. The lack of openness and democratic accountability is still common to most Indian public life, where huge scams have been exposed at top levels only for the exposers to be out-manoeuvred and beaten down by power interests

A month after the six 1993 killings/murders, SB attacked the media scathingly in a discourse saying, "all arguments and theories carried in the newspapers for the past four weeks are nothing but flights of the imagination and are false" (quote) calling such reports 'motivated' and 'malicious'. He was then publicly asked to clear doubts by the Anantapur District Journalists' Union, who responded by asking him:
1) Where he was after the incident on June 6 till the next morning?
2) During the period, who met him and what did they discuss with him? Did SB himself press the siren button?
3) There is a widespread opinion that the four slain assailants were shot dead by the police only at the instance of some persons belonging to the Prashanti Nilayam management, how far is it correct? SB did not reply to any of these questions. Questions about the incident were brushed aside by harassed ashram officials, and written instructions were sent out from top Sai Org. officials not to question or discuss anything about it but rather to concentrate on oneself and one's own spiritual practice. SB himself was able to remain as silent as a clam about what really happened, no official in the whole of India was able to question him, except in secrecy at best.

There is still much to be said for as positive an approach as possible, for it can awaken us to good things that have been overlooked, and can be an inspiring stimulant to goodness. Yet when it becomes a virtual rule of law, as by SB's 'divine' command, the other side of the coin soon becomes dark and threatening. A self-sacrificing organisation like Amnesty International, which often risks much to bring huge injustices to the notice of an otherwise unknowing and uncaring world, and aims to influence the perpetrators, can only be said to be constructive and positive in outlook, despite the depressing nature of the 'news' it spreads. This is surely an example of seeing, hearing, speaking and doing good... even though it criticises and challenges killers, tyrants, corruption and many other oppressive and negative forces. SB is not in favour of this, he says he wants everything to be described always through rose-coloured glasses for one should 'See, hear, speak no evil' etc. He makes crystal clear how much he dislikes defence of human rights and wants instead to enforce a regime of imprinting 'human duties' instead.

'Today's newspaper is tomorrow's wastepaper', says SB (doubtless taking over yet another English phrase suggested to him by his former 'ghost writer' and spin doctor , Prof. N. Kasturi), and always advises that we concentrate on what is good, not what is bad in other people. Some of the press scavenges the rubbish bins for sensation, recycling whatever hearsay may boost circulation. On this problem, in his first newspaper interview in 25 years, SB told some journalists from Mumbai in 1999, including S. Balakrishnan, that the newspapers should be more careful and responsible, while publishing of senseless and baseless news must be avoided, especially of those at the helm of affairs of the country since it has a lot of repercussions abroad. Doubts should be cleared after free and frank discussions with the persons concerned, he said, and truth should not be compromised under any circumstances. However, concerning himself and all events around him that do not agree with what he tells, SB remains as silent as the grave, as do all his lackeys.

While SB clams up about his own involvements, he is vociferously outspoken against anybody writing anything untoward concerning him. This was seen particularly in his discourse in July 1993 about the press' role in reporting on the murders that took place under his nose, and more recently in a public discourse at Christmas, 2000, where he condemned his accusers and critics the strongest possible terms, threatening anyone who does so with what amounts to eternal damnation! Yet he impudently claims to be the One God of Love, the Father who sent Jesus Christ on his mission of forgiveness! SB tries constantly to erase all traces of any unfortunate events. That he dislikes unnecessary talk, loose gossip, and spreading rumour - and has even called this 'evil' or 'a great sin' - is positive, but it also backs up the culture of silence and secrecy concerning the darker sides of himself.

To put on the rose-coloured glasses, as SB recommends, may well reduce some potential conflicts, yet it is used by his followers as an excuse for ignoring many wrongs done, by SB and at his ashrams etc. The mere envisioning of rosiness alone, however, will never keep out or remove problems that exist. Instead, they have a way of festering and growing the more when denied. Not to speak of ill-doing if so doing can be thought to harm anyone, is a blind policy if ever there was one. Besides, it would make most human communication impossible, for there is always someone who will feel harmed by almost any truth. Indeed, SB himself constantly describes and condemns ills and ill-doers in general and sweeping terms, both of Indian and world society... and in words very far from rosy... His public attacks are not usually made against named persons, but they are increasingly made against persons who can easily be identified nevertheless.

In a discourse full of contradictions and complaints on 19 January 2002, SB discussed the press as follows: "Whatever paper one is from, write exactly what has happened. It is not wrong. They bring in what has not happened at all and put that in the paper. Only when non-existent and amazing things are put in, they will get more money. Just write exactly what happens. If it is a wrong, write it as a wrong. If there is good, write it as good. Only that; but don't mix in what isn't there." (Comment: What happens to his own recommendation to say only what is good?)

"I am 76 years old. Up till now I have not met with any newspaperman or TV people. (Applause) I don't have any relationship with papers at all. For, if good is spoken, without fail friendship can be made with them. But they write contradictory things." (Comment: There are several well-known interviews SB gave to press people, including Mr. Karanjia of 'Blitz Magazine'. And SB constantly speaks in a very contradictory way. Also he previously mentioned specifically two newspapers which wrote "exactly what has happened)".

"He came with a pistol near Me. They saw it."(Swami's voice imitates in a taunting way the sound of people gossiping:) What lies, just tell! (Laughter) (Swami's voice turns louder, accusing and strong:) Was there even one newspaperman there? Who saw? (Swami pounds the table saying:) Why should anyone tell such untruths? No one came at all! Finally, we see that pistol is a gas (air) pistol, used only to shoot birds. When all of it is like this, why such big publicity? This is a BIG mistake." (Comment: Why was it such a big mistake if - as mentioned before - "nothing happened". If that was so, why such a strong reaction?)

"Let the paper men think anything. I don't get anything out of the newspaper. My paper - my heart only is My paper. From My heart, there is so much Love only: only Love, only Love. (Applause) So I am sharing that Love. Let it be anyone at all: I will share it with all. All are Mine. I belong to all. I don't have hatred for anyone. All have only Love for Me. I have Love for everybody. Therefore, Love is the close relationship between both of us." (Comment: Is SB sharing his "love" with the newspapermen?)

"Suffering was given to the hearts of how many people? The journalists have succumbed to so much sin! From so many places - America, Germany, Japan, England, telegrams came from all directions. Therefore, none should succumb to so much jealousy." (Does this suggest that so many people do not really believe in SB's "infallibility"? Why does he make such a fuss when a simple clarification is all that was needed, rather than a whole public discourse to be widely published? Does SB really think that journalists whose job it is to follow up news for clarification all suffer from jealousy?)

There is despite all a clear dislike evident in SB for any report, however neutral, that anything untoward that occurs at his ashrams to be reported. The incident in this case was a bagatelle, but it is far from being this innocent always!

Part Five: - Half-truth and Untruth: a "Divine Dispensation"?

Again, all who have spent more than a week or so at SB ashrams know the sense of having to tread very carefully. The conspiracies of silence and secrecy cover up injustices by making for a kind of 'double-accounting' in which two versions of the facts exist, one closer to reality for insiders and another one that hides or else hushes up all potentially destructive information for everyone else. To cover up facts is one thing, but to censure those who do not concur is hardly the way to communicate ideals of truth, love and non-violence. Those who are not confirmed devotees will be put off questioning for evidence of wrongdoing. Any community that fails to allow for healthy feedback will eventually run into difficulties of credibility and in fulfilling its aims. This is what increasingly occurs at SB's ashrams and in his various organisations.

The inexpressible 'Truth' of which SB talks so often is one thing. But any so-called 'Truth" that flies in the face of facts actually hides the greater truth is of no value at all to genuine seekers. Such claims abound in SB's own discourses and in the 'positive propaganda machine' that SB institutions are all geared up to. The result is that rumours fly all the faster and the one incredible positive story and fanciful invention after the other becomes as if factual to many devotees just because they are left to flourish, are never refuted by SB or his staff... except in the most embarrassing or unavoidable extreme circumstances. SB actually condones and even loves the rumour mill, as long as it is about his miraculous acts and omniscient and total divine power. Left alone untruth festers. Well-investigated, undeniable 'negative' facts need to be brought into the light of day.

The staff at SB's ashrams do offer a minimum of neutral, fact-based guidance to visitors which, if followed to the letter, would go some way in protecting them from unfortunate experiences while staying there. They warn that one should look carefully after one's personal property at all times, for thieves cannot be kept out of the ashram. They also repeat SB's advice not go outside to Puttaparti village to shop or socialise. Had they told the details of some previous incidents, visitors would surely take this advice much more seriously than they mostly do. But this, including major thefts, a number of murders of foreign devotees both in the village and inside the ashram, would surely lead to much discussion which leads to doubts about the supposed 'divine protection' of SB! This would surely deter many new visitors and mar what good experiences might befall one from visiting the ashram and SB. (Young men, unsurprisingly, are never told what behaviour like oiling of genitals or sexual advances it is possible they will meet from SB in the privacy of the interview room).

SB warns his followers not to enter into arguments with others about spiritual matters or about his nature and mission. This surely functions too as is part of the clamp-down on talk that can give away facts that are to be kept under wraps. He minimises the importance of facts, scientific or scholarly investigation etc. as mere passing phenomena, He emphasizes personal self-investigation and improvement, mainly on an inner level through repeating his name and visualising him. Yet educated people today rightly often expect open debate with a free exchange of opinions and frank critical evaluations. No one can live in a complete social vacuum solely with one's own thoughts... not even a hermit, not SB either, for they carry with them the culture and memories of others that nurtured them.

As SB has pointed out and complained mightily about many times, despite some selfless achievements by his followers, many problems still beset and even dominate his movement. Ashrams led by a guru usually function best when they are not too large. The apparatus around SB has grown to huge proportions and he has long since delegated most of its daily running to others. All reports from organisation conferences, and also from interviews SB has given to his office-bearers, indicate that SB gives very few definite answers on specifics of organisational activity, confining himself mainly to general directives, usually aphorisms concerning the kind of 'spiritual life' he recommends. This is also his well-known indirect or elliptical style in discourses and most interviews. Therefore, much is left to persons appointed by SB, who seem to have a free hand to ignore or overrule when it suits them. If it is found out that they criticise him or his directives, express any serious doubts or leak sensitive information, however, they are expelled without further ado.

Observant persons find official versions of events full of convenient omissions, and find it hard to tell what comes from SB and what is merely someone's interpretation. This lack of clarity is taken advantage of by many of the leaders and officials who wish to impose their own views or manipulate people for their personal reasons. How, in such circumstances, to distinguish even SB's teaching from the many distorted interpretations of it also becomes a real problem. How to interpret his living message, which he says is his life, is difficult when he is not easily distinguished from what occurs around and even close to him. Add to this the much more challenging problem of reconciling an increasingly large number of SB's words with his actions, as is now being demonstrated widely on this website and several others!

It is not exactly pleasant to mention unpleasant facts, but since the full truth is bound to come out eventually somehow (so they say, and SB had to agree with this too), someone has to do it. I am reminded of SB's words when inaugurating the Venkatagiri Girls' High School many years ago, "Speak the truth always, for falsehood is the result of cowardice" (Sathyam, Sivam, Sundaram Vol. I. p.79). His present mendacity and despicable hypocrisy in covering up his misdeeds belies his words as mere lip service. However many efforts are made to cover up significant facts, they will not succeed in the long run, especially if or when the SB mission really sometimes should become known about very widely. Penetrating investigations are already being made about many hitherto concealed matters and those who are beginning to speak out find that they have a forum and an exposé movement to support them. If, as SB insists, the truth will ultimately raise SB's public reputation, why does he not correct the one-sided propaganda of his followers, dispel the countless 'positive' rumours and excessive miracle stories that circulate through the Sai movement and instead offer a balanced presentation of facts? Can the answer conceivably be anything but 'there is far too much that will not stand the light of day'?

A proportion of visitors to the ashrams quite evidently have rewarding experiences there and are impressed by the para-psychological powers of SB, which are admittedly strong. Yet I also know from many conversations and letters that some good people and keen devotees do suffer unduly at the ashrams, sometimes very badly - especially mentally and spiritually - due to the ignorance, antagonism and injustice of certain of the staff - and often from other devotees. Believing as some do that SB is always the ever-present doer of all deeds, the sufferers imagine that they are being punished or corrected for some unknown fault by SB through his staff or in other mystical ways! All this misunderstanding about almost anyone with a badge or an office being 'SB's instrument' makes the manipulation of others easier.

Just as we always appreciate and remember helpfulness, openness and concern, we are all free to make our own observations and note when fine words about truthfulness, compassion and service are not followed up in actual behaviour. Reluctance to speak straight has led an unknown number of people - both Indian and foreign followers - into serious problems and even death, as discussed previously. The activities that permit (and cover up) this cannot be said exactly to have the stamp of Divine protection, compassion or service! SB's words, "Why fear when I am here?" are shown to an empty vanity. Even though SB is there, I know how much some of them still fear... and most of them fear him most of all! One should fear sinning, but surely not anyone purporting to be divine? All important staff at Prashanti Nilayam and the Central Trust are under duress to inform nothing that can harm SB's image, even to non-devotee relatives and dependents of persons killed.

Censorship is so rigorously applied that exclusion from the ashrams for ever is a frequent event, and some are taken into police custody. Beatings of unrepentant devotees have occurred, even in the darshan lines! In trying to contain the situation and keep everyone ignorant of the true state of affairs, a draconian regime is enforced at times of crisis, sending all foreign visitors out with less than a days' notice and without any explanation. This has occurred at least a dozen times in the last two decades, several times due to separate incidents of killings of visiting devotees, not least from abroad.

The same applies to problems devotees experience due to financial irregularities connected with donations. Not least also to money problems with the Sai Books and Publications Trust, concerning which I know five reliable persons involved in transactions with Mr. Suri, the previous Convenor, who have told in detail from personal experience in these affairs, not least by the senior Indian journalist V.K. Narasimhan, for two decades the editor of SB's monthly journal. The Convenor was found by investigating journalists during the 1993 incident with an unregistered sum of Rs. 2 lakhs (i.e. 200,000) in his apartment, taken from the ashram's publishing trust. SB then spoke out in a July 1993 discourse in defence of all his officials as being beyond any suspicion of misusing funds! Months later he quietly dismissed several Central Trust and ashram officials from their positions, including at long last also Mr. Suri.

The extreme secrecy of persons around SB about what goes on, what he does when not visible at darshan etc. is part of this, and it may sometimes be a result of SB's using paranormal abilities to influence the minds of people - even manipulate their sensory perceptions. Nonetheless, it is also remarkable how so many matters that SB and his minions evidently thought were safely covered-up have surfaced through unexpected channels and how the evidence that backs this up begins to accumulate from here and there. One must at least agree (also with SB) that "the truth will out"!

Part Six - Faith-shaking Events Exposed

There are those who hold that everything SB says and does has a meaning, as he also has repeatedly said. The meaning, moreover, is often hidden to us or most people, sometimes temporarily and sometimes permanently, it seems. But this view is often turned into the conversation-stopper, "the meaning is only known to Him", implying that poor you or I cannot understand it, so don't ask. This is how the ashram authorities and organisation VIPs deal with even the most heinous of crimes.

Once very close ex-devotees like Conny Larsson, David Bailey, and Dr. Bhatia... plus the very courageous and damning TV interview in the film 'Seduced' with the abused US minor "Sam" and many others who have sworn affadavits all claim that SB is guilty of sexual molestation of young men and pederasty with minors. He has long been reported from various quarters to be an active homosexual (despite his pretense of being a celibate) and a misuser of young men. Such activities make for a 'secret society' of implicated abusers. This is a major key to understanding the development of a culture of tight secrecy by SB. The extent and weight of evidence indicates that SB has taken his sexual behaviour even to include his wholly defenceless under-age students and makes it very likely that claims of there being a considerable number of his victims who now also 'follow the divine example' in this too very likely. When engaging in these practices, which are extremely taboo in the Indian social environment, it creates cliques with ever-widening needs for confidential contacts and complicity in cover-up. Fear of disclosure, of blackmail, and also of murder are strong motives for not 'breaking faith'. This is a now an all too well-known pattern from many institutions (especially religious ones) where it has in recent decades been increasingly uncovered that such abuse was sustained over long periods. We can suspect that the reactions to those who speak out in person about this would be draconian, to say the least.

It is quite amazing how blind followers still are when they simply overlook the killing of six devotees in June 1993 right under the nose of the self-proclaimed "omnipotent" SB after hours of discussions by his officials with the police, who then shot down the four intruders. The whys and wherefores of SB's standing by while foul executions take place under his absolute jurisdiction in Prashanthi Nilayam and at the instigation of his own younger brother and other of his officials will simply not go away. Those incidents did cause a number of visitors who were there to leave SB permanently, including a few leaders, but the "spiritual doublethink" mechanism (the teachings' effective white-washing of anything done by the self-proclaimed Godhead) kept the vast majority of followers well in line. It is instructive how blinded people can be made to be, and how it is possible... which I have tried to explain quite fully elsewhere from my own experience and observations (see http://www.saibaba-x.org.uk/5/index.html)

Until all these matters are aired freely and cleared up in an unbiased court, the suspicion that the claims made by several closely-informed persons of SB's secret sexuality being one of the motives in the cover-up will remain factually wholly irrefutable. Some time after the murders and executions, the Indian government reportedly came under pressure from various groups to provide security for SB. They reportedly declared SB to be a 'national treasure', and insisted on installing its own security system with guards and metal detectors at the main ashrams, which has been in place since. This also is fully in character with the involvement of the Indian government in whitewashing SB by quashing the murder investigations. Now the Indian PM Vajpayee and other top officials are publicly backing SB as innocent, though they know full well that there was a massive cover-up. What could be more despicable and prove a greater blot on India's name in the world... unless it will be perhaps the the bungling use of their atomic weapons in a crisis with Pakistan. The right-wing Hindu 'Sai devotee' PM Vajpayee and various of his sabre-rattling ministers got elected as the new Indian President another visitor to SB, who is adored in India because he actually designed the delivery vehicle for nuclear weapons! This is the new dharmic India SB claims to be presiding over!

May the true God of all mankind forbid!