24 Nov 2011

Niranjan Naik’s Reply to Manoj Das

[I present two letters on behalf of the thousands of distressed devotees of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother in Orissa. The first one is a translation of a letter written by our respected Niranjan-bhai on 18 August 2010 to Manoj Das, who has betrayed us by supporting the denigration of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother in the Ashram at Pondicherry. The second one is a translation of a letter written by us to Manoj Das, after he wrote a reply to Niranjan-bhai and threatened him with dire consequences. I have taken the trouble to translate both the letters into English to show to the non-Oriyas our support for Niranjan-bhai and his colleagues who have stood up boldly against the despotic authorities of the Ashram. The fact that most Oriyas have kept quiet does not mean that we are ignorant or we do not care for what is happening at the Sri Aurobindo Ashram in Pondicherry. We pray to Sri Aurobindo and the Mother for dislodging the falsehood that has entrenched itself at the Ashram.]

Niranjan Naik’s Reply to Manoj Das
(English translation by Baikuntha Mishra)

Respected Manoj babu (Manoj Das)
I have received a copy of the fourteen-page letter written on 2.8.2010 with the title “An unexpected situation and its background” which you were distributing. I am calling it a letter since it was meant for the inmates and devotees of the Mother in the Ashram as well as in Orissa. In that long and multifaceted letter you have chastised the persons who have raised their voices to protest against Peter’s controversial book ‘The Lives of Sri Aurobindo’ and are demanding that the book’s publication be stopped and that he should be removed from the Ashram. You have described them as mobsters, insane, mentally unsound and immature and followers of an asuric Sri Aurobindo. I am one of those people. Had you not tried to mislead the Oriya devotees against those who have been much upset by this attempt to lower the dignity of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother and with their limited resources and strength are trying to remedy it, had you not spitted venom against them, I would not have faced this present unpleasant situation of writing this letter to you. I will try to reply to you basing myself on the reality of the situation as far as possible.
Manoj babu, I have always had great regard and respect for you as you are one of the most eminent writers who have been inspired by the ideals of the Mother and Sri Aurobindo. I am writing this letter as duty-bound and as an Oriya brother.
In 1968, when I joined the Ashram by the Mother’s permission and started my work in Navajyoti Karyalaya, I came to know that you were working in Navajyoti Karyalaya before my joining but had left due to your difference of opinion with Prapatti and Babaji Maharaj. You never stepped inside the premises of Navajyoti Karyalaya as long as Prapatti was alive. You never gave an article for Navaprakash even though I requested you many times. My request bore fruit only after Prapatti and Babaji Maharaj passed away. My intimacy with you grew after I became the manager of Navajyoti Karyalaya. At that time, in the Ashram Trust meeting, I was told: “After Prapatti and Babaji Maharaj’s passing away, you must accept Manoj Das as your advisor for the management of Navajyoti Karyalaya.” I have obeyed these instructions as long as I was the manager of Navajyoti Karyalaya. At last it so happened that due to the prevailing circumstances, you gave me a hint one evening that I should resign from the post of manager. I met you the next morning and informed you that I was ready to resign. When you were surprised, I told you: “Navajyoti is not my paternal property. The responsibility was given to me, now when I am asked to resign, why should I object to it?” I requested you to draft my letter of resignation. You drafted it in a way that was suitable for the Trustees. Thinking that others may know if I type the letter, I wrote it in my own handwriting on the same day, 30.05.2006 and submitted it to the Trust Board. The copy of the resignation letter is still with me. After that, my relation with you was as it was earlier. You told me then: “You come to me as regularly as before.” I replied: “If I come to you regularly now, others may view it in a different angle. Also, what is the necessity? I am no more the manager.” I used to go to your house once in every month for handing you over your copy of Navaprakash. I was regularly attending your evening class, as long as it was continuing.
In 2008, when the book ‘The Lives of Sri Aurobindo’ by Peter Heehs was published, it created a lot of reaction in the Ashram as well as outside. I wrote an article in Navaprakash with the title ‘Guru-ninda’. It was in reply to a devotee’s question. There was no mention of Peter’s name or about his book. It was written in general about the words of Sri Aurobindo regarding the writing of his biography and the Mother’s sharp reaction in hearing the slightest disregard of him and the true relation of Guru and Shishya in the Indian tradition etc. 7600 copies of Navaprakash were already printed and while its binding work was going on, the article drew the attention of the press manager and the Managing Trustee of the Ashram. As both of them were non-Oriyas, they gave you the article to read. You read it and gave your opinion that the article should be stopped from publication. 7600 copies of Navaprakash were torn and the cover and the last format were reprinted. But the stopping of the article was not intimated to the writer even out of common courtesy though he has been the editor of Navaprakash from the last forty odd years.
But somehow the printed copy of that article came out of the press and was widely circulated in the Ashram as well as in Orissa. Its English translation came out on the Internet. You went to Orissa then and saw that the said article was widely circulated in Orissa, and after your return called me to your house and asked me:
“Niranjan Babu, three eminent persons of Orissa met me and told me to ask you this question. So I am asking you. They told me: ‘How an article that was banned in the Ashram was being widely circulated in Orissa?’ ”
I remember saying: “Manoj Babu, I wrote that article as a reply to a reader’s question. In the first part of the question, there was mention about Peter’s book. So I avoided that portion and gave reply to the second part. Why that article was deleted, I do not know. I am not feeling sorry for that. I wrote the article for the Mother and Sri Aurobindo. I have dedicated that article at the Mother’s feet. I do not know how a copy of the article came out from the press and went to Orissa.”
You told me:
“You see Niranjan babu, so many intellectuals have read that book and appreciated it.”
I said: “Manoj babu, you are also an intellectual. Peter has described Sri Aurobindo as mad man, coward, liar, his spiritual and supramental experiences were only symptoms of his schizophrenia, he was the creator of the Hindu-Muslim rift in India, his poems were of a very ordinary kind, Savitri was only a fictional creation, the Mother and Sri Aurobindo’s relation was like that of an ordinary husband and wife, etc. Do you appreciate all these things?” You kept quiet then. After a while you told me:
“You see, Niranjan Babu, because of these controversial writings and filing of cases, etc. more people are reading the book.”
I told you: “More people are reading the book may be true, but only out of curiosity. Because of the controversial writings and court cases, nobody is taking the book as an authentic biography. Had these protests not been there, few people might have read it but they would have taken it as an authentic biography.” You told me then:
“Everyone has freedom of expression. He can write a biography. All these cases filed will yield no result. We are trying to correct some portions of the book and publish a revised edition.”
At that stage I could not say what would be the result of court cases, but the controversial book was banned by the government of Orissa and a Gazette notification was brought out to that effect and a stay order was given by Orissa High Court. As a result, the book was banned in Orissa as well as in India. About your proposal of correction I told you: “Manoj Babu, the book has been written with a poisonous consciousness. We do not want any revised edition. We want that the book should be wiped out from the face of the earth.” You told me:
“Niranjan Babu, do you think that I am not distressed due to the book? I was the first person who read it from beginning to end, noted down all the objectionable portions and reported them to the Trustees. The Ashram is no way connected with the book.”
I told you: “If you are really aggrieved and you are the first person who brought out the objectionable portions in it, then why are you not taking action against the book? Who is stopping you from taking action? You say that the Trustees have no connection with the book.  The Archives is the heart-centre of the Ashram. A person has worked there for 37 years, collected all the research material and written a 400 pages long biography of Sri Aurobindo and gets it printed in America, and now you say that the Ashram is not connected with it?” You told me:
“Yes, Manoj (Das Gupta, Managing Trustee) has done a little mistake.”
I told you: “If he admits his mistake and calls all the well-intentioned devotees for a meeting and discusses what can be done in the matter, everything could be settled. Anyone can commit a mistake. What is there to feel about it?”
(I am not quoting here the other discussion we had about Peter’s book as I am afraid that  will increase the volume of this letter. But all that will come while I write the reply of your letter. All I have written up till now is related to it.)
Now I come to the text of your letter. The Problem that is worrying us all is Peter and his book. But you have quoted many things which are not related to our present problem. I will try to write my reply as briefly as possible.
You have written on the first page of your letter:
“The Mother had implemented as less as possible the outer discipline. She probably had the belief that all of us would be spontaneously disciplined.
Manoj babu, please tell me, have you yourself observed the required discipline? You are a teacher of the Sri Aurobindo International Centre of Education. How many times you have gone out for long spell of time stopping your classes? Is this the ideal a teacher should project before his students? You became a member of the Trust board in the year 1992. A child, whose father was a paid employee of the Ashram, was not taken in by Pranab-da (Pranab Kumar Bhatacharjya, Director of Ashram Physical Education Department). You could not fight with Pranab-da and so you resigned from the Trust membership in the year 1994. There is a rule in the Ashram that the children of those who are working as paid workers in the Ashram should not be taken in the school. But Sri Manoj Das Gupta and you took the child into the school. What mistake Pranab-da did by not taking the child in the group? How was your resignation justified as a sadhak of the Ashram? Is there a rule in the Trust deed that a Trustee can resign according to his own sweet will in the middle of the term? The Trust deed is sacred according to your own statement. In that sacred Trust you were the only person who resigned due to your hurt ego and thereby broke its discipline. Later on Ved Prakash-ji was forced to resign. When you yourself resigned due to some flimsy reason and also advised me to resign, when the Trustees themselves are unable to discharge their main duties and are doing the very opposite because of their own weaknesses, why are you branding our call for their resignation as a grave mistake in this fiery language of yours? 
On the first page itself, you have written:
“But I think, as the advent of new age is coming nearer and nearer, the dark forces are trying to upset the work of the Ashram more and more. I am sure and certain that this wrong attempt will not last long.... But there is no doubt that this catastrophe is real.”
Manoj babu, if this situation is really a catastrophe, who is responsible for it? You say you have detected the grave errors in the book first and intimated them to the Trustees. Had the Trustees banned the tainted book in the beginning, then this catastrophe would not have happened. The persons whom you have named as agents of dark and evil forces are not trying to destabilise the Ashram. They are only trying to destabilise the Ashram Trustees, who are incompetent to discharge their responsibility.  In that way the safety and welfare of the Ashram can be preserved. You are mixing up the Trustees with the Ashram to misguide the devotees and disciples. The Ashram is an eternal institution. The Trustees are like other Ashramites engaged for some time in the service of the Ashram.
In the same page you are trying to justify the correction of Savitri:
“The Mother told Udar once that Savitri is full of printing mistakes and so its mantric effect is not working.”
Now in the present context the main issue is Peter and his book. But since you have raised the Savitri issue, I will try to reply briefly on it. What you have said as ‘Udar told’, to whom did he tell? Have you heard yourself from him? Has he written it anywhere in his books? Did Udar express this important statement in the physical presence of the Mother? On the other hand, Amal Kiran has expressed in writing that the Mother did not allow him to change even a comma in Savitri. In his own language:
“It was April 19, 1954. The day proved one of the most decisive in my inner life. I took to the Mother some suggestions with regard to Savitri. I had written them down. The Mother looked strange and said: “I can answer without even reading your note. I won’t allow you to change even a comma in Savitri.”
(Feb. 1978, Mother India, p 80)
You have again written on that page:
“The pity was this sincere work (correction of Savitri) gave the dark forces, who were trying to attack the Ashram, a good chance and inspiration.
 Manoj Babu, why not the heinous attempt of correcting Savitri could not have been the inspiration from the dark forces who were trying to attack the Ashram? You cannot justify the great blunder of the correction of Savitri by taking the present situation arising from Peter and his tainted book as a plea! The Mother herself said (vide Agenda Vol. 13, p 242); “I am no longer on this side but not yet on the other. I am in-between — it is difficult. But I am still capable of controlling what these people are doing...At any rate, they have no right to do whatever they want with Sri Aurobindo’s books.”
It was that heinous attempt of correcting the writings of Sri Aurobindo that appeared like bandages in his body in the subtle plane. the Mother said (Vide Agenda Vol. 10 p.255):
“Very long ago, (very long, a few years after Sri Aurobindo left his body) one night (because I was already seeing him), I saw him; I had gone to his place, and I found him sitting on a sort of bed...with a truss; three or four bandages like that on his body! (Mother laughs). So he called me and said (in English), Look! look, what they are doing with me! Look, they are putting bandages all over me! So, I enquired and found that they wanted to make cuts in his writings.” 
After reading these words of the Mother, any attempt to correct Savitri or any other writing of Sri Aurobindo is unacceptable. If there were some printing mistakes or if some words were left out, there is no harm in correcting them. But altering the words used by Sri Aurobindo and introducing distorted words and saying that they are alternatives to the original words, how can you support such an act? Is it because it has been done by Peter Heehs and his associates? I am giving below an example of such a distorted word:
“Our bodies need each other in the same last;”
To this original word ‘last’, Peter of his own accord has corrected it to ‘lust’ and kept it as an alternative word. What right has he to correct Sri Aurobindo’s writings according to his vulgar consciousness even if he keeps them as alternatives?
The portion of Savitri which the Mother had read and explained or recited herself with    Sunil-da’s music, where is the necessity for inserting alternative words even if these are there? It is doubtful whether in future the devotees and disciples will accept the corrected Savitri.
You have written in the second page of your letter that in the court of Krishnanagar when there were arguments regarding the correction of Savitri, the Ashram lawyer stated: “Even the Mother did not understand Savitri.” Since you were present there and did not contradict the wrong statement and kept quiet, the president of one association gave a pleader’s notice to the Ashram to expel you from the Ashram immediately. We have also read in the diary dated 25.8.2000 of Krishnanagar court that this incident did happen. If that was false, why did you not give the clarification then? After so many years the clarifications which you give vary from one letter to another. You write in your letter dated 28.6.10 to Sraddhalu:
“But such a situation never arose; the lawyer had no occasion to make any statement in regard to the Mother vis-à-vis Savitri.”
This means that the lawyer never said anything about the Mother. But in your Oriya letter date 2.8.10 you have written:
“Most probably our advocate said to one of his associates: ‘Did the Mother read the proof of Savitri?’”
If you give such contradictory statements within a gap of 36 days, which one shall we believe as correct?
You have written on the 4th page:
“The activity of wicked forces has forced me to write this background.
In your opinion, the person who wrote a book shattering to pieces the honour of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother is not a wicked force, but the persons who protested against such vicious writing are agents of hostile forces and you have been forced to come down to the battlefield in order to crush them.
You told me and gave me a hint in your letter that you read the tainted book from the beginning to the end and made a list of all the grave errors in the book. You wrote:
“But the way and the language and the medium through which the book was encouraged for discussion, that I remained aloof from the matter.
If you have found the grave errors in the book in the very beginning, why you did not take an immediate step? Why did you allow the situation to come to this extent? If you have kept yourself aloof all the while, why have you now come down to the battlefield when it has reached its apex? Why and for whom may I ask? You have written in the same page:
“Some eminent persons, as well as some Mother’s devotees and their associates and many wise and good persons from Orissa and outside requested me repeatedly to break my silence, which I  thought to be my best method.
Is it true that all those wise and good persons and devotees of the Mother and Sri Aurobindo requested you to support Peter and his book? Have none of them requested you to take action against Peter and his book? I heard from one of your friends that when he asked you why no action is being taken, you advised him:
“You are a sadhak. It is better for you not to discuss about these things and remain silent.”
Your other intimate friends, while observing your attitude towards Peter’s book, have expressed their written and unwritten remarks, which I am not quoting here as they requested me not to mention their names.
In the same page you have written:
“The persons who read the whole book written by Peter confessed that there is valuable material in it. But unfortunately he has followed the traditions of western scholars and had the ambition to establish himself as an objective biographer, so he has quoted some irrelevant facts in the book which have irritated many devotees. I am also irritated. The entire book has been written from an ordinary consciousness.”
Manoj Babu, you confess that there are some irrelevant matters in the book, you are also irritated and the book has been written from the ordinary consciousness, and still you are not raising any objection against the book and the author. On the other hand, you are condemning the persons who are raising objections as the instruments of hostile forces. If the whole book has been written from the ordinary consciousness, then how is it that you are trying to bring out a revised edition?
You have written in the same page:
“Sri Aurobindo’s life can be looked at in two different angles. As per the first, he is not only an avatar, but he is born conscious of the Divine. The second angle is that he had started from the ordinary human consciousness, progressed in the path of divinity and finally reached the supreme spiritual realisation. Peter has followed the second angle.”
What Sri Aurobindo was, does that depend on yours or Peter’s vision? Have you completely forgotten what the Mother said about Sri Aurobindo? “Since the beginning of earth history, Sri Aurobindo has always presided over the great earthly transformations, under one form or another, one name or another.” So his avatarhood is not dependent on our thought or vision. He has not reached avatarhood by his sadhana. Even this much Peter has not accepted. So you have cleverly not used the word ‘avatar’ in the second angle of vision but ‘supreme spiritual realisation’. Peter has not even accepted that Sri Aurobindo had achieved the supreme spiritual realisation. He has written that Sri Aurobindo had not realised the supermind. Let Peter not accept, we are not bothered. We will be happy if you at least do not argue and accept Sri Aurobindo as an avatar.
You have written on page 5:
“Sri Aurobindo has warned us that it is futile to know his inner life from the outer. This means his real life was inward and we get only a few hints of his journey to the vast Sea of consciousness beyond.”
Has Peter followed these words? Has he accepted the inner spiritual life of Sri Aurobindo? Has he mentioned in the biography what the Mother said on Sri Aurobindo? Then how can you recommend the book by saying that many westerners and Indian scholars have appreciated it? You write that we are all blind, so how can we see the elephant correctly. Your observation may be correct. But do you mean to say that the Mother was also blind? Should we not see Sri Aurobindo as the Mother sees him? Why do you compel everyone to see Sri Aurobindo as Peter sees him? Why are you trying to use all your talents for that purpose?
You have written in the same page that the book written by Peter will produce anger, sorrow and reaction in the devotees -- it is but natural.
“But the way the reactions came to the surface and spread from one stage to the second, then to the third is undesirable and unexpected...”
In this instance, is it not the egoistic attitude, careless inaction of the Trustees in addition to their intellectual, moral, financial support and the use of all their managerial power to support Peter and his book, responsible for taking the reaction from the first to the second and to the third stage? It is not impossible that it may even go to a fourth stage. This is all due to the pride, arrogance and the policy of suppression and lack of vision of the consequences on the part of the Ashram Trustees.  It is a mystery for us to understand why they are worshipping Peter so much.
You have written on the 6th page:
“An Indian publisher was ready to publish this book. But the moment the mistakes were pointed out, the writer requested the publisher to stop the publication and he gave a proposal to send a revised copy and the publisher accepted the proposal.”
Penguin Books stopped the publication of Peter’s book in India because of the ban notification of the Government of Orissa dated 9.4.09 and the stay order of Orissa High court. Don’t you know this fact? Even if Peter gives now a corrected edition of the book, the Penguin Books cannot publish the book in India. Maybe the ban order of the Government of Orissa and Peter’s letter might have gone to the publisher at the same time. But how could you omit the fact about the order of the Government of Orissa and the stay order of the Orissa High Court and say that because of your advice Peter wrote to the publishers in India and hence they stopped the publication of his book? Is this not a deliberate attempt to create sympathy for Peter Heehs? The book from the beginning to the end is mean and low and full of a poisoned consciousness. You say that you have pointed out ninety grave errors. Peter wanted to correct only half a dozen errors and publish the Indian edition. Peter wrote on 22 September 2008 to Sri Manoj Das Gupta:
“Turning to the sort of changes that I proposed to make, I told the editor that I would like to rewrite the preface with the needs of Indian readers in mind, to alter a half-dozen or more passages that seemed to have caused unnecessary offence, and to introduce some changes to the cover text. In particular I will remove the mention of the Ashram in the biographical note that the American publisher had written, and will add a note to the effect that this is a scholarly biography that is not intended for devotees.” 
The way the book has been written and the consciousness in which it is written, its correction is not possible. That book should be wiped out from the face of the earth -- this is the wish of the devotees and sadhaks. From the above letter it is clear that Peter’s true intention is not so much to correct the grave errors in the book but to protect the Trustees by deleting the mention of the Ashram’s name from the book.
You have written that because the book was discussed much, the number of readers increased and more and more people came to know about the unwanted portions. In spite of your advice, the distribution of the extracts of the grave errors in the book increased.. Observing that you wrote:
“Really I had an impression that some invisible power is getting fun out of it.”
When the invisible hostile force is having such fun from the circulation of protests against the book, how much more fun that force might have had when the tainted book would have been published? Why are you trying to evade the main source of the fun? You have yourself written that the unwarranted portions of the book are coming to the notice of the public more and more. If you confess that there are unwarranted portions in the book, why are you helping people to know about it? Why don’t you ban the book immediately? Who is preventing you from doing that? I am asking you, how will the book help in raising the individual or universal consciousness if it is allowed to remain?
 You have written that one or two people of the Ashram started collecting signatures against the invisible book. Among the persons who were collecting signatures, there was a well known Oriya sadhak in whose trap some persons fell and gave their signatures, and then they came to you with much pain and anguish to describe their plight to you for their  relief. You have mentioned about the well known Oriya sadhak, but you do not have the boldness to mention his name and have taken shelter behind your clever words. Not only two persons of the Ashram, but many people and many devotees from Orissa were engaged in collecting signatures to write to the Columbia University Press of America to stop the publication of Peter’s book. This attempt was foiled by the Ashram Trust by giving favourable arguments in support of Peter. That well known Oriya person never called any persons and forced them to give their signatures thereby causing them great anguish. He simply narrated the incident to whoever came to him. All of them gave their signature voluntarily out of their devotion to Sri Aurobindo. They said: “If we don’t sign for this noble cause, where else shall we sign?” One of your dearest students could not give his signature on the first day and waited for that well known Oriya person to give his signature next day before his departure to Orissa. That well known Oriya person was not collecting signature for his personal benefit. To save the honour of their Divine Guru and their Divine Mother, thousands of devotees have given their signatures with their hearts full of devotion. The devotees from Orissa not only gave their signatures gladly, but also took copies of the form and collected thousands of signatures from their friends in Orissa and sent back these forms. You say only two persons went to you and expressed their plight. Had all those thousands of people gone to you to express their plight, what a difficult situation you would have faced? If a person, who seeks help and cooperation from other devotees of the Mother and Sri Aurobindo to save their prestige, is described as insane what shall we call the person who is doing the reverse?
On the 7th page of your letter, you have quoted the Mother’s words and explained its meaning that the Mother in her Divine vision sees the future and knows what would be the outcome of each work. In case a person does not have a strong conviction about this, it is futile for him to stay in the Ashram. The Mother gave this message for those who had doubt and disbelief in her, not for persons who opposed non-believers, unfaithful, treacherous and ungrateful persons and haters of the Guru (Gurudrohi). In your opinion, is Peter the only person fit to remain in the Ashram as per the message of the Mother?
You have stated that the Ashram Trust Board is founded by the Mother and she has drafted the Trust Deed. Yes, the Mother has drafted the Trust deed, but the present Trust board was not formed by the Mother. Dyuman-bhai was the last Trustee of the Trust Board formed by the Mother. After the Mother left her body, the Trustees who have been selected are only ‘Yes men’. Otherwise, how is it that four Trustees with the consent of Manoj Das Gupta and in his deliberate absence, came to the unanimous decision against Peter and his book. Next morning, when Manoj Das Gupta did not accept that decision, they turned their backs on the Mother and Sri Aurobindo as well as the Ashram and meekly accepted what Manoj Das Gupta said. Even you, who suppressed your original and spontaneous reaction against the book, forgot your ideal and supported Manoj Das Gupta and are still continuing to do so only to please him. This is strange! What is the use of such Trustees who are totally incompetent to execute their main and original duty and are capable of even doing the reverse?
You have written that if the Trustees resign, from where will angels come and fill up their places? When you resigned which angel came and occupied your place? Don’t you know that for the Mother’s work no individual or angel is indispensable!
You have written that a sage-like person, Nolini-da (Nolini Kanta Gupta) had selected Manoj Das Gupta as a Trustee and so to tell him to resign is undesirable. Moreover he has been in the Ashram from his childhood and has been brought up under the Mother’s care and influence.
Whether really Nolini-da had himself written and selected Manoj Das Gupta or, at the last moment of his life, it was manipulated we don’t know, but one letter was drafted and his signature was taken -- this story is being discussed in some of the quarters of the Ashram. Whatever it may be, because a person has been selected by Nolinida, or because he has been living in the Ashram from his very childhood, does it mean that he has got the license to bring down the honour of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother to dust! To tell him to resign because of his latest activities is unjustified according to your statement. How were you once fighting to drive out Pranab-da from his post, who was the personal attendant of the Mother and who started the Playground? In this fight, you had to leave your trusteeship. Why all of you are trying to remove from the Ashram, Bailochan, Srikant, and others, who have also been selected by the Mother? What are their faults, are they more serious than the blunder committed by Manoj Das Gupta? Instead of telling Manoj Das Gupta to go out of the Ashram, we are only telling him to leave his present post for the welfare of the Ashram. How can this be unjustified?
In your opinion the Mother and Sri Aurobindo are not sacred but the Trust Deed created by the Mother is so sacred that the person, who says that the Trust Deed should be altered with the change of circumstances, is an imbecile! You are trying to misguide the simple people and devotees of Orissa who are ignorant of these facts. But if you try to cover the Truth, can it always remain covered? The Trust deed has two parts: First, the introductory and second, the executive. In the first part, the aims and objects of the Trust board are described. That is unchangeable. But the second part, where the executive aspect is mentioned, is bound to change with time and circumstances. No one has suggested changing the first part. Earlier on Darshan days, meditation was being held from 10 to 10.30 A.M. Now how it is being held from 6 to 6.30 A.M.? When the Mother was physically present, only one type of Ashramite was being taken in. But now, three types of Ashramites are allowed to work: one -- volunteers, the other -- paid workers, and the third -- prosperity holders. Many changes like this have taken place after she left her body. We do not say that these changes are wrong but when such changes could take place according to the change of time and circumstances, why cannot the management process in the Trust deed be changed? In the Trust board established in 1955 by the Mother, she was the supreme authority; she was the all-in-all and used all the powers. The present Trustees think that they are like the Mother and want to use all Her powers and boldly declare before the inmates and devotees of the world that they are not answerable to anyone. You say that to change the sacred Trust deed is undesirable, but are not the Trustees polluting the sacredness of the Trust deed by enjoying the Mother’s powers? Have they not violated the unchangeable portion of the Trust deed?
In the introductory portion of the Trust deed the Mother has declared:
“Whereas Sri Aurobindo Ashram of Pondicherry is an institution and a centre of practice for evolution of a kind and form of life which would in the end be moved by a high spiritual consciousness and embody a greater life of the spirit and whereas Sri Aurobindo Ashram is the house of persons who are the followers and disciples of Sri Aurobindo having faith in his philosophy and yoga.”
The Mother has clearly declared that Sri Aurobindo Ashram is a house for those disciples who believe in the yoga and philosophy of Sri Aurobindo. In such a house, is there any place for persons like Peter? You are abusing the persons who are suggesting that Peter should be removed from the Ashram as fanatics and guided by an asuric Sri Aurobindo. Are you not violating the sacred Trust deed’s resolution by saying that? A sacred and great testament like Savitri, which the Mother defined as a mantra to transform the earth, was drastically corrected according to the whims and fancies of certain persons. Yet, when the question of changing the executive portion of the Trust deed is proposed to suit the change of time and circumstances, why do you bring the question of sacredness? Is it to adorn the Trustees on the throne of the Mother? Is it not like leaving the administration of the Ashram in the hands of the proverbial king who is devoid of any understanding and rules by a minister, who always puts a cork in his mouth in fear of any leakage of intelligence and opens it only when any suggestion is needed for the king?
You have written on the 10th page of your letter:
The bad effect of the book of Peter is negligible. For those who have received the grace of the Mother and Sri Aurobindo, it is zero.”
The bad effect of the book of Peter would have been negligible had he been a person from outside the Ashram. As he has stayed in the Ashram for 37 years, and since the Ashram declares him as one of the founders of the Archives, which is the heart centre of the Ashram, it is but natural that readers will take it as an authentic book published by the Ashram. The bad effect of the book may be zero for scholars like you, but how can you say it will be negligible for the future generations? Can any of them accept the Mother and Sri Aurobindo as their Divine Gurus after reading this book? If they do not accept them as Divine Gurus, can intellectuals like you imagine what will be the position of the Ashram? The book which the Ashram Trust is recommending so much and giving so much protection, and you are so highly appreciating (the writer is being praised by you as an objective historian), why such a book will not be prescribed as a treatise in schools and colleges in the near future? Do you think that such a book will brighten the future? Why not this undesirable book like a malignant cancer be removed from the face of earth for all time to come? If it is not done today, when in future it will prove to be harmful, will you or the managing Trustee be there to answer?
You are creating a wrong impression in the minds of people by mixing up Sri Aurobindo Ashram and the Ashram Trust. Sri Aurobindo Ashram is like the body of the Mother. It is an eternal institution. The Trustees are like its servants. They are there today, tomorrow they may not be there. So our struggle against that book of Peter is not against the Ashram but against the Trustees, who are neglecting their prime duty by using their influence and money power, not for protesting against Peter’s book but for giving him protection. The protesters against Peter’s book are being threatened and harassed in so many ways.  
You have stated that one person, by giving negative statements to the visitors, is doing a lot of harm. But that may be necessary in the present circumstances. A vessel in which kerosene was stored earlier, can we store drinking milk in it without cleaning it? That is why in Sri Aurobindo’s yoga, the negative side of rejection is necessary; otherwise you will be on the surface calling for meetings and conferences and building up the superstructure and one bad element will stealthily dig at the foundation. You will say that preventing the digging is negative thinking and speech and the digging is negligible because it is like a squirrel scratching at the peaks of the Himalayas. But one day when you will be entertaining everyone with your charming positive speech, suddenly and unexpectedly your multi-storied structure may collapse because you did not prevent the digging of the foundation by the bad element. If henceforth anything unpleasant to the Ashram happens, it will be due to the lack of foresight of the Trustees and their not preventing Gurudrohi activities in the Ashram.
You have written on the 8th page of your letter:
“The original founder of the archives, the extraordinary yogi of works, Jayantilal, whose assistant, selected by the Mother herself, Peter Heehs, worked in that department from the beginning and helped in the compilation of Sri Aurobindo’s writings.
This statement of yours is completely false. Why are you intentionally trying to misguide  people? Peter Heehs himself stated in an interview in August 1998 at the Lodi centre of California:
Peter Heehs: I came to what was going to become the archives in 1971, which you do not ...actually from the time I joined the Ashram.
Dakshina: So did Mother know that you were going to work in that department or did she assign?
Peter Heehs: Me, particularly ya. She didn’t assign me, no. But, but I had come for other reasons to Jayantilal, because I knew an American woman who was there and who ah, was a friend of his, and she kind of set that up, so that when I went, I went directly to him, and then when he, you know kind of sent me up to her, and he said, ah, I guess he had spoken to Champaklal saying that this guy was coming so, so that she was informed, now she thought about it right. (laughter)
So, Peter according to his own statement never came to meet the Mother. He came to meet one American woman. The Mother never knew what work he was to do and she never gave him permission to work at the Archives. In 1971, the Archives was not started. He himself confessed that. So where did you get the information that he was engaged by the Mother in that department from the very beginning? The purpose of your wrong statement is to say that is the reason why he has not been removed from the Archives or the Ashram. With that you have given another conflicting statement that Peter felt sorry for the book. So it is unholy to remove him from the Ashram. But he has been removed from the Archives. Peter has never felt sorry for his tainted book. Has he been removed officially from the Archives? If so, is there any such written order? People who work in the Archives say that he has been asked not to come to the Archives for some time. Once the present agitation cools down, he will be taken back to the Archives. This statement was given by Manoj Das Gupta to Ranganath Raghavan on 9.5.10 in an interview:
“When Ranganath asked whether his (Peter’s) return to archives was a possibility, Manoj replied that it was possible.”
The Trustees cannot take the impolite step of removing Peter from the Ashram, yet, how they have removed Satprem and Kamal Dora from the Ashram? When compared to Peter, what grave mistakes have they done?
You have written on the 10th page of your letter:
“The Ashram Trust has banned the sale of the book and has intimated this to all the departments of the Ashram. Whatever steps have been taken in this direction is only an internal matter. There was no need to intimate the general public.”  
Actually the steps taken about banning the sale of the book were not intimated to all the departments of the Ashram. Once when we were discussing and you spoke to me about this, I told you that no such letter had been sent to Navajyoti office. You immediately telephoned the Manager of Navajyoti and confirmed that no such letter had been sent to Navajyoti office from the Ashram. A letter was sent to a few departments of the Ashram and then stopped abruptly. We did not know why it was sent and why it was stopped. But I have seen that letter and a copy is with me. It is a handwritten letter and is not on the Ashram letterhead. There is no signature on it and no seal of the Ashram, and it does not even have the date. So how can anyone know that the letter came from the Ashram Trust? If that letter was meant for all the departments and inmates, why was it not put up on the Ashram notice board? You have stated that it is an internal matter of the Ashram. Had it been put on the Ashram notice board, others may have read it. All the inmates of the Ashram as well as all the devotees of the world are aggrieved and hurt because of the book and hundreds of letters on it have been received by the Ashram Trust. How could it be then an internal matter of the Ashram? Even the Ashramites or heads of the departments did not know anything about the notice. Suppose some Ashramite claims that he has been appointed by the Ashram Trust to collect money from people and deposit the money in the Ashram and he collects money and does not deposit but misappropriates it, will the Ashram Trust defer from putting up a notice with regard to the cheat saying that it is an internal matter?  
Was there not a leaflet in the Bulletin that Satprem’s Agenda had been banned from sale in the Ashram? How was this internal matter brought to the notice of the public at large? We feel surprised to see how many new rules you all are inventing now to protect Peter!
A devotee from Orissa wrote one insulting letter to the Managing Trustee in which he did not observe due politeness. You condemned that person as impolite, arrogant etc. As for Peter Heehs, who has insulted the Mother and Sri Aurobindo in a much worse manner and written a book, for him you cannot find any words in your storehouse of countless words!
Manoj Babu, why are you giving so much importance to Peter and his supporters in preference to the Mother and Sri Aurobindo? Had the Mother been in her physical body, would you have dared to write such a long letter supporting Peter and his tainted book?
You have quoted on the 11th page of your letter the words of the Mother on rumours. The gist of the quotation is:
It is wrong to discuss about a rumour, about what others are doing or not doing, it is also wrong to hear it and to enquire about it. To protest about that is also wrong. It is a waste of time and also the consciousness is lowered by it. If such things are not removed from the atmosphere, the Ashram can never reach the Divine Life.
 But have you not written a 14-page letter, in which you have discussed what others are doing or not doing? To cover your own mistakes you have written:
“While writing this letter, I have personally violated the Mother’s instructions on rumours by giving my comments on it. But can the Ashram violate it by giving this on the notice board as an institution?”
Can implementing the words of the Mother in real life be different for an individual and an institution? A person can violate but the institution cannot violate? To protect the institution (Trust) you have quoted the Mother’s words. But there is no necessity of giving the Ashram’s replies through the notice board. The replies can be directly written to those persons who have written to the Trust on their name and address. Apart from the plea that the replies cannot be placed on the notice board, what is the actual reason behind for not replying?
On page 13 of your letter, before you gave the quotation of the Mother, you have written:
“Taking the name of Sri Aurobindo, we are harbouring a desire in us to punish others. This is not the real Sri Aurobindo. Mother had cautioned us: a violent demoniac force is present in the disguise of Sri Aurobindo and that hostile power may misguide all of us. In the Mother’s words:
‘What the Asuric force that has succeeded in taking the appearance of Sri Aurobindo will create is a new religion or thought, perhaps cruel and merciless, in the name of the Supramental Realisation. But everybody must know that it is not true, it is not Sri Aurobindo’s teaching. The truth of Sri Aurobindo is a truth of love and light and mercy. He is good and great and compassionate and Divine and it is He who will have the final victory.’ ”
In what context this message was given by the Mother? How you have misquoted it! In this message, it is not written that if someone writes a book degrading Sri Aurobindo’s status to lower than a common man, it is wrong to fight against him. Apart from that, how do you know that the persons, who have been aggrieved by the tainted book and are fighting against it, are guided by the Asuric Sri Aurobindo? In such a situation Sri Aurobindo himself had written a letter to Sahana-di. Hope you have read it:
“But the Gita, which strongly insists on a perfect and absolute samata, goes on to say, ‘Fight, destroy the adversary, conquer.’ … If one is among the disciples, the seekers of this Truth, one has to take sides for the Truth, to stand against the forces that attack it and seek to stifle it.”
The Mother said the following words in the context of writing Sri Aurobindo’s biography:
“It is not a question of disobedience. I know nothing about your additions to the Life Sketch or the sources from which they were taken. My point of view is this, that anything written by a sadhak about Sri Aurobindo which brings him down to an ordinary level and admits the reader to a sort of gossiping familiarity with him is an unfaithfulness to Him and His work. Good intentions are not sufficient, it is necessary that this should be understood by every body.”
Manoj Babu, what has not Peter done in his book! Has he not brought down Sri Aurobindo to lower than an ordinary man? He has painted Sri Aurobindo as a sex-hungry man. Had there been a good intention in writing the book, there would have been no such reaction against it. You have compared Sri Aurobindo with the great Himalayas and compared Peter’s book to a squirrel scratching the peak of the Himalayas. If we see that a squirrel is scratching the head of Sri Aurobindo who is like the Himalayas, and if we have the capacity to drive away the squirrel, why should we keep quiet thinking that the scratching of the squirrel will not harm him in any way?
At the end of your letter you have quoted a portion of Babaji Maharaj’s writing. Its gist is:
Do not try to protest about others’ mistakes, but try to correct your own mistakes. The other person’s responsibility is more than yours in correcting his mistakes. It is desirable to do the work assigned to you in the best way, we should not think about the influence of others’ wrong doing in our work.
Here, you have yourself violated the instructions given by Babaji Maharaj and used it as a weapon for others. Babaji Maharaj had once a subtle vision thirty years back and narrated it before me. Today I see the materialisation of that vision in the field of reality. As you have given the quotations from Babaji’s writings I remember the words of the Mother which she said to Huta:
“There are of course a number of people who have good will, good purpose, good aspiration and the rest, but in spite of all that, they still live in falsehood because they have not the strength to fight for the truth. And if you let yourself go without reacting with a constant vigilance, you are bound to live in falsehood because this world is a world of falsehood.”  (From the book: “Mother, You have said so)
The words you have quoted from Babaji Maharaj are not applicable in this circumstance and incident. When the ideal of Sri Aurobindo is in peril, you cannot hoodwink people by quoting Babaji Maharaj and interpreting them in a wrong way. When a person clearly perceives what is Truth and what is falsehood and at the same time he has the capacity to fight against falsehood, yet deliberately chooses the side of falsehood,-- that is a most dangerous falsehood. To such people the Mother had said: ‘missing souls’. Even if he remains silent, it is like living in falsehood because this world is now immersed in falsehood.
We have not come here to remain calm, simple, sweet, gentle, lovable in an ordinary way and lead a respectable life. We have to do a work. Sri Aurobindo wrote in reply to Sahana-di’s letter:
“But here there is a work to be done, a Truth to be established against which immense forces are arranged, invisible forces which can use visible things and persons and actions for their instruments. If one is among the disciples, the seekers of this Truth, one has to stand against the forces that attack it and seek to stifle it.”
Manoj Babu, at this ripe age, at the peak of your fame, instead of using your energy and talent in the service of the Mother, why are you taking so much trouble, sacrificing your reputation, to prove that Peter and his supporters are correct? Are you not becoming a laughing stock by doing that? You have yourself written a book on the life of Sri Aurobindo from 1900 to 1910 to which you have given the title, ‘Sri Aurobindo in the first decade of the century’. Have you not described Sri Aurobindo as a distinguished nationalist? But Peter in his book has described Sri Aurobindo as a terrorist. Do you find no difference in the two? We all had hoped that you would be our leader to raise our voice against Peter and his book and we would have gladly followed your footsteps.
When an association was started in the Ashram against the Ashram Trustees, I strongly opposed that association, and you know that very well. But now when the Ashram Trustees are taking steps against the Mother and Sri Aurobindo, I have lost all my sympathy for them. I have faith that the Mother’s grace will take us to the correct destination. This Ashram, which is the body of the Mother, will be organised in a much better and truthful way.
I have tried my best to keep within limits my reply to your sarcastic letter. If any of the Oriya devotees of the Mother want any clarification individually or in a group, I am ready to clarify them. They are always welcome.
Manoj Babu, you are my elder. I hope and believe I will be pardoned for any wrong that I may have committed in replying to my elder in such a compelling situation for the sake of my divine Guru.
Niranjan Naik

A Defeatist’s Delirium
Reply to Manoj Das’s letter of  8 September 2010
by the Oriya Devotees of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother

 Sj. Manoj Das, after receiving the letter dated 18.8.10 of Niranjan-bhai, wrote a reply of  ten pages on 8.9.2010, which he distributed himself. This letter was received by us. Upon reading it, we felt that it was a defeatist’s delirium. Had he followed the request of his respected friends from Orissa and the Ashram and remained silent, it would have been better for him. We felt that it was not necessary for us to reply now because Niranjan-bhai in his letter dated 18.8.2010 had clarified all the points for all time to come. But since Sj. Manoj Das has used all his literary skill to vomit venom against Sradhalu and Niranjan-bhai and has threatened that unless Niranjan-bhai sends a letter of apology to him, the advocate of the Savitri case will file a case against him, we are compelled to write a short reply to his letter dated.8.9.2010. In his reply Manoj Das has avoided all the relevant points and brought in some irrelevant ones and tried in vain to dress them gaudily with his dazzling literary skill. In his excessive excitement he has disbanded his own arguments. He wrote that he had never worked in Navajyoti and then he wrote that he was working for some time according to his time and capacity. He wrote that he never had any difference of opinion with Prapatti but again he wrote that he had some difference of opinion with Prapatti. Among the many reasons of his going out of the Ashram, he perhaps forgot to mention about his going out often for the court cases. He wrote to Niranjan-bhai that it would have been better had he come and discussed with him personally instead of writing a letter. Yet he himself wrote a letter on 2.8.2010 without personally discussing and distributed its copies liberally. How can he hope for a personal discussion after writing such a sarcastic letter to Niranjan-bhai? He wrote that Oriya people are well known for their politeness and courtesy. But when he himself deleted the article ‘Guruninda’ from the November 2008 issue of Navaprakash, he forgot all politeness and courtesy to inform the writer who is the editor of the magazine from the last 40 years?
The proposal to oust the Trustees who are inefficient to discharge their legitimate duties but are so efficient to discharge the opposite, is in this gentleman’s opinion a suicidal attempt. But we feel that it is the only way of self-fulfilment for the Ashramites who are oppressed and downtrodden,
The gentleman himself was the chief architect of the ‘Savitri correction episode’. Yet he wrote that he could not find the word ‘Lust’ in the book Savitri. He wrote in contradiction to his own statement that behind each change there was special research done and that the word ‘Lust’ is not always vulgar. If the word ‘Last’ has not been made ‘Lust’, why is there so much elaboration about it? In this case, it is evident that he pretended not to know about it. So, even though it is not necessary, we will refer him to the booklet published by the Ashram, “Supplement to the Revised Edition of Savitri”, page 37, “Table of Alternative Readings” where not one word but 186 alternative words are given. ‘Lust’ has been given as an alternative word for ‘Last’. Its imaginary explanation given on page 17 of that booklet may be perused. We would like to mention that correction of errors due to proofreading is acceptable.  But we do not accept the alternative words invented by the editors, which are not in the original manuscript. Niranjan-bhai wrote in his letter that the word ‘Lust’ has been given as an alternative. The gentleman may now take the trouble of reading that portion of his letter and verify. Regarding changes in Sri Aurobindo’s Savitri and other books, we take cognizance of only the words of the Mother. We do not give importance to the remembrances of other people without solid proof. We have not read the letter written by Udar. It would have been better had he enclosed the handwritten letter of Udar.
 Because Niranjan-bhai wrote that the present Trustees have been selected on the basis of their psychophancy, the gentleman wrote that it was an insult to the culture of Oriya devotees and sadhaks. If our culture is insulted by saying that the crow is black, we feel that such culture is not commendable.
 During the wilful absence of Manoj Das Gupta, the other four Trustees unanimously adopted the resolution for taking action against Peter. The next day when Manoj Das Gupta did not accept the same, the other Trustees as well as our gentleman immediately changed their opinion and obeyed Manoj Das Gupta. This fact is known to everyone in the Ashram. Our gentleman also narrated this incident to some people. Now, in his letter to Niranjan-bhai, he has written that this incident did not happen at all. Sradhalu wrote a letter to him on 28.7.10 in which he has elaborated this point in detail. But then our gentleman never wrote to Sradhalu that this incident did not happen. Now to save the Trustees from the term psychophancy, he is resorting to blatant lies. Due to this reason all the Ashramites have lost faith in the Trustees.
If Nolinida has selected Manoj Das Gupta, it is well and good. But can this selection be a licence for him to protect and help persons who are maligning and insulting Sri Aurobindo and the Mother? Niranjan-bhai stressed on this point. However, it would have been better had our gentleman enclosed a copy of the original letter of Nolini-da.
 The gentleman in his ‘divine vision’ has given the forecast that the case filed against the Ashram Trustees will go in vain. The same gentleman had forecasted that the case filed in Orissa High court against Peter’s book would be futile. But what happened? So it can be concluded that the speciality of his forecast is that always the reverse happens.
The gentleman wrote: “Because a case has been filed against the Trustees of the Ashram, the government will appoint an I.A.S. officer for the management of the Ashram.” All the Ashramites know that the main reason for filing the case against the present Trustees is because they are inefficient and wilfully avoid taking the right action at the right time. Our intention is to change the present Trustees and appoint an efficient Trust board which will not be liable to autocracy, despotism and dictatorship. In the interim period to prevent the present Trustees from misusing their power and wealth of the Trust, the Court will be addressed to appoint a caretaker. The case has not been filed to hand over the Ashram management to the government. However many Ashramites feel that the intervention of the government is better than the present imprudent ‘Gurudrohi’ Trustees.
The gentleman has advised Niranjan-bhai to read the play “Dr. Faustus” written by Christopher Marlowe which was appreciated by Sri Aurobindo. We cannot advise the gentleman likewise, but we request him to read these few lines of Savitri on page 210 written by Sri Aurobindo himself:
So might one fall in the Eternal’s road
Forfeiting the Spirit’s lonely chance in Time
And no news of him reach the waiting gods
Marked ‘missing’ in the register of souls.
 The Mother has said that the ‘missing souls’ are those who know what is Truth and what is falsehood and have the capacity to resist falsehood, but resist the Truth because of their attraction towards falsehood.
 The gentleman wrote in his letter that he has not used the words “wayward, imbecile, and asuric Sri Aurobindo”. We would request him to read carefully page 7 and 13 of his letter dated 2.8.10.
 He has written, “Peter has written a letter to Manoj Das Gupta expressing regret for publishing his book: “The Lives of Sri Aurobindo.” We did not know about it. Even if we had been informed of this fact, we cannot accept it. The gentleman has quoted Peter’s letter of 16.10.2008 to Manoj Das Gupta: “I assure you that the reason I came here in 1971, drawn by the vision of Sri Aurobindo, has always remained the same. It would be impossible for me even to think of tarnishing the image of Sri Aurobindo. Anything that may have appeared to do so has been inadvertent. I sincerely regret that any such thing might have happened.”
 In the above letter Peter writes that he was attracted by the vision of Sri Aurobindo and came to this Ashram and sincerely regrets for his misdeed. But the same man wrote in the preface of his book ‘The Lives of Sri Aurobindo’: “I might not have stayed if I had not been asked to do two things I found very interesting: first, to collect material dealing with his life; second, to reorganise his manuscripts and prepare them for publication.”
 Peter wrote here that he would not have stayed in the Ashram had he not been assigned the job of collecting material for Sri Aurobindo’s life and to reorganise his manuscripts. The same man said in an interview in 1998 at Lodi centre in America: “But, but I had come for other reasons to Jayantilal, because I knew an American woman who was there and who, ah, was a friend of him.” So here he says that he came here to meet one American lady!
 On 22.9.2008 he wrote to Manoj Das Gupta: “Turning to the sort of changes that I propose to make, I told the editor that I would like to rewrite the preface with the needs of Indian readers in mind, to alter half-dozen or more passages that seemed to have caused unnecessary offence and to introduce some changes to the cover text.”
 Can one who really feels sorry ever write, “...to alter half a dozen or more passages that seem to have caused unnecessary offence.” How can we take his regret to be sincere when he says that the thing was ‘unnecessary’?
 So what the gentleman has quoted from Peter’s letter dated 16.10.08 is not in conformity with his earlier statements. The latter did not come here attracted by the vision of Sri Aurobindo, nor has he sincerely regretted the errors in his book. Had he done so, he would not have written in this way.  When the demand to remove him from the Ashram became more and more intense, he wrote like that out of fear. Had he really given respect to Sri Aurobindo and had he really regretted his errors, the book might have disappeared from the face of earth by this time. For us this pretentious regret has no value, unless the book is completely destroyed.
 Regarding the case filed on the corrections of Savitri at Krishnanagar court, when the Ashram advocate said in the presence of Manoj Das, ‘Even the Mother did not understand Savitri’, he remained silent. To refute this charge, he quoted the letter of the Krishnanagar court advocate Sri Ramendranath Mukherjee. It would have been better if he had attached the original letter. Such an allegation had been brought against him in the period 25.8.2000 to 9.10.2000. Had he produced earlier the letter dated 17.9.2000, it would have helped him much. It appears quite unnecessary to quote this letter after a period of 10 years! Was this letter not available then? We have learnt from the Supreme Court advocate Bijon Ghosh as to what happened in Krishnanagar court on 25.8.2000. It was published on 5.9.2000 in the ‘Newsletter of Sri Aurobindo Ashram Beneficiary Association’. If that was false, why did he not protest then? It has also been printed in some of the books published later.
 Niranjan-bhai and four others have filed a case against the despotic Trustees. Manoj Das has vomited fire and venom on them. He has written: “In the history of Sri Aurobindo Ashram, the names of you five friends, will be written, of course not in golden letters, but in the ashes of Bhasmasura, in some shabby coloured letters.” We are wondering who this Bhasmasura is in whose ashes the names of these five friends will be written! Can it be the person, who after receiving the boon from Mahadev, wanted to utilise the boon against him? Who knows one day Vishnu may delude him and make him put his hand on his own head!
 Everyone must remember that the five persons who, without caring for their future and with their limited capacity, have come forward to fight against most powerful dictators. For them the support and sympathy of all good-hearted and conscious Ashramites is always there and will remain up to the end. We are never separate from them.
 The aggrieved Oriya children of the disrespected Mother and Master of Sri Aurobindo Ashram.

Written and translated from Oriya by Baikuntha Mishra

1 comment:

  1. Manoj Das has been taken over by hostile forces. May The Mother and SriAurobindo bless him with repentence.
    Premananda Naik