[Of late Manoj Das is very much in the public
domain writing long-winded letters full of platitudes, without changing a wee
bit his crassly subservient attitude towards the Ashram Trustees. But in June
1994 he was a different man and he had dared to challenge Pranab Kumar
Bhattacharya, the head of the Ashram Physical Education Department. The issue
on which he mainly differed with “Dada” was the expulsion of a child, who had
been admitted into the Ashram School against the rules of the Physical
Education Dept. I will not go into the merits of the rule itself, but I will
draw the reader’s attention to the fact that Manoj Das had the guts to
challenge in writing the unfairness of the rule in general and its wrong
application in this particular case. Dada dismissed Manoj Das’s letter to him
as “simply rubbish” and told him to
mind his own business. This eventually led to the resignation of Manoj Das from
the Board of Ashram Trustees. Perhaps it is because of this shock and the
bitter pill of defeat he had to swallow that Manoj Das now faithfully toes the
line of the Ashram Trustees and writes miles of foolscap pages in their favour!
The correspondence between Manoj Das and PKB is long and will be published in
at least two instalments. ― Bireshwar]
Manoj
Das to Pranab Kumar Bhattacharya
Dear Dada, 13.06.1994
My humble greetings to you.
You have always appreciated frankness and in the past also 1
have been quite frank with you. Once again I will like to put before you my reflections
on two issues which are causing me anxiety and anguish.
In
the ordinary world if 'B' questions 'A's decision, 'B' is often taken as opposing
'A’. I believe that you are far above such feelings. If I am raising these questions,
it is because I am perplexed. I will do justice neither to myself nor to you unless
I get some clarifications.
The
first issue concerns the Harpagon Workshop Trust vis-a-vis Milan who works for the
knitting and weaving unit which is under the said Trust of which Mr. Talwar had
been made a member. Mr. Talwar who had no axe to grind, took up his work most seriously,
applying the wide range of experience he had gathered during an illustrious career.
I have known him since 1970. His faith in the Mother and his commitment to the Ashram
are absolute.
As
you know, the H.W.T. comprises of several units some which were far from in a desirable
shape. Mr. Talwar began setting things in order. Most of the units were happy about
it. Even if they initially found Mr. Talwar's ways inconvenient to them, or not
in accordance with their style of work, they gradually saw that in the long run
the new discipline will make their units sound in health and spirit.
A
few, however, found Mr. Talwar a great hindrance to their chaotic and questionable
habits.
So
far as knitting and weaving unit is concerned, the conflict owes its origin to a
totally different factor. For Mr. Talwar, the entire cottage building was one -
belonging to the Ashram - and the commercial units accommodated in the building
were all working in the interest of the Ashram. He had the brighter side of the
reality in his mind and not the darker side made of our petty egotism. The factual
details of the development are not warranted, but Milan showed most deplorable defiance
and ill-temper. Several people had even earlier suggested his transfer to some other
department because of his lack of control over himself. The decision to ask him
to leave the unit was the outcome of these accumulated reports and feelings. Personally
I have myself tried to tackle him with understanding and love. I made a dash to
him before the decision was taken and gave him a very simple, inoffensive suggestion
which would not have precipitated matters. But he did not oblige me.
At
this stage, most unexpectedly, you took a stand, threatening to go on a hunger-strike
against Mr. Talwar's actions (which, in fact, was the action of the H.W. Trust).
This left him stunned. I can assure you that his shock was not because of what you
said, but because he never expected such a stand from you so far as his impression
of you went.
He
had a breakdown and, I am afraid, we have lost his invaluable assistance. It is
said that he was an 'outsider' and hence did not understand the ways of the Ashram.
All commercial units transact with the outside world and Mr. Talwar was one who
understood both the outside world and the Ashram. If Ashram should have any speciality
in its commercial activities, it is to carry on
commerce on the lines of truth and honesty and these are the norms he wanted to
be strictly followed.
Dada,
I feel that your compassion is being exploited and matters are being misrepresented
to you. I wish you had invited Mr. Talwar for a discussion. That would have done
good to the institution. Threats and ridicule will put off any sensitive man. We
should avoid such situations in the future – if luckily we get some other capable
devotees willing to undertake thankless works.
May
I suggest humbly, even at this stage, that you may advise Milan to change over to
some other work. Changing work in the Ashram is something that goes on and has to
go on - I need hardly say.
The
second issue that agonises me is the fate of a little boy named Priyabrata Shoo,
son of one Mr. Subrato Shoo. I know neither the child nor the father. But the decision
to throw him out of the school has caused me terrible anguish.
The
principle you have made - that a man receiving any money against his services in
any unit connected with the Ashram (even if the unit is a commercial unit of the
H.W. Trust) forfeits his right to admit his child in our school - is a principle
which I cannot understand, but that is a different matter. In this case, the father
resigned his job as soon as he came to know of the principle. We may refuse admission
to any number of children on any number of grounds, but once a child is admitted
- and when the child's father has already complied with the condition - how can
we play with the child's destiny? A child who has been acclimatised to our atmosphere
to be taken out suddenly, for no fault of his, for no fault of his parents either
- is bound to experience a trauma which nothing can compensate. The action does
not concern the child's physical education alone, it concerns his whole education
and personality, apart from the helplessness and anguish it will cause his poor
parents. I repeat, we may refuse admission, but we must not throw out a child without
a relevant reason.
May
I appeal to you to let the child continue in our school, undisturbed.
I
hope you will pardon me if I have been unpleasant in some way. We are all bubbles
on the ocean of time, but each bubble must reflect the sunlight radiated by Sri
Aurobindo and the Mother. I write to you as the little light I receive prompts me
to do. I should not fail it. My regard, Shraddha for you, my trust in your
nobility are the other factors encouraging me to do so.
Let
me make it clear that I am writing this letter as an individual and not as a Trustee
and by no means on behalf of the Ashram Trust.
With
warm regards
Yours
affectionately
(Manoj
Das)
Reply of Pranab Kumar Bhattacharya
Department of Physical
Education
Sri Aurobindo Ashram
Pondicherry 605002
India
Manoj babu,
I have read your
letter dated 13.6.94.
All that you have
written is simply rubbish.
Please mind your own
business.
Yours affectionately
“Dada”
No comments:
Post a Comment