Go to the Calcutta
Go to the Ritvik Page
Go to the “Letters Page”
Please note that Radhapada dasa agreed to be listed as a principle donor along with the other donors - something he could only do if there were other donors.
ADRI DHARAN DAS
Disputing Dayaram's claims
By Adri Dharan dasa
In trying to falsely claim that Radhapada dasa was
the only donor for the ISKCON property at 22, Gurusaday Road,
Calcutta, Dayarama dasa has made many easily disprovable statements.
Firstly some background. The property in question was
purchased around 1981 by myself on behalf of ISKCON Calcutta. Dayarama
dasa had not even joined ISKCON by then, and only years later took
initiation from Jayapataka Swami in Bombay. The property in discussion is
in Calcutta. He obviously is in no position to know how the property was
paid for around 1981. I do know these facts, since I made the payment, and
I will set out here the verifiable facts. First we will start with
Dayarama’s obvious errors. Dayarama’s statements will be surrounded
with quotation marks (“”) and my facts will follow underneath.
“The property came to Vijay Thakkar, a property
broker and he could have sold the same for good profit but he gave for the
same price he got.”
Vijay Thakkar was not a property broker,
a fact that can easily be verified by his wife (Vijay unfortunately passed
away in 1996). He was a property developer, who owned many
properties and one of the closest friends of ISKCON.
“There were two tenants on the property and both of
them were requested many times to vacate the building but refused and
asked for big money.”
There were 4 tenants, not 2, and one of them
is still there! They were:
Duncan Tea Company ITC A Pan Shop Shanghai Laundry
“One of them gave it up without asking for any
money when his wife fell sick on Janmastami day and requested her husband
to not to hold on Krsna’s property. The other tenant was settled for
much less than what they could have asked for.”
This has just been made up out of thin air! None of
the above happened. In 1989, Duncan’s Tea Company vacated, having
demanded a large luxurious flat in payment. When the time to vacate came,
the chief executive of Duncan’s Tea Company at the time, a Mr G.P.
Goenka, decided to leave without accepting the flat, stating that it was
his donation to the temple, because of pressure placed from various
industrialists headed by Sitaram Daga, one of the donors to the property.
Subsequently soon, ITC also vacated after 8 years of
hard struggle. This happened because there was a new chairman, who was
connected to the temple via a mutual contact. ITC vacated on payment of a
nominal 5 lakhs ($12,000).
The Pan shop owner left only in 1996, and was given a
payment of 2 lakhs ($5000).
The final tenant, “Shanghai Laundry”, is still
there, as anyone who cares to visit the property, can see for themselves.
I will now state, in some detail, the exact sequence
of events by which the property in question was purchased.
1. Around 1981, Vijay Thakker acquires 22, Gurusaday
Road for only 20 lakhs ($50,000), from a Gujarati consortium headed up by
Mr Shah. The real value of the property is actually 100 lakhs ($250,000).
2. Mr Thakker offers to either sell it for the market rate, and give the
profit to ISKCON Calcutta, or sell on the property for the same price as
he bought it. I chose the latter option. Mr Thakker by the way was a very
close friend of both ISKCON Calcutta and ISKCON Mayapur for many years. 3.
Mr Thakker, assisted by his wife, immediately starts assisting me in
trying to raise the required 20 lakhs ($50000). In anticipation, I also
take a loan of 10 lakhs ($25,000) from the Mayapura Vrindavan Trust. 4.
Within a few months, we have managed to raise the required 20 lakhs.
Radhapada dasa is one of the donors, and he gives between 2.5 to 3 lakhs.
The rest of the money was gathered from the following individuals:
Mr. Sitaram Daga Mr. Hansaraj Agarwal Mr. Pamandas
Lakmani Mr. P.K. Mukerjee Mr. B.S. Agarwal Mr. B.L. Rathi Mr. Kusalani Two
more annonymous donors
5. Consequently I never needed to use the MVT loan
for this, and instead used it for other preaching projects. Thus by now
the property is fully paid for and acquired.
6. Many months later Radhapada dasa approaches me and
states that he wants to pay the full amount for the property. I tell him
that this is not possible since the property is already paid for. He
however insists on donating an equivalent amount, as a symbolic gesture
that he would have liked to pay the full amount for the property. He pays
this only in instalments, and over 3 years after the property had already
been acquired and paid for, Radhapada dasa finishes donating an equivalent
amount to the temple, for use by the temple as necessary.
The proof that Radhapada dasa was not the only
donor comes from 5 different sources of evidence:
a) Mrs Thakkar, who is in knowledge of her
husband’s involvement in collecting from the donors. b) The many donors
themselves, most of who are still alive, and who are all prominent
industrialists. c) GBC member Hari Vilasa, who in 1996, on behalf of the
GBC, hammered out an agreement that got Radhapada dasa’s agreement to
list him as the principle donor. This Radhapada dasa agreed to.
Obviously there would be no question of being the principle donor
unless there are other donors:
“After careful discussion of the history and facts
of the procurement of Gurusaday Road property, it was clearly established
that Radhapada was not the only donor nor the major donor for that
property. Radhapad gave one of the initial donations of approximately 10%
to 13% of the total value. Virtually simultaneously, many other donors
came forward who gave in cash, important sums. [...] I negotiated an
agreement between Radhapad and Adridharan Prabhus that stipulated that
Radhapad’s name would appear above everyone else’s names and be
designated as the principle donor. [...] I tried my best to satisfy
Radhapad and at the same time reach a compromise that Adridharan Prabhu
could accept without offending the other 15 or more donors.” (Hari
Vilasa Prabhu, GBC)
Please note that Radhapada dasa agreed to be listed
as a principle donor along with the other donors - something he
could only do if there were other donors.
d) Radhapada’s own actions. At the ceremony to
dedicate his plaque, Radhapada dasa’S family attended. At that time
there was no complaint as to why we were listing Radhapada dasa as the principle
donor an not the only donor. No was there any objection to
why we were listing so many other phantom donors who had not
actually given any money.
Indeed the plaques in question have been up for about
3 years. In that time there has never been any objection from
Radhapada dasa that there is a mistake in us having listed him only as the
principle donor, and that there are many names of other phantom
It should also be noted that out of the many donors
only 5 have not given funds to directly purchase the property
itself. These are:
Mr V.K. Thakker - who is listed as having acquired
the property at such a cheap price sacrificing easy profit three to four
times the purchase price of the property. ITC, Duncan Tea Company - the
tenants who vacated for nothing. (Under Indian property law, the tenants
have greater possession rights than the Landlord. They had originally
demanded 100 lakhs, i.e. $250,000, each to vacate. And we would have had
no option but to pay the amount in question.) Mr RS Agarwal & Mr RS
Goenka - who donated the nominal 5 lakhs required to pay ITC to get them
All the other many donors listed on the plaques for
the last 3 years, which Radhapada dasa agreed to, and has never objected
to, were all involved solely in donating for the purchase of the property.
e) And finally myself, the person who collected the
funds from all the donors, and paid it to Mr Thakker.
Therefore the evidence is clear and overwhelming.
Radhapada dasa, is not the only donor for 22 Gurusaday Road.
Your servant, Adridharana dasa
© CHAKRA 30-Sep-1999
© Copyright November, 2003 by oldchakra.com. All rights reserved.
about this website or to report an
error, write to email@example.com