Indian SY National Trust-3

Indian SY National Trust3 --- On Fri, 22/4/11, rajiv kumar <[email protected]> wrote: From: rajiv kumar <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Reply to your letter To: "Dinesh Rai" <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected], "nalgirkar vijay" <[email protected]>, "Kalpana Srivastava" <[email protected]>, "Vijay Kumar Gupta" <[email protected]>, "PUGALIA RAJENDRA" <[email protected]>, "Chandan Pugalia" <[email protected]>, "Karun Sanghi" <[email protected]>, "Desraj kaundal" <[email protected]>, "Parag Raje" <[email protected]>, "G L Agarwala" <[email protected]>, "Suresh Kapoor" <[email protected]>, "col k s mohan" <[email protected]>, "Gregoire" <[email protected]>, "Gregoire Kalbermatten" <[email protected]>, "Alan Pereira (Google)" <[email protected]>, "'Alan Wherry'" <[email protected]>, "Alan Wherry" <[email protected]>, "Arneau Kalberbatten" <[email protected]>, "Philippe Zeiss" <[email protected]>, "Vijay Kapoor" <[email protected]>, "Ashok Agarwal" <[email protected]>, "Radhey Radhey" <[email protected]>, "shashi prakash" <[email protected]>, "Vivek Sagar" <[email protected]> Date: Friday, 22 April, 2011, 10:40 PM Dear Dinesh, Jai Shri Mataji. Please find attached my response to your letter. I am also attaching your letter addressed to all of us and requesting our fellow trustees to send both these to all those to whom the letter from the eight of the dismissed trustees and special invitees had gone. This is following your request to send your letter to all of them. I hope you will give due heed to the facts and suggestions in the letter Warm regards Rajiv --- On Wed, 13/4/11, Dinesh Rai <[email protected]> wrote: From: Dinesh Rai <[email protected]> Subject: Reply to your letter To: "rajiv kumar" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, 13 April, 2011, 6:14 PM Dear Rajiv, Please find my reply as attachment to the letter. Jai Shri Mataji. DINESH RAI 22 April 2011 Dear Dinesh,

Jai Shri Mataji. 1.Let me point to the inaccuracies in your response to the letter from the eight of us who were among those dismissed in the middle of the night before the 25th meeting of the National Trust scheduled for 10th of April. To begin with may I point out that the first item on the agenda for the 25th meeting as circulated by Suresh vide his email on 4th April was the " Succession to the post of Chairman H.H. Shri Mataji Nirmal Devi Sahaja Yoga Trust." Thus, this issue was to be discussed in the Trust. Later, on the 9th of April when the agenda items were again circulated with agenda notes, a few sentences were added to say that Sir CP had adopted this status automatically without as much as a word of consultation with the rest of the trustees. Rather arbitrary and strange behaviour in a Trust where collective action is always preferred, you will agree. 2.Now about the minutes of the 23rd meeting of the Trust. You say that these minutes were formalized and distributed. One assumes that these were approved in the 24th meeting of the Trust held on 23 March 2011. However, in the minutes of the 24th meeting circulated by email on 6th of April, you will notice that there is no mention at all of the minutes of the previous (23rd) meeting having been approved. Normally, minutes of every meeting start with the approval of minutes of the previous meeting. Surely, with your long years of experience of holding and chairing formal meetings, you are aware of this. For me the reason for the absence of this observation in the minutes of the 24th meeting is rather straightforward. The minutes of the 23rd meeting held on 13th February, had not been approved until 23rd March when the 24th meeting was held. That in effect reveals your inaccuracy and indeed I might say dishonesty in appearing to claim that these minutes were formalized at any time. 3.Moreover, you conveniently forget to mention that these minutes were circulated perhaps on the 7th of April! - three days after the minutes of the 24th meeting and just three days ahead of the 25th meeting! And to repeat, these were circulated without having been approved in any meeting. Please note that in the 24th meeting of the Trust held at a very short notice, seven (7) of the thirteen trustees were not present. Those absent, because of the short notice, included Rajesh Shah, Vijay Nalgirkar, Kalpana Didi and myself. Indeed I wonder if these minutes are even accurate because according to them Mr Vijay Gautam is shown to have been present (no leave of absence is noted for him) and I doubt very much if that was the case. So do you not find it strange that the minutes of the 23rd meeting held on the 13th of February are not approved in any meeting and then circulated only after those of the 24th have been circulated? 4.Also you would hopefully recall that on more than one occasion I had requested you, albeit verbally on the phone, to have these minutes approved but of course to no avail. And I was told by other office bearers that these minutes were sent to you much in advance and waited for action on your part. So how are we wrong in asserting that you held on to these minutes and prevented them from being approved until you could ensure that these were modified to suit Sir CP's interests.

5.The minutes as finally circulated were indeed distorted in a most crucial manner. The minutes as they exist state: " On this, Sh. Suresh Kapoor mentioned that after checking one or two persons, he has found that such rules is not illegal till the objects are followed in toto. However, it was felt that this issue is delicate and everyone’s opinion should be sought before any decision." (unquote) Yes Suresh said this. But the trustees, after due discussion, had unanimously resolved that the extraordinary powers vested in Sir CP had to be withdrawn as these were not appropriate to the management of a public trust and posed a real risk of being misused. Now we know this don't we!! And following this decision Mr Nalgirkar was requested to come up with the alternate wordings to replace those which existed in the Trust deed and the Rules. This is not reflected in these distorted and dishonest minutes which were finally circulated. Moreover, the minutes also do not include any discussion of the issue of the Maharashtra coordinator and that of the NGO which were taken up. These lacunae were pointed out by Mr. Nalgirkar as soon as he received the minutes on the nigth of the 7th by courier (and not by email as other minutes have usually been sent) And you incredibly claim that you did not do the needful to serve Sir CP's interests!! Furthermore, the minutes do not include a list of those present and give a clear impression of having been prepared in a great hurry to some how be circulated in their distorted form prior to the 25th meeting. 6.If indeed the 23rd meeting had not resolved unanimously to withdraw Sir CP's powers, there was no reason for Sadhana didi to have called me from Cabella on returning there after Holy Mother's Mahasamadhi and asking me to let the status quo remain in place. In fact as you perhaps know I called her on the afternoon of 9th April, a few hours prior to the Trust meeting on the 10th, with the request for Rajesh and me to meet with her to amicably resolve this issue. She did not want to meet us because as we know from hindsight, the move to dismiss the trustees was being planned already. She could have at least let us know about it. Why the utter secrecy less than twenty hours prior to the meeting and five hours prior to the issuing of the dismissal letter? 7.But there is a pattern to this behaviour. When faced with opposition to the transfer of Holy Mother's intellectual property from NIPC to the family, they simply dismissed the World Council, misusing Mother's signatures. Now the entire world collective knows that if the World Council had not taken the stand against Sir CP and Sadhana didi, our Holy Mother could have been tried for criminal conduct under the US law. But they do not learn any lessons from the past. In their pursuit of control and power and vested interests, which they seek to hide behind a veil of pathos, they are wont not to learn lessons. So on this occasion when faced with the prospect of Sir CP being asked to relinquish his extraordinary powers, they chose to dismiss the National Trust! But the truth perhaps is that it is not Sir CP acting by himself who is responsible for these actions. Most likely it is Sadhana didi who is driving it all and she seems to have a hold over Sir CP which for some reason he cannot set aside. I have heard about other incidents which would testify to this interpretation. But I cannot cite them as these would be acting on heresy. In the absence of any evidence, I am constrained to go by the official records as both these letters of dismissal are signed by him. 8.If as you say, your counsel had not been sought, then why accept his

malafide action? Does this acceptance not amount to connivance? Suresh also claims that he was not consulted. Why do both of you then not resign in protest for not having been consulted for such an important decision? Yes Gen Kapoor, who seems to be the only trustee to have admitted to have been consulted, is part of the coterie. But why do the two of you stay on in this defunct and illegal Trust that has been constituted by a person who has neither the legal and let alone the moral authority to change the dispensation that our Holy Mother had established as early as April 2005? 9.You quote at length the provisions of the Trust deed and the Rules. Of course you are right. And of course now we know that all of us, the national trustees were wrong in reposing our trust in Sir CP. But at that time in 2005, when our Holy Mother had specifically asked him to intervene in the running of the Sahaja Yoga because some of Her children had betrayed Her, we were simply and implicitly following Her wishes. But having realized our mistake, we set about trying to rectify it in the 23rd meeting of the Trust. But in this effort we were effectively defeated by you acting consciously to safeguard Sadhana didi's and Sir CP's interests. I cannot see how you can use the events of 2005 and our inability to foresee the future behaviour of Sir CP and Sadhana didi as a failing, which we you have not allowed to be corrected. 10.Finally, you talk of the way forward. How can there be a collective way forward when after repeated requests, pleadings and a formal unanimous decision in the 23rd meeting of the Trust, you have still failed to make Ashok Agarwal apologise to the Gurgaon collective for his most serious breach of Sahaja protocol. In fact Sadhana didi and he are guilty of extreme dishonesty when they claim that our Holy Mother had approved of the marriage of his daughter to the boy from the same centre. Was this not the only reason for them to put our Holy Mother to extreme discomfort and take Her to Jaipur only to further demonstrate that She approved of Ashok's behaviour? Why did he then accept to be a party to the unanimous decision of the Trust for him to apologise to the Gurgaon collective? And why Dinesh did you not assert your will and authority to prevent this discomfort to our Holy Mother? Can actions be the basis of a way forward together? 11.The only possibility of a way forward together and to strengthen the collective is for the two of you (Suresh and you- I wonder if Gen Kapoor will be wise as well) to resign from the reconstituted trust forthwith and ask Sir CP to step down with immediate effect. We can then be on the same level and begin to work together with the collective. I hope you will have the courage and honesty bestowed on Her children by our Holy Mother to do so. This action alone will give credence to your claim that you are Mother's follower and not a camp follower of Sir CP and Sadhana didi. http://www.facebook.com/l/69401RWEqDhFhFpKoxk57QWkm0Q/12.As you have asked in your letter, I am requesting this letter along with yours to be circulated to all those to whom our letter of the 9th was sent. May Shri Mataji bless us all with Subhuddhi. I am sure it is Her Will that will be done. Warm regards, Rajiv

PS ( I wonder why you do not use the salutation of Jai Shri Mataji in your letter to us?) Dinesh Rai's Letter - dated 13th April 2011 Dear Brothers & Sisters, I was surprised to receive the communication, which ended up being circulated globally, containing several accusations and insinuations against me personally. I would like to respond to those allegations for not only are they incorrect, but they have painted an erroneous image of my loyalty and devotion to our Holy Mother that I find hurtful. At the same time, I understand these were extraordinary circumstances to which those concerned felt the need to react immediately. Perhaps in good faith we are capable of understanding better our respective motivations and it is with this conviction that I write these lines. Charge: The minutes for the 23rd Meeting held on 13th Feb 2011 were deliberately not finalized by me so that they could be ‘finalised to suite the interest of Mr. CP Srivastava’ as quoted from your letter. Factual Position: The minutes of the 23rd Meeting were presented and confirmed in the 24th Meeting held on the 23rd March 2011 and also sent to all the trustees. An extract of those minutes are already sent to all the trustees relevant to this misunderstanding is reproduced below: “Sh. Rajesh Shah mentioned that rule of the National Trust regarding the powers of the Vice-Chairman is not according to law and one person cannot enjoy all the powers of the Trust as a whole. On this, Sh. Suresh Kapoor mentioned that after checking one or two persons, he has foundthat such rules is not illegal till the objects are followed in toto. However, it was felt that this issue is delicate and everyone’s opinion should be sought before any decision. Sh. Nalgirkar volunteered to draft changes in the Rules for consideration by the National Trust.” As per the Trust Office records, these minutes were sent by courier to all trustees. Mr. Nalgirkar on receiving them even responded via e-mail dt. 8.4.11 indicating that some points discussed have been not covered fully, in the minutes. (No mention of the above portion of the minutes.) I therefore wonder how you could think that I intend to change those minutes to suit Mr. C.P. Srivastava;’s interest when you are all already in possession of the formalised minutes. With regards the removal of certain Trustees, your letter insinuated that I had a hand in the matter. I would like to clarify that this decision was the Chairman’s (Sir CP) personal decision and my counsel was not sought in this regard, not was I informed of the decision before any of the other trustees. I sincerely wish we can move beyond it as children of Shri Mataji, no matter the divergences that have arisen. I made my views known to Sir CP.

Through all of your allegations (now and in the past) you have tried to portray me as a follower of Sir CP as opposed to our Holy Mother. Though I show Sir CP the respect I feel he deserves, I am well aware of who my Guru is. My loyalties and devotion to Her cannot be explained in a letter not do I feel it necessary for me to ‘prove’ myself in this respect. There is one point I would like to raise, which I feel some of you will be able to respond to given your longer involvement than me. In the original Trust Deed dt. 7th April, 2005 (Trustees were Dr. CP Srivastava and Mr. Rajesh V. Shah), it is stated in Clause XXVIII C “In the event of retirement of HH Shri Mataji, the Vice-Chairman Dr. CP Srivastava will act as Chairman and will exercise all the powers vested in Shri Mataji” along with several other powers now sought to be curtailed; Mr. Rajiv Kumar held the office of the Executive Secretary and was directly involved in framing of rules and regulations. Please also see the minutes of 4th meeting of the National Trust dt. 13.11.2005 held in Pratishthan Pune. A resolution was passed unanimously for affecting following amendment in the Trust Deed: “Further RESOLVED that a new sub clause (f) may be added in the clause XXVIII. This new sub-clause XXVIII(f) be read as follows: “Notwithstanding any provision contained anywhere. Her Holiness Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi Srivastava and on Her retirement, Dr. CP Srivastava shall have the absolute powers to appoint any individual as Trustee or remove any existing Trustee.” All the authors of your letter were present in that Trust Meeting. (I was not present in that meeting.) Had everybody involved been more careful perhaps we would not have found ourselves in such a difficult position today. The way forward? To conclude, I feel that the agenda of effective control of the Indian National Trust by Sahaja Yogis is a matter that should be pursued in right earnest and not put on the back burner. I am sure it is also a cause that may involve and unite all of us. Further, the new trustees need to gain credibility and trust of the Sangha and so a transparent system for selection of trustees ensuring the support of the Sangha is a necessity and needs to be agreed upon. I am optimistic that this will contribute towards addressing the complex issues at hand. I am also hopeful that it would allay any apprehensions and fears. Regards, Dinesh Rai PS: I would request you to send this mail to all yogis to whom you had distributed your earlier email.

Documents

Indian SY National Trust-3