September 30, 1999 


In trying to falsely claim that Radhapada Dasa (RD) was the only donor for the ISKCON property at 22, Gurusaday Road, Calcutta, Dayarama Dasa (DD) 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 did not even join ISKCON, and only years later took initiation from Jayapataka Swami in Bombay. Whereas the property in discussion is in Calcutta. Thus how he could possibly know the facts regarding who put money into my hand around 1981, defies belief. We can only assume that Dayarama is repeating what he has been fed by someone else.

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, and one can compare them to Dayarama's statements. First we will start with Dayarama's obvious errors, which prove beyond a shadow of doubt that he has no idea what he is talking about. Dayarama's statements will be boxed in speech marks, thus " ", 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
A Pan Shop
Shanghai Laundry

"One of them gave it up without asking for any money when his wife fell sick on Janmashtami 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 luxiourous 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.

Though these points do not relate to the issue of whether or not RD was the only donor, they are made simply to prove, that DD, who was not even in ISKCON when all this happened, does not have the faintest idea what he is talking about, and is clearly either simply making it up, or just repeating whatever lies he has been fed.

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. RD 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:
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. Many months later RD 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 have paid 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, RD finishes donating an equivalent amount to the temple, for use by the temple as necessary.

    The proof that RD was not the only donor comes from 5 different sources of evidence:
    1. Mrs Thakkar, who is in knowledge of her husband's involvement in collecting b) from the donors.
    2. The many donors themselves, most of whom are still alive, and who are all prominent industrialists.
    3. GBC member Hari Vilasa, who in 1996, on behalf of the GBC, hammered out an agreement that got RD's agreement to list him as the principal donor. This RD agreed to. Obviously there would be no question of being the principal 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 RD agreed to be listed as a principal donor along with the other donors - something he could only do if there were other donors.

    1. RD 's own actions. At the ceremony to dedicate his plaque, RD'S family attended. At that time there was no complaint as to why we were listing RD as the principal donor and 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 RD that there is a mistake in us having listed him only as the principal donor, and that there are many names of other phantom donors!

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 ($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 to vacate.

All the other many donors listed on the plaques for the last 3 years, which RD agreed to, and has never objected to, were all involved solely in donating for the purchase of the property.

    1. And finally myself, the person who collected the funds from all the donors, and paid it to Mr Thakker.

Thus in conclusion, on one side you have a coalition of:

The person who sold the property
The person who bought the property
Many prominent industrialists
And the actions of RD and his family

On the other side you have Dayarama Dasa, who was not even in ISKCON when all these events occurred.

The evidence is clear and overwhelming. Radhapada dasa, is not the only donor for 22 Gurusaday Road. Such blatant lying on the part of Dayarama Dasa is not befitting someone who has taken the Brahmin thread.

Your servant,
Adridharana dasa