Originally posted on sciy.org by Rich Carlson on Mon 18 May 2009 09:43 PM PDT
May 12, 2009
Dear Sraddhalu and Alok,
In your letter of May 10th 2009 you say that you speak only for
yourselves, but then propose what Peter and the Trustees should do, as
if you speak for the entire Integral Yoga community. Since you both made
the allegations against Peter in the first place, you cannot
disassociate yourself from the discussion or process.
You have concocted a story that the book defames Sri Aurobindo when many
more who have read it do not even remotely sense this to be true. Your
voices were among the first to condemn Peter while ignoring his claim
that you misread the text. Instead of attempting to engage him in a
dialog on the book you have, as detailed in your writing, favored the
incitement of collective actions against him that has included a
petition to have him removed from his work at the archives and to have
his ties with the Ashram severed.
These sensational collective actions were then followed by court cases
against Peter for which you both have voiced clear support. Your support
for the lawsuit in banning /The Lives of Sri Aurobindo/, and your public
calls against the book are contrary to the spirit of harmony advocated
by Sri Aurobindo and have sown widespread anger among the community that
has caused divisiveness and confusion.
Peter has voluntarily suspended his work because of the pressure brought
by your campaign against the book and himself. You now allege copyright
infringement and intellectual property theft. To begin with, it is the
Ashram Trust and not you who are the copyright holders of Sri Aurobindo
and the Mother's writings. How can you usurp the role of the Ashram in
this matter? Secondly, you present your allegations as facts. In other
words, you declare that Peter and his book have infringed on copyright
laws as if this has already been proven when in fact these are simply
allegations of yours. In all these cases, the onus is on you to prove
these allegations, otherwise they are merely unsubstantiated allegations
that libel and defame Peter.
When we wrote our first letter it was to inform centers in the United
States about the actions taken by you and your collaborators against a
fellow sadhak whose only transgression was your own misreading of the
book that he wrote. The actions you support against Peter for
persecution and censorship of his right of free speech in Indian courts
of law are contrary to the laws of the United States. We therefore
reiterate our message to the Centers in America, all those who value
freedom of opinion, interpretation and speech as well as those who
oppose collective persecutions of individuals, to perform due diligence
before extending invitations to you both or in supporting your visit to
the United States in any way.
Sincerely,
Richard Carlson
David Hutchinson
Debashish Banerji
.........................................................................................................................................................
*_Note of Clarification_*
(Dated 10^th May 2009)
Dear friends,
1. It has been a week since Alok Pandey’s and Sraddhalu Ranade’s
detailed letters were issued in response to the personal attacks by IYF
activists. The reaction from the spokesmen of Peter Heehs has again
ignored critical issues which were outlined, and instead, further abuses
have been heaped on us. While this does not help the general atmosphere
already thick with hurt emotions, confusion and divisive tensions, such
reactions _in no way help Peter Heehs’ cause_ either. Therefore, it was
felt that a note of clarification is in order.
2. Let it be placed on record that Alok Pandey and Sraddhalu Ranade have
never been the authorised spokesmen of the vast majority of silent and
deeply anguished devotees of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother at the Ashram,
Auroville, in India and the world at large. They have been merely
representative and possibly more visible individuals on the Internet.
Consequently, Alok Pandey and Sraddhalu Ranade, while always remaining
open to dialogue and constructive debate, cannot and must not take it
upon themselves to even attempt to resolve what is clearly a very
complex and apparently impossible imbroglio.
3. It is the belief of Alok Pandey and Sraddhalu Ranade that solutions
to problems faced by a community, however complex their nature, are to
be found _within and by the affected community_, and to that end the
role and involvement of the _elders and leaders_ of the community in
question are /sine qua non/.
4. If Peter Heehs wishes to reintegrate himself into the community, the
following _practical steps_ are proposed in all humility:
a) Peter Heehs must speak for himself and avoid proxies who have at best
a dubious stake in the matter. He owes answers to the community that he
has so long been a part of.
b) He must enter into serious, direct and transparent discussion with
the Ashram Trust and make a sincere attempt to understand and address
the concerns of Shri Manoj Das Gupta, Dr Dilip Datta, and Shri Dilip
Mehtani. If these senior sadhaks and Trustees thought it fit to express
their anguish and disappointment in writing and initiate disciplinary
action against Heehs, surely they must have had good reason to have done so.
c) Peter Heehs must have an open and constructive interaction with
Pranab-da in order to understand what led to his being disbarred from
the Physical Education Department. Should not an attempt be made to find
out what, if anything at all, may be done to remedy the situation?
d) The simplest way to deal with allegations of copyright violation
would be to obtain a written clarification regarding the matter from the
Ashram Trust, and make the document public.
e) Allegations of Intellectual Property theft can be countered by
obtaining a written and signed clarification regarding the matter from
Peter Heehs’ erstwhile colleagues at the Archives, and making the
document public.
f) If Peter Heehs is of the view that Columbia University Press (CUP)
has erred in labelling him “founder†of the Ashram Archives and that he
is not himself in any way responsible for it, a letter to this effect
may be obtained from CUP and made public.
g) Sri Manoj Das may be consulted on factual distortions and offensive
or objectionable passages, and signed summaries of these consultations
be made public.
h) Devotees cannot be faulted for filing criminal cases as an expression
of extreme anguish when all other options have failed – this is an
accepted, normal and civil way of dispute resolution. Peter Heehs owes
it to himself, more than anybody else, to respond to Court Summons,
defend himself, and come clean of the charges levelled against him.
i) Lastly, the book in question was proscribed in India not by the
issuance of a “Fatwa†by Alok Pandey or Sraddhalu Ranade, but by the
Government of the day _after due process of law_ had taken its course.
It is incumbent on Peter Heehs to make an attempt to understand the
causes of this serious Government action, and all ridiculing of courts
and Government agencies involved must be avoided.
5. The above steps are all independent of Alok Pandey and Sraddhalu
Ranade, and in no way require their involvement. The solutions to Heehs’
predicament _are entirely in his hands_ without reliance on anybody else.
6. We remain available in all humility and sincerity to render any
support or assistance as may be required at any point if called upon to
do so.
Sincerely,
Alok Pandey <taijasalok@yahoo.co.in>
Sraddhalu Ranade <sraddhalu@auromail.net>
*
*
Attachment: