Semitic graft on a Sanatana tree – Sandhya Jain

Sandhya Jain “A man who tries to carry a cat home by its tail will learn a lesson that cannot be learned in any other way.” – Mark Twain

Semitic graft on a Sanatana tree – Part 1

Critical issues pertaining to Hindu Dharma and its survival on Hindu bhumi in rightful strength and glory have been sizzling in private fora for some years now, and came partially to a boil when the Nityananda scandal prompted the writer to pen “Debutante Dharma-Gurus: Violating a civilisational patent” on this website on March 21, 2010.

The article raised a veritable storm, much of which is visible in the comments section of the article. The fact that it was accompanied by piercing articles by Ms Radha Rajan, editor, aggravated the discomfort in certain quarters, and the commentary on the website (deleted by editorial discretion) became spiteful, mean, defamatory and outright scandalous. This was then taken to private email groups, private blogs and the Sulekha website. What was disgusting was that this hate-mail was anonymous, with writers hiding behind invented names and refusing to reveal their identities – a sure sign of weakness, fear (of legal retribution), and pressure from controllers to hit out at us, however blindly.

Saner voices requested a more lucid exposition of the issues that prompted this fusillade of abuse, to understand why writers hitherto respected for maturity and gravity are frontally challenging Gurus and other individuals believed to be serving dharma with dedication. Prior commitments inhibited an early redressal of this genuine demand, and while it is impossible to detail each and every point, the present series attempts to answer all questions in the minds of readers as fully and cogently as possible.

The crux of my dissent centres round the unilateral and ill-prepared rush by certain Hindu Gurus into a trap called Inter-faith dialogue, and its spin-offs in the form of an ill-conceived Hindu-Jewish Summit, and now multi-religious spiritual fairs accompanied by all-religions-are-one false homilies – which are designed to negate Hindu Dharma on its natal bhumi.

What is the legitimacy in privileging Hindu Dharma on Hindu bhumi if alien monotheistic faiths with a mission to annihilate all other faiths in the world are accepted as equal/one by Hindu gurus themselves? Why should Hindu Dharma survive in India at all when faiths claiming to be the Final Revelation/Truth are accepted as equal/one by Hindu gurus? What is the legitimacy of resisting conversions to alien monotheistic faiths when the preceptors of Hindu dharma concede that all religions are one? In that case, why not just have one faith – the unchanging monotheistic argument?

These and related questions drove the writer into a head-on conflict with those departing from or evading dharma while arrogating unwarranted powers and authority to themselves, glibly globetrotting and mouthing lines at the behest of unseen (but readily discernible) puppeteers, and harshly silencing those who – like the child in Hans Anderson’s memorable tale – dared call them naked. We, the incorrigible children of Bharat Mata, refuse to be muffled.

>>How I stumbled upon a guilty secret

Coming to specifics, for some years the writer was engaged in a study of religious conversions in Tripura, a state selected after a famous guru, Swami Shanti Kali ji Maharaj, was shot dead in his own ashram on account of his success in resisting forced conversions amongst the tribal and non-tribal populace. [This has since been published as, Evangelical Intrusions. Tripura: A Case Study, Rupa, 2009]

Inter alia, while studying the missionary defence of conversions, the writer was horrified to discover that unknown to all of us who are fighting evangelism at the intellectual level, the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha had in May 2006 sent representatives to attend an inter-religious meeting at Lariano, Italy, hosted by the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue, Vatican City, and the Office on Interreligious Relations and Dialogue of the World Council of Churches, Geneva, on Conversion: Assessing the Reality.

The HDAS website features a report on the Lariano meet, prepared by Brahmacharini Dr Vrinda Chaitanya and submitted to Swami Dayananda Saraswati, convener, HDAS


Conveniently missing is the declaration signed there, and the identity of the Hindu representatives deputed to attend.

The Lariano Declaration is a complete negation and mockery of Hindu Dharma. The Convener and Secretary HDAS obdurately refused to answer any questions regarding this absolutely secret diplomacy with the Catholic and Protestant churches and the reasons for signing that venomous document. The identity of the delegates sent remains a stubborn secret, along with the reasons for the selection of the said persons. Both Convener and Secretary HDAS were incandescent at being found out.

>>Lariano Declaration: poison quill in the Hindu heart

On 12-16 May 2006, an inter-religious meeting of representatives from Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and Yoruba religion, was hosted by the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue, Vatican City, and the Office on Interreligious Relations and Dialogue of the World Council of Churches, Geneva, on Conversion: Assessing the Reality.

Their concluding reflections and recommendations: [emphasis mine]

  • All of us believe that religions should be a source of uniting and ennobling humans. Religion, understood and practiced in the light of the core principles and ideals of each of our faiths, can be a reliable guide to meeting the many challenges before humankind.
  • Freedom of religion is a fundamental, inviolable and non-negotiable right of every human being in every country in the world. Freedom of religion connotes the freedom, without any obstruction, to practice one’s own faith, freedom to propagate the teachings of one’s faith to people of one’s own and other faiths, and also the freedom to embrace another faith out of one’s own free choice.
  • We affirm that while everyone has a right to invite others to an understanding of their faith, it should not be exercised by violating other’s rights and religious sensibilities. At the same time, all should heal themselves from the obsession of converting others.
  • Freedom of religion enjoins upon all of us the equally non-negotiable responsibility to respect faiths other than our own, and never to denigrate, vilify or misrepresent them for the purpose of affirming superiority of our faith.
  • We acknowledge that errors have been perpetrated and injustice committed by the adherents of every faith. Therefore, it is incumbent on every community to conduct honest self-critical examination of its historical conduct as well as its doctrinal / theological precepts. Such self-criticism and repentance should lead to necessary reforms inter alia on the issue of conversion.
  • A particular reform that we would commend to practitioners and establishments of all faiths is to ensure that conversion by ‘unethical’ means are discouraged and rejected by one and all. There should be transparency in the practice of inviting others to one’s faith.
  • While deeply appreciating humanitarian work by faith communities, we feel that it should be conducted without any ulterior motives. In the area of humanitarian service in times of need, what we can do together, we should not do separately.
  • No faith organisation should take advantage of vulnerable sections of society, such as children and the disabled.
  • During our dialogue, we recognized the need to be sensitive to the religious language and theological concepts of different faiths. Members of each faith should listen to how people of other faiths perceive them. This is necessary to remove and avoid misunderstandings, and to promote better appreciation of each other’s faiths.
  • We see the need for and usefulness of a continuing exercise to collectively evolve a ‘code of conduct’ on conversion, which all faiths should follow. We therefore feel that inter-religious dialogues on the issue of conversion should continue at various levels. (Vidyajyoti, Vol. 70, No. 8, August 2006: 625-628)

>>Objections to the Lariano Declaration

Appalled that representatives of the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha had surreptitiously put their signature to this document, without application of mind to the enormity of the crimes (fictitious in the case of Hindus) to which they were accepting blame and responsibility on behalf of Indian Hindus, the writer immediately took up the issue with HDAS.

I will mention only briefly the specific points of contention that I took up with Convener and Secretary HDAS, and avoid raising fresh objections that may occur to me now. I may mention that I passed on the text of the declaration to Ms. Radha Rajan, and she, perceiving other serious matters connected with this information, has written boldly for this website about a number of objectionable things happening in the name of Hindu Dharma. The anger and discomfort roused by her exposés are the reason for some particularly vicious calumny against her.

To return to the Vatican meet, the writer’s specific objections included:

  • It specifically endorses “the freedom to embrace another faith out of one’s own free choice.” In my understanding of Hindu Dharma, the family and not the individual is the smallest unit of the social organism, and this cannot be ripped apart by giving individuals the right to be brain-washed or bribed by an evangelist to abjure the religion and culture to which he/she was born. This is the basic tenet of all native traditions in the world, and by agreeing that individuals can be weaned away from non-monotheistic faiths, the Hindu leaders SECRETLY signing this declaration were violating the very foundations of the faith. The failure to respond to this charge is a self-indictment.
  • What was the need or urgency to sign any document in any gathering without a wider discussion of the same in the home country? If the Vatican document had been shown to any Shankaracharya or major Hindu leader or concerned Hindu citizenry, it would NEVER have been signed. It could only be signed because it was kept a closely guarded secret, and the names of the signatories are still undisclosed.
  • The Vatican document agrees that freedom of religion includes freedom to propagate one’s faith to “other faiths” also. What more could missionaries desire? Is this not making a mockery of the Acharya Sabha’s claims to represent, protect, and defend Dharma?
  • –        The document accepts that EVERY faith has perpetrated injustice in history, and must introspect and repent for the same. Will Convener HDAS like to tell the Hindus of India what these historical sins have been vis-à-vis other faith traditions, particularly the ones that have perpetrated murder and mayhem upon our people, our temples, our gods, and revered Swamis, who are even now being murdered for upholding dharma in the rural un-policed areas of the country?
  • All talk of mutual respect becomes hollow rhetoric in the light of these hideous concessions, which not only make the job of missionaries that much easier, but worse, assault Hindu Dharma by manipulating its very nature.
  • Will Convener HDAS tell the Hindus of India what are “ethical conversions”? A device to permit us to let our children and brothers be converted without resistance?
  • Does signing this document mean that the Acharya Sabha – or at least Convener HDAS – does NOT support the passing of Anti-Conversion legislations in Indian states, and that it would oppose such legislation at the national level, which is a demand of Hindus nation-wide? The question cannot be avoided and deserves an answer – not obfuscation, which is all we have got so far.
  • Finally, what steps has Convener HDAS taken to evolve the “code of conduct” on conversion, which it agreed to at the Vatican? Can we humble Hindus of India at least see this grand code, or is it one of the secret clauses of the Treaty of Versailles?

Years of secrecy and sullen silence have greeted these questions. But the basic questions remain – what is the purpose of Inter-faith Dialogue; who initiates it, and for what purpose?

>>Secret Semitic graft

In recent times, a plethora of bodies variously designated as the Dharma Raksha Manch, Global Foundation for Civilisational Harmony, Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha, Aim for Seva, Arsha Gurukul, etc., suddenly rose to prominence, with different clothes and different mandates. They are all involved in inter-faith dialogue internationally. One common thread that binds them is Swami Dayananda Saraswati. A close associate of his confessed a fierce desire to project Swamiji as a Hindu Pope, an ambition shared by the foreign bhaktas of other globetrotters!

A uni-polar source of religious authority is anathema to Hindu Dharma, yet the attempt to monotheise the faith is a covert agenda being attempted by many non-traditional swamis. I can say without fear of contradiction that this is also an American agenda. Some years ago, the American Dr Rajiv Malhotra, a close associate of Swami Dayananda Saraswati, managed to book a hall and deliver a two-day lecture at the India International Centre, on the need for Hindus to ‘corporatise’ their religious institutions and have a single point authority for the whole country! Only powerful patronage from someone in the IIC’s governing body could have swung this for him [I can hazard a guess that the patron was a man given undue and disproportionate importance at the Hindu Jewish Summit which would happen later].

The writer also specifically objected to the excessive presence and domination of the establishments of globetrotting gurus by White foreigners who claim to have become Hindu (but promote the agendas of their native traditions and countries), foreign Hindus (mostly American citizens), and perhaps some non-resident Indians (with stakes in the West). Both the natal-foreigners and naturalized-foreigners steer the discourse in a direction that serves the interests of Monotheistic nations and traditions. Hindu Acharyas joining these dialogues are going along with this, and we have every reason to question this deviation from dharma.

The Hindu intent of an inter-faith dialogue can only be to:

  • Get an outright declaration that conversions are bad and unacceptable, and will not be done on the bhumi of Bharat.
  • The writer insists that the Vatican 2006 document is a major sell-out of Dharma, that too, surreptitiously. None of those associated with that document and subsequent dialogues can now be trusted to represent Hindu Dharma in any respect, at any forums, and must cease and desist from all such secret summitry. Even governments which are notoriously secretive do not function with such non-transparency.
  • The writer has faced much emotional appeal to respect the Hindu Diaspora, which is allegedly totally committed to Bharat and claims a right to have a say in the internal affairs of Hindu dharma in Bharat. It is the writer’s considered opinion that:
  • India must concern herself with Hindus of Pakistan, Bangladesh and those sent to colonies as indentured labour.
  • Hindus who went to the West for “better prospects” can look after themselves, because they willfully abandoned their bhumi with the active connivance of their parents.
  • Hindus in America and Britain have taken to hectoring Hindu India about religious and cultural issues, to conform to the critiques of white Christians, and improve their own comfort levels.
  • We do not think they can serve any meaningful Hindu cause or battle.

>>Chennai Spiritual Fair, February 2009

As previously stated, the writer got no response from Swami Dayananda regarding the fruits of his foreign forays, if any, for the Hindu Samaj. On February 6, 2009, on reading certain newspaper reports regarding a spiritual fair at Chennai, the writer wrote a letter to Swami Dayananda Saraswati, which is reproduced below. The letter, which was at that time circulated among a select audience, is self-explanatory:


Swami Dayananda Saraswati ji
Convener, Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha

Sub: Some issues pertaining to Hindu Dharma and the Spiritual Fair at Chennai on 6 February 2009

Ref: Newspaper reports

Pu. Swami ji


As you are aware, I have for several years been deeply concerned about the multiple threats to Hindu Dharma and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India, which are in my view, interlinked. I have, in my own humble way, tried to inform public opinion about the nature and gravity of these threats, through every forum available to me.

It grieves me to say that in this task your perceptions and activities have diverged from what should have been a common goal and endeavour. As your current profile and actions can only compound confusion and further injure a seriously wounded Hindu civilisation that is fighting a crucial battle for survival in its own homeland, I am breaking decorum to bring my anxieties to your kind attention.

For this, I seek your forgiveness, as I am also making this letter public, both to reach a wider community of believers, as also to avoid the tragic failures of previous attempts to convey concerns over issues of critical concern to Hindu Dharma and its survival as a living, vibrant, and eternal non-monotheistic civilisation, and not a tailored-to-monotheistic-satisfaction contraption to which it is currently sought to be diminished.

Your tenure as Convener, Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha, has witnessed the most grievous assaults upon the Hindu Dharma in India, and far from providing leadership and solace to this injured community in the manner best exemplified by Guru Tegh Bahadur and Guru Gobind Singh some centuries ago, you have assumed the most peculiar attitudes and adopted the most unacceptable associations in public life.

From the time of Rishi Yajnavalkya, Hindu tradition has upheld the right to dissent even against the respected teachers, and this principal of ensuring that the spiritual preceptors do not depart from Dharma is most avidly endorsed and upheld by the Jaina Sampradaya to which I belong. I therefore take the liberty to boldly assert my unhappiness about certain issues.

The media has carried a photograph of a Spiritual Fair (whatever that means) to showcase the Service work of 40-odd Hindu organisations, and dancer Padma Subrahmanyam addressed the media along with Swami Mitrananda. The reports say Swami Dayananda Saraswati of the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha and “noted thinker” S. Gurumurthy will address the inauguration; the fair has been organised by the Chennai chapter of the Delhi-based Global Foundation for Civilisational Harmony (GFCH).

Many things are amiss here, and before I address issues specific to the Global Foundation for Civilisational Harmony, I must make a few basic points:-

The Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha (HDAS) was set up in 2002 as an apex body to represent the collective voice of Traditional Hindu Sampradayas, Mathams, Akharas, Peethas, etc. Your national and international status derives from being Convener of this august body of Hindu Dharma.

Far from representing and defending the collective consciousness of the nation-wide Hindu Samaj, the HDAS under your leadership has failed even to understand the challenges Hindu society has faced in the recent past.

The most singular failure is the inability to properly condemn, let alone fight, the ugly conspiracy that led to the arrest of Kanchi Shankaracharya Swami Jayendra Saraswati ji and the Bal Perivaar on cooked up murder charges.

Most unconscionable, however, is your persistent association on public platforms with the chartered accountant ——— and dancer ——–, who worked overtime to malign the Acharyas in Tamil society when this atrocity took place. Shri ——- wrote a series of articles in a secular newspaper readily accessible to him to impute guilt upon the Acharyas, and even travelled to Delhi at the invitation of the BJP Think Tank (shame on ——-) to tell aggrieved Hindus to ‘kindly shut up because the Brahmin Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu was going to prove the charges, just you wait.’ Well, we have waited patiently for nearly five years, and the charges seem as pie-in-the-sky now as they seemed to us then.

[Some names have been withheld so as not to divert attention from the role of HDAS convener – editor]

Shri —— even publicly announced that the Acharyas should abdicate their posts! On whose authority he said this, nobody knows, but when the Convener of the Acharya Sabha persistently hobnobs with such characters, questions must be asked about his own attitude towards Hindu Dharma and its revered Acharyas. Since private attempts to solicit answers and induce course corrections have met with rude contempt, it is time to go public.

Whatever her calibre as a dancer, —– has no status on matters of Hindu Dharma. Yet it is said that you, as Convener, HDAS, sent her to represent Hindu Dharma in some bogus inter-faith dialogue with the Vatican in 2006! The veracity or otherwise of this information has been denied to us, despite persistent attempts, and is missing on the HDAS website.

Inter-faith dialogue, particularly negotiations that yield documents that can be said to be binding, are NOT part of your mandate as Convener of the Acharya Sabha. They are even more reprehensible when they are conducted in secret – without full-fledged discussion by all traditional mathams, peethams, Acharyas and concerned citizens within India regarding their objectives and purpose, especially if they are at all desirable, and if documents should be signed without nation-wide circulation and debate within India.

The Vatican meeting came to my notice in the course of a study about forced conversions in India. I was shocked to discover that not only does it accept the possibility of conversions to monotheistic faiths – a shocking divergence from the very purpose of the Acharya Sabha – but it accepts equal guilt and responsibility for sins committed by monotheistic faiths upon non-monotheistic traditions.

All private attempts to elicit clarifications about the circumstances and compelling reasons for thus subjugating Hindu Dharma to the Vatican have since failed, and I do hope that now you will throw some light on this subject.

My opposition to the Hindu-Jewish Summitry you have indulged in recently is well-known. I have also been angered by the excessive profile you permitted to non-Indian citizens – specifically American Jews and American citizens of Indian origin – on matters pertaining to Hindu Dharma.

Please do not try to tell me that Hindus are an international community like the Jews, Christians and Muslims. They are not. The fact that a large number of Hindus abandoned their matrubhoomi after independence – for better money alone (though some few geniuses only went for the work facilities then available abroad) – does not make us an international community.

As an Acharya who is well-versed in the Scriptures, moreover, you would be aware that according to the Hindu tradition, the Jambidwipa of Bharat is the only place in the world where Karmas can be expiated, and the karmic trajectory is the cornerstone of Hindu dharma. Certainly one can be a Hindu bhakta anywhere, but karmas can be worked out in Bharat Desh alone.

I personally believe that India has a moral responsibility and duty towards Hindu brothers sent to various colonies as indentured labour, and now settled there. In this regard I have spoken up for the Malaysian Hindus being harassed by the Islamic nation they reside in, and like many others I have noticed the deafening silence of the Acharya Sabha regarding their plight.

You have been equally silent about the aggression faced by Bangladeshi Hindus, who even now are suffering grievously, and have at this very moment approached me for help in their cause.

This solicitude cannot extend to the Hindus of America and Britain – because they did not leave the country under duress of any kind, but only out of personal greed and a deliberate dissociation from the problems of the country of their birth.

Worse, instigated no doubt by the governments of the countries they now belong to, they are trying to meddle in the polity, economy, and native religion of the abandoned motherland – to serve the geo-strategic interests of their new country.

By providing a platform to such persons, and by surreptitiously tailoring its own activities in support of their cause, the Acharya Sabha is doing a tremendous disservice to both Hindu Dharma and Bharat Desh.

Specific to the Jewish Summits, I will briefly say that the document signed in Delhi was prepared beforehand and had more American than Indian inputs, and the academic committee proposed had non-scholars from the Hindu side, including foreigners.

But the follow-up meeting in Jerusalem was really scandalous – we need to know who authorized the Acharya Sabha to tacitly agree that idol-worship is an abomination and that Hindus are not really idol-worshippers (whatever that means). Your assault upon the glorious tradition of murti-puja and all rituals and prayers associated with it, which give strength and vigour to our civilisation, calls for a personal explanation.

If Hindus are unacceptable to Jews because they worship the Divine in the nirguna and saguna aspects, then the Jews can go climb a tree. Certainly no Hindu Acharya can degrade or eliminate the saguna aspect of our tradition. By doing this, you have betrayed the whole Hindu civilisation across all Sampradayas, and you owe us an apology.

I shudder to think what concessions you are about to make to Islam in the course of your inter-faith jamborees – perhaps you are going to seek amnesty for all jihadis in Indian jails.

As for the Global Foundation for Civilisational Harmony, it describes itself as an umbrella organisation of “Eastern religions.” The purpose of its exhibition is supposedly to “develop a dialogue between various cultures and faiths. According to the GFCH, all faiths are valid and all civilisations are needed to keep the earth colourful.”

The choice of the term “Eastern religions” instead of Hindu or Indian sampradayas and panthas gives the game away. This is nothing but cheap Western Christian gibberish to position Christianity as an ‘Eastern” faith and use that argument to impose it upon India.

Even if we accept the Jordan River and its whereabouts as part of the East, it still does not make Christianity (or Judaism or Islam) an Indian faith – hence there is no legitimacy to annihilate the Hindu Dharma in its own bhumi. Yet Acharya Sabha under your leadership seems willing to facilitate such Western Christian colonial designs upon India.

The very stated objective of the Spiritual Fair is flawed. To accept the falsehood that Hinduism (why use this colonial term?) is just a ritualistic and spiritual religion, and then prove (to whom?) that Hindus also serve society, is extremely disrespectful of Hindu faith and society. The Hindu tradition of service is deeply entrenched and recorded in detail by all foreign travellers in ancient times, and in fact suffered only because of the disgraceful manner in which the British Raj ruined the princely states.

Indeed, you may like to ponder if the hype over globalisation in recent years was not just a ruse to further ‘secularise’ Hindu society and disempower the traditional Bania Communities which remained the main funding avenues of all the dharmic activities that have continued in India since independence. That is the only reason why the creepy ——- wanted to monopolise the retail trade and throw out all the traditional shopkeepers and vegetable vendors. He has been rightly cut to size.

The GFCH talks about planning similar fairs for Buddhist, Jaina, Muslim and Christian organisations. I am astonished that the Bauddha, Jaina and Sikh sampradayas were not represented at this fair.

I am even more astonished to see Hindu faith traditions equated with monotheistic Islam and Christianity, both of which have a murderous history in India and unashamedly continue their physical and political assaults upon this country, with the full backing of the foreign powers that support conversions as a foreign policy objective.

The vacuous claim that all faiths are valid and needed to keep the earth colourful is actually a shameful act of disempowering Hindus who speak up and combat the cancer of conversions. If Acharya Sabha is joining the conversion club, this fact should at least be made known to the Hindu believers. If you are converting yourself into an all-religion club, then call yourself that, and move away from the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha.

Many more things agitate me, but this has already become a fairly substantial letter. I do hope that you will take this to the various sampradayas, mathams and peethas that comprise the Acharya Sabha and take the opinion of the revered Acharyas upon the issues raised, so that a wider debate is opened within the Hindu society about how best to face the myriad challenges to faith and country.

I apologize for any offence caused inadvertently, but the challenges to the nation are too grim to permit silence at this stage.

Warm regards and Namaskar

Sandhya Jain

Semitic graft on a Sanatana tree – Part 2

>>Supine summitry

Hindus brainwashed into believing that the Hindus of Bharat owe the Jews of the West some compensation for their ‘sufferings’ at the hands of their Christian compatriots, who believe there can be no questioning Jews on their claims to Palestine, and that dissent on any issue is out of the question, have had problems with the absence of a Jewish Infatuation on the part of this writer.

My objections are simple. Like Iranian president M. Ahmadinejad, I believe India as a nation and Hindus as a people have had no hand in the claimed historical sufferings of Jews through the millennia. Intellectual dissent about the Jewish story is now growing among Jerusalem and other Jews themselves, and should be followed with respect.

Leaving Jews to work out the internal dissent regarding their true history, what is undeniable is that Hindus of India cannot be made to accept ‘guilt’ for crimes they did not commit. We owe Jews, particularly the Ashkenazim dominant voice of International Jewry, no moral or historical restitution. They are, to us, like any other people towards whom we neither offer nor nurture any hostility.

Objections to Swami Dayananda’s Hindu Jewish Summitry is exactly as to the covert diplomacy with the Vatican – grave liberties were taken with the very definition of Hindu Dharma in the guise of promoting understanding between the two most ancient and living civilisations.

The First Hindu-Jewish Leadership Summit (6-7 February 2007, New Delhi) was held under the aegis of the World Council of Religious leaders and the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha and Aim for Seva. There were predictable noises about promoting understanding, tolerance, peace and conflict resolution through religion (whatever that means).

Some traditional mathams were present, but the Swamis spoke little or no English; the vocal Hindu component comprised of Indian and American Hindus whom Swami Dayananda ji is personally comfortable with; numbers were made up from Swamiji’s own organisations like Aim for Seva and Arsha Vidya family. Your writer was present as an observer and her objections to the meeting being conducted as a personal fiefdom of Swami ji were disrespected.

The Jews came with a heavy duty delegation led by Chief Rabbi of Israel Yona Metzger (Ashkenazim); Chief Rabbi David Rosen, President, International Jewish Committee for inter-religious consultation and International Director of Inter-religious Affairs, American Jewish Committee; Rabbi Professor Daniel Sperber, Professor of Talmud and Jewish studies, Bar Ilan University; Rabbi Dr. Israel Singer, Chairman, Policy Council of the World Jewish Congress and Chairman, International Jewish Committee for Inter-religious Consultation; Rabbi Moshe Garelik, Director of Rabbinical Center of Europe; Chief Rabbi Albert Guigui, Chief Rabbi of Belgium; and Chief Rabbi Isak Haleve, Chief Rabbi of Turkey. Thereciprocal Hindu-Jewish leadership Summit took place in Jerusalem in February 2008, hosted by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the American Jewish Committee.

>>Semitic definition of Hindu Dharma

The core of my objections centered round the joint declaration signed by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, Chief Rabbi, Shear Yeshuv Cohen and the Convener, Hindu Dharmacharya Sabha, Swami Dayananda Saraswati. Prepared in advance and accepted without application of mind by the Hindus, it read [emphasis mine]:

“The participants reaffirmed their commitment to deepening this bilateral relationship predicated on the recognition of One Supreme Being, Creator  and Guide of the Cosmos; shared values; and similar historical experiences. The parties are committed to learning about one another on the basis of respect for the particular identities of their respective communities and seeking, through their bilateral relationship, to be a blessing to all.

“Recognised that the One Supreme Being, both in its formless and manifest aspects, has been worshipped by Hindus over the millennia. This does not mean that Hindus worship ‘gods’ and ‘idols’. The Hindu relates to only the One Supreme Being when he/she prays to a particular manifestation.

“Central to the Jewish and Hindu world view is the concept of the sanctity of life, above all, the human person. Accordingly, the participants categorically reject violent methods to achieve particular goals. In this spirit, the participants expressed the hope that all disputes be resolved through dialogue, negotiation and compromise promoting peace, reconciliation and harmony.”

The questions which Swami Dayananda is dodging are:

  • Is Hindu belief about the nature of creation the same as that in the Judaeo-Christian tradition?
  • Assuming that Hindus and Jews have shared values, what are the ‘similar historical experiences’? Surely Jews cannot credibly blame Islam or Muslims for their history.
  • Most unacceptable is the diminution of the glorious tradition of murti puja by claiming that Hindus do not worship ‘gods’ or ‘idols’ (a hideous colonial missionary term that has been accepted without consultation with thinking Hindus). The desire to conform to Semitic tradition is complete with the statement – ‘The Hindu relates to only the One Supreme Being…’ Without going into the theology of any faith, it  should suffice to say that far from explaining the Hindu or Jewish traditions in terms of their own concepts, the convener HDAS allowed superimposition of Semitic categories upon Hindu dharma on Hindu bhumi.
  • Finally, the last point is cleverly worded to privilege human life and garner support for Jewish political objectives. The Vedic worldview recognises the sanctity of the whole creation, both animate and inanimate without distinction, and seeks the well-being of all; there is no privileging of the human person at all, and this is a common strain in the Hindu, Baudha, and Jaina sampradayas.

It may be pertinent to mention here that religion and politics go hand-in-hand in the Abrahamic traditions, of which Judaism is the first-born. The Hindu tradition however, has from its hoary origins dispersed spiritual-political-economic power amongst the populace via the Varna system, precisely to prevent concentration of power in any one social category. Hindu gurus inadequately aware of this critical difference could inadvertently advance a Jewish political agenda while supposedly discussing religion (as we shall see later)! Inter alia, we may note that the Rabbi David Rosen of the American Jewish Congress has close links to politicos and money bags all over America, and has been a frequent past contributor to the Democratic Party; as president of the so-called liberal-leaning American Jewish Congress he gave $100,000 to the Republicans when Bush decided to assault Iraq.

To conclude, there is nothing ‘Hindu’ in this joint declaration. I cannot say if the nuances of this declaration were properly explained to the Swamis who graced the occasion and spoke little or no English; but Swami Dayananda ji and his cohorts can have no such excuse.

>>The Hindu Swastika

The reciprocal Second International Hindu-Jewish Summit was held in February 2008 in the city of Jerusalem. I am at a loss to understand why, given the disputed nature of that city, the meeting was not held in the Israeli capital of Tel Aviv. To this day, I believe it was politically and civilisationally wrong of Swami Dayananda ji to privilege the Jewish claim to that city.

The joint declaration reiterated the points of the Delhi declaration, and made a polite acknowledgement that all religions are sacred and valid for their respective peoples. It asserted that to promote ‘the correct understanding of Judaism, Hinduism and their histories, it was agreed that text books and reference material may be prepared in consultation with the scholars’ group under the aegis of this Summit.’

Here it will suffice to say that the Hindu component of the so-called scholars’ group had neither academic training nor standing for the said task [which enraged one of the members when I pointed it out to him]. HDAS did not even raise the issue of the powerful American Jewry taking an interest in correcting the hideous distortion of Hindu dharma in American school textbooks – such was the seriousness of the Hindu delegation.

HDAS was most triumphant that it got the Israeli and American Jews to accept that the ‘Svastika is an ancient and greatly auspicious symbol of the Hindu tradition… A distorted version of this sacred symbol was misappropriated by the Third Reich in Germany, and abused as an emblem under which heinous crimes were perpetrated against humanity, particularly the Jewish people. The participants recognize that this symbol is and has been sacred to Hindus for millennia, long before its misappropriation.’ It was ecstatic that the Jews agreed that there was no Aryan invasion of India!

So proud was Swami Dayananda Saraswati at his achievements at Jerusalem, that he wrote an article for New Indian Express (9 March 2008), saying the “Jerusalem meet concluded with a landmark declaration that Hindus worship ‘one supreme being’ and are not really idolatrous.” Claiming this as a profound victory, he chortled, “Judaism was born of the complete repudiation of idol worship and rabbinic literature abounds with denunciations of idolatry in an entire tractate of the Talmud devoted to this… Hinduism has been perceived by them as idolatrous and promoting many gods…”

[This is outrageous. A Hindu guru who upholds the legitimacy for Hindus of the literature of another religion, and tries to make Hindu Dharma pass standards set by that intolerant sect, is betraying the Devas, the Dharma, the bhaktas, the Desh – nothing more need be said in this matter. In one stroke, he has also legitimised the missionary and jihadi hatred of and assault upon Hindu dharma in Hindu bhumi].

Swami Dayananda added, “When they understood that no form is separate from Isvara and the particular form enshrined in a temple is but an altar of worship, they did not see any real issue to contend with…” Once the fundamental misconception was removed, the Rabbinate also affirmed that the ‘svastika is an ancient and auspicious symbol of the Hindu tradition…’

Swami ji exuberantly averred, “The importance of this affirmation may be understood from the fact that a Hindu temple in Detroit was vandalised a few years ago by the Jewish community offended by a huge svastika rangoli at the entrance of the temple.”

Does this mean that if the Jews were unconvinced then it was okay for American Jews to feel free to vandalise Hindu temples there; can we extend this logic to jihadis in the Kashmir Valley? And what is an ‘altar of worship’ – a secular platform like a kitchen board on which vegetables are chopped? This humiliation and degradation of the holy icons of the Hindu pantheon is disgraceful; words cannot adequately condemn it.

Swamiji concluded the article by plugging his other organizational hat – the Global Foundation for Civilisational Harmony [GFCH] – for conflict avoidance and resolution through dialogue among different religions. The GFCH, he said, “in which some well-known religious and spiritual leaders of different faiths participated, has a very significant role to play to bring about this healthy understanding among religions… and help remove wrong perceptions arising from an absence of true understanding of each other’s faiths, paving the way for harmony and mutual respect among religions. All religious faiths and religious leaders must extend their whole-hearted support to this great initiative.”


The purpose of begging Jews to accept the sanctity of the Hindu Swastika was a ‘pretend movement’ to seek an international ban on it for being hurtful to Jewish sentiment on account of its association with Nazi Germany – though more than sixty years have passed since the Holocaust, the survivors are mostly dead and gone, and today it is Jews who are causing international concern over their treatment of Palestinian Arabs and role in provoking a crisis with Iran.

Once again there was sullen rage when the writer privately pointed out that:

  • Swami ji should have told the Jews that they came to India for protection after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in AD 70, and have been living in peace and with complete religious freedom ever since
  • It was the duty of the Jews to know and understand the dharma of the Hindu people who had protected their lives and guaranteed their religious-cultural freedom in India
  • They would surely know that Swastika, Om etc are the eternal sacred symbols of all Indic faiths, and have no reason to link the same with Hitler
  • If they did not know, their scholars like the famous Martha Nussbaum could surely enlighten them
  • If Jews really hated the Swastika because of Hitler, the legitimate time to ban it was after the Second World War, when India was unaware of the politics of religion!
  • The fact that this false controversy was being created in the present moment was to make unwise Hindus beg for and receive fake concessions for the Hindu people.
  • The declarations of the summits are actually hate speech against Hindu Dharma.

Far from addressing any of the substantive issues raised regarding the writer’s objections to the manner in which the Inter-Faith Dialogue was conducted, certain American associates of Swami ji stepped forward to malign “Hindu activism” as the realm of “disturbed and cognitively dysfunctional persons”.

As I was unfamiliar with the meaning of this psycho-babble, I placed some information about Rabbi Yona Metzger – kingpin of the Hindu-Jewish Summitry – before them so they could clarify the meaning of “disturbed and cognitively dysfunctional persons.” Readers can judge the calibre of persons allowed to redefine the nature of Hindu Dharma under the benign gaze of Swami Dayananda, convener HDAS!

  • In 2005, Haaretz reported that Israel’s Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi Yona Metzger informed the High Court of Justice that he suspended himself from his positions as religious court magistrate at the Rabbinical High Court and as member of the committee for appointing religious magistrates, following suspicions that the rabbi accepted bribes from the David Citadel Hotel in Jerusalem. Police claimed sufficient evidence to try Metzger for fraud and breach of trust.
  • In April 2002, Haaretz reported allegations that Rabbi Yona Metzger sexually harassed four men of various ages and from various sectors of society. The report claimed that two of the men successfully passed a polygraph test, at the request of a newspaper.

It is astonishing that the Government of India gave a visa to such a person.

>>Montréal: redefinition continues

In September 2006 (the same year that secret envoys were sent to Lariano, Italy), the McGill University, Montréal, organised a seminar on World’s Religions after September 11: A Global Congress. As one who was then impressed with Swami Dayananda and knew one of the organisers, I played a role in having Swami ji invited to the Congress.

His address, as posted by a bhakta present there, had something for everyone. Specifically, he said, “The Human Rights UN charter has the article number 18, which talks about the right to change one’s religion. If one wants to change one’s religion, one must not be denied that freedom. One can change one’s religion in private, and in community, and one should be able to profess one’s religion. It is a good thing that we have in the Charter of this global body, a clause protecting religious freedom…”

Nothing in the subsequent verbiage against conversions can detract from the fact that Swami Dayananda Saraswati let Hindus down by telling an international audience that freedom to change religion was an inalienable right of the individual – that is not the Hindu dharmic view at all.

In the entire world, he must be the sole religious leader who derives religious inspiration and instruction from a text constructed by the Christian west to further its proselytisation agenda. He must immediately cease and desist from projecting himself as a Hindu religious leader, much less the Sole Spokesman (another Semitic malady) of the Hindu Samaj.

Semitic graft on a Sanatana tree – Part  3

>>Nityananda, HDAS and GFCH

On March 3, 2010, the writer wrote to persons connected to the HDAS to seek confirmation regarding the sex scandal exposed by Sun TV, which involved Swami Nityananda, a founder member of the Global Foundation for Civilisational Harmony, a body closely intertwined with Swami Dayananda Saraswati (see previous articles).

The writer wished to know what action the Global Foundation and HDAS intended to take in the light of Nityananda’s indiscretions. The writer expressed concern that more prurient videos of the said swami and other venerables may be available in America, for which we would have to be prepared.

Seizing the opportunity to reiterate the writer’s concerns over the easy infiltration and control of Hindu ashrams by Westerners, the writer observed, “The white man does not hand over his women to black Hindu sadhus without an ulterior motive, and this is particularly true of the Jews, who adhere to their faith and culture with utmost tenacity. Only Hindu sadhus are content to wallow in sex and money when they are corrupted – all monotheist clergy and laity are fiercely committed to the political agenda of world dominion and never let it out of their sight.”

Asserting that globetrotting swamis are the bane of our country and need to be curbed with a firm hand, the writer said Hindu hierarchy must allot them a secondary status, and they must no longer presume to speak for Hindu Samaj or Hindu Dharma at the global level. Any secretly signed ‘binding’ declarations are unequivocally rejected by Indian Hindus.

Finally, the writer said that given the unsavoury activities of Nityananda, promoted for proximity to Swami Dayananda Saraswati, and the complete failure of Swami Dayananda as HDAS convener to defend Hindu dharma from evangelical assault in the course of his globe-trotting or to defend the Kanchi Acharyas from criminal vilification as part of a global conspiracy against Hindu Dharma, they must walk into the sunset together. The writer demanded that Swami Dayananda immediately step down as convener, HDAS.

>>Abuse and Response

A flood of abuse followed from anonymous writers and some persons from America. Few persons of social standing came forward with intellectual arguments in defence of Swami Dayananda. The writer is not going to delve into the scurrilous allegations levelled, but points out with sadness that despite polite but pointed exchanges with Swami Jyotirmayananda who played an active role in spreading the libel, the admirers and colleagues of Swami Dayananda kept their fight dirty, most likely because they had no moral ground on which to stand, as we shall see later.

On March 4, 2010, the writer wrote to Swami Jyotirmayananda regarding the dharmic aspects of the Hindu struggle (reproduced below):

Respected Swami Jyotirmayananda ji


It is a hoary Hindu tradition that the Mahabharata war was fought for Dharma, though the material reward was a kingdom. That war, staved off for many years by the puissant diplomacy of Sri Krishna, eventually saw two powerful armies meet on the plains of Kurukshetra. Stalwarts of the level of Bhishma Pitamah, Dronacharya and Karna on one side, Abhimanyu and Ghatotkacha on the other, were sacrificed before one side emerged victor.

Today’s Kurukshetra encompasses the entire landmass of India, and her hoary Dharma, culture and civilisational ethos, which are under the combined and calibrated assault of the Corporate-Judaeo-Christian world, with the slavish Muslim world serving as suicidal mercenaries, with no share in the ultimate loot, only a slice of heaven.

The stakes are not only so much higher, but the war is that much nastier, as there is no kinship or dharmic commonality that can impose restraint. There is no Sri Krishna, and Hindus are clueless how to face the enemy. Sadly, learned Swamis who should be in the forefront of galvanizing the public to recognise the enemy and gather on the battlefield, are reluctant to do their dharmic duty. They seem to have accepted a Faustian deal to allow the enemy a free run of the land in return for the safety of their rich ashrams (abroad as well), though how long such a promise would be respected is anyone’s guess.

I say this with sadness because you have stepped forward on the Swami Nityananda scandal in an unsatisfactory manner, without even declaring your side. You have [1] forwarded a foolish threat by ——- to launch a defamation case against me and another lady, when there is no defamation in anything I posted to a few PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS, nor does the said gentleman have any locus standi in the matter! [2] You have put up some posts on the issue on your own blog, which can only be called unhelpful, in my personal opinion.

Swamiji, please allow me to briefly enumerate the crux of the issues being raised repeatedly by Smt Radha Rajan and myself, in our respective ways:-

  • Hindus of Hindustan have specific rights and interests vis-à-vis this native bhumi of Hindu dharma, which cannot be shared by anyone else
  • Islam and Christianity view the bhumi differently from natal Hindus and seek to overturn the natal tradition, and hence the intrinsic conflict with Hindus of Hindustan
  • Two generations of Indian students were instigated by their own parents to study and work abroad, seek Western citizenship, to enjoy the  fruits of life and progress denied by a socialist Nehruvian India. Had these persons remained in India, they would have been part of the Nehruvian secular crowd! [Meanwhile, the rest of us liberated the economy… and continue to live here…]
  • When the West decided to completely decimate the Muslim world and directly seize its strategic and economic assets, it decided to ‘encourage’ secular Hindus of India to start demonizing Islam. The PIOs were also secular, but they were asked to pretend to be concerned about Hindu dharma and to invent a category called Global Hindu – an oxymoron if ever there was one.
  • To establish their credentials and also acquire some self-esteem, they took up the task of seeking to correct the anti-Hindu venom in academia in the West, especially America, but proved ill-equipped for the task. Those among them with real scholarship did not want to get their hands dirty.
  • This group penetrated the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha along with foreigner bhaktas and tried to establish the credentials of certain swamis, to direct Hindu concerns on this bhumi in ways that could only suit the West – this alienated genuine Hindus of India.
  • Now these self-styled American Hindu academics are running scared on the issue of the California [should read Texas – editor] textbook battle, and are irate that we know this.
  • They are irate that we are not impressed with globe-trotting Swamis with whom they have a back-scratching club – and neither side can deliver anything to the West because they do not possess the bhumi.
  • They are now working overtime to take over traditional Hindu bodies any which way. There are many useful idiots available.
  • But the high noon of their brief eminence is already over and I think they realise that they have no status in America or India. White Americans will realise that alienated Hindus are soon caught out and cannot help enslave the country. This is not a culture that cherishes Jai Chands.

To return to the current issue of Swami Nityananda, whatever the circumstances in which Sun TV did the exposé on him, the channel is too distinguished to not do a thorough check before airing the video clip. It is foolish for American Hindus unknown in India and running away from the California [read Texas – editor] textbook issue to argue that Nityananda is a victim because he was opposing Christian conversions – no globe-trotting swami has seriously opposed conversions.

The crux of our critique of HDAS and Swami Dayananda is that he has opened the door for conversions in the name of inter-faith dialogue! He has consistently refused to answer questions about the representatives who went to the Vatican in 2006, and other issues, which do not need repetition here.

It is pertinent that Swami Nityananda was considered dubious in many quarters, with reports of incidents of having being roughed up by the public for misbehaviour. Swami Dayananda ji has promoted such ‘spiritual novices’ in august bodies like the HDAS and GFCH, and is thus responsible for this sordid chapter in our lives.

I conclude with the gentle reminder, which I hope you will not resent too much, that the issues raised have been consistently evaded by those duty bound to give an explanation to Hindu society. Instead they are hiding behind the feigned indignation of unknown bhaktas, which brings them more discredit that they deserve. Swami Dayananda cannot face the public, he must immediately step down as Convener, Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha.

Namaste and warm regards

Sandhya Jain

>>Nemesis and the Defenders of the False Faith

The days and weeks that followed this letter do not bear repetition. Suffice it to say that we had a painful time; it was only the sheer lucidity of the Inner Voice that kept us going.

Faith and steadfastness were rewarded on March 31, 2010, when an admirer forwarded a confidential e-mail sent by Dr Rajiv Malhotra to some select persons. Dr Malhotra who describes himself as an “American patriot” and “non-Hindutva Hindu,” played an active role in trying to ‘corporatise’ the Hindu tradition and was part of the Hindu component of the Hindu-Jewish Summit in Delhi and Jerusalem (such is Swami Dayananda’s faith in non-Indians).

The e-mail is reproduced below in totality, with no names concealed, as it is a first person account, and anyway it is time to come out with what measure of truth is available to us. What Malhotra describes are the negotiations in Haridwar led by Swami Dayananda in persuading Nityananda to step down from his posts and save the global Hindu network from further damage. That matters were very serious can be gauged from the presence of legal eagle Ram Jethmalani.

The writer’s interventions/explanations are in brackets:


Efforts to bring a unity between Swami Nithyananda (SN) and Swami Dayananda Saraswati (SDS) have reached a deadlock which could seriously hurt SN as well as Hinduism more generally. While I was in India I had direct access to the relevant parties to make my own assessment every day, and also I could plead for their unity. Neither of these is possible while I sit here.

The SDS camp has Gurumurthy as its main advisor, and Manohar Shinde is also on that side though not as energetic or creative as Gurumurthy. There are a few other prominent sadhus as well, many of whom I brought in and had them meet with SN.

[Manohar Shinde is an American Hindu who reputedly established Nityananda in south India and built him up in both countries with help from persons like Malhotra. If Swami Dayananda was actively involved in getting Nityananda to quit his posts – when they do not belong to the same religious lineage, indeed, Nityananda is said to be a self-styled sanyasi – and reputedly provided him shelter at Haridwar for these protracted negotiations, then obviously the Nityananda scam affects his own professional (not dharmic) interests in ways not fully apparent yet. This can only have a link with Swami ji’s foreign bhaktas and their goals; hence Swami ji’s conduct bears legitimate scrutiny].

The SN camp is in disarray with a few close inner circle men calling the shots. I continue to get reports from some of them who seem open minded. But the main problem seems to be a man named Aiya and his wife, who started the initial fund raising to establish the ashram. He is the chief executive of the ashram and the boss in SN’s absence. He has been most incompetent in my assessment. (The contracts for tantra with certain women were signed by Aiya and not by SN personally.) Aiya has also become very unpopular amongst young ashramites now, due to his lack of leadership and courage.

[If contracts for tantra were signed by someone other than Nityananda, this is even worse. This was not dharma of any variety – a sanyasi was having sex with multiple partners in an ashram, and contracts were signed to this effect by his manager; this makes the establishment nothing but a sex parlour. The said manager has only to replace Nityananda with someone else and continue the same business! This is utterly scandalous. Indian authorities must investigate these contracts and shut down these fake ashrams; Hindus will not protect such debasement on the pretext of saving Dharma. The dharma needs to be cleansed of this scum.

Meanwhile, the Bar Councils may investigate if lawyers are supposed to draw up such obscene contracts, and how they are validated!].

The starting position of SDS when I approached him was that SN is guilty as charged, a crook and fraud who should be exposed. (They have had differences over the nature of teachings for several years and SN had asked me last year to mediate.) There have also been other persons claiming potentially criminal charges, such as some parents of girls who live in the ashram – some with signed agreements for tantra of the kind I have seen with Ranjitha (the actress). But I was able to influence these parties on the basis that this would devastate Hinduism. Gurumurthy joined me on this premise as well and has been extremely active every day.

[What is the locus standi of these persons to be dealing with such a sensitive and criminal matter at all; how dare they protect a sleazy sanyasi at the cost of female victims?

And if Swami Dayananda was really having differences with Nityananda, why did he allow him into the Global Foundation for Civilisational Harmony? Why was Swami Dayananda under the control of Manohar Shinde?]

So the deal being negotiated was to reduce the heat on SN by having him step aside asap [as soon as possible], and let some senior sadhus/acharya (like SDS or others he helps to find) step in temporarily. This would appease both SDS and the angry parents, and we felt it would also give the media a symbolic victory so they might bring closure to this scandal. That’s when the “resignation” idea was floated in order to soften this landing. Resignation was SN’s idea, announced in a taped interview with me which has never been aired. The language drafted, as to what should be said when SN announces that he is stepping down, went back and forth between these camps, and with lawyers.

SDS was insisting that SN should admit/confess his wrongdoing, but I was able to convince him that this could turn into legal trouble for SN. SDS also wanted a minimum 5 year period of exile for SN, which I felt was too harsh, because the loss of revenue when SN was gone would kill the organization.

[Astonishing that Rajiv Malhotra could think of revenue at a time like this! And Swami Dayananda is an accessory to all this scandal and criminality by not insisting that Nityananda is not fit for the spiritual life and must renounce the sacred saffron robe and return to civil life, where he should seek psychotherapy for his problem of sex addiction. This is the ONLY WAY Hindu dharma deals with deviant sadhus. Asking for a five year exile is like the Papacy shifting pederasts around the globe, introducing new innocent victims to criminally abusive priests.

It is also unacceptable that Swami Dayananda knew about these despicable sex contracts and did not hand Nityananda over to the police, but protected him and allowed him to make a getaway to Shimla, where he was eventually arrested on April 21].

On both counts the SDS camp softened. That’s how I left things in India. Agreement seemed very close. On the day I arrived in USA, Manohar Shinde told me that prior to his departure for USA on 24th [March], SN would be making the public announcement surrounded by his devotees in the ashram. He was going to Bangalore to be part of this event. But all this fell apart.

Here is the scene now:

Gurumurthy and Manohar Shinde are openly upset at SN for betraying dharma, and have turned against him. They want to take a tough stand, including the resignation of all the inner circle of the ashram and not just SN personally. The language of the announcement by SN has not been agreed upon. I roped in Venkatanarayanan ji (a very competent retired IAS man who is secretary of Acharya Sabha and Swami Dayananda Saraswati’s right-hand man). What I felt were minor language differences are being seen by both sides as very serious unresolved issues. The deal has come unhinged at least for now.

The SN camp has suddenly got their own confidence boosted, i.e. that they will be able to beat the problem without help of other acharyas. This was partly caused by email supporters from everywhere encouraging them to fight and not cave in. But Aiya is a key influence in this, as he does not want to step down from his position of power.

On the opposite side, the campaign by Sandhya Jain and Radha Rajan made SN appear as a fraud in the eyes of many Hindu supporters. The SDS camp started having second thoughts about appearing too close to SN. In this sense, Radha and Sandhya have succeeded in splitting Hindus among themselves, the exact opposite of my attempts of bringing them closer. They see me as the man trying to create such a pan-Hindu coalition. They don’t like this for some strange reason that I don’t understand. The more I tried to help build such a coalition, the angrier Sandhya/Radha became. Before she launched her pubic attack against me, I got private emails from Radha scolding me for building this coalition of “bad” swamis – she regards both SN and SDS as bad Hindus.

The SN camp meanwhile has lost patience for support to arrive from SDS. They had their local lawyer take a bad step that was AGAINST the advice of Jethmalani. He filed a petition in the Karnataka High Court asking that all investigations against SN must stop. Jethmalani had warned that courts never like to be told to stop the legal due process. The high court rejected the petition immediately. This triggered the Karnataka government to escalate the investigation. Previously all the cases were being investigated by the local district police, who are easy to influence especially through BJP.

[No comment]

But the case has been transferred to a special prosecutor who is said to be above influence, and his detective force is very tough minded. Gurumurthy/Shinde feel that this spells more trouble for SN, and that they won’t be able to use much BJP clout to save SN. But today I spoke with the SN camp to get their side of the story. The top man next to SN himself told me that they are confident that the criminal case cannot produce any serious CRIMINAL charges. I don’t have the facts directly like I used to a week ago. So I can merely pass on what each side says.

There is a good chance that the attempt to build a pan-Hindu coalition won’t materialize. We lost a great opportunity to unify. Venkatji has worked very hard as private advisor to me [secretary HDAS is a private adviser to an American?] behind the scenes, and he has said all along that such a task is next to impossible but worth trying. (Actually I had proposed his name as the head administrator for an interim management until the dust settles and life can return back to normal.)

There are numerous spoilers among the Hindus who I don’t wish to name at this point. Many of them have been like vultures wanting to chip away pieces of the Nithyananda assets, and merge them into their own institutions. I received some emails proposing that I join this effort, and that if they have their way, I could get some of the assets as well. I find this disheartening and a-dharmic to say the least.

I have no clue what’s going to happen. I just wanted to give you this PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL report. Please feel free to give me your thoughts. I am unavailable to jump back in, though I can monitor the situation from USA.



[The above is self-explanatory. Swami Dayananda gave non-Indians the run of the place, and allowed them to use HDAS and other bodies to create a so-called global coalition – which would be run from America for an imperial American purpose, with Indian Hindus playing the role of menials and coolies! It was a poorly crafted edifice – two women could huff and puff and blow it all down!!!]

>>Joker in the pack

The real Nemesis is yet to come. Even as the above e-mail reached me, Nityananda announced his resignation from all ashram posts and trusts; the writer asked if he had also resigned from the Global Foundation for Civilisational Harmony. The writer asked an office bearer how Nityananda came to be selected to be in the GFCH in the first place. The writer shared her apprehensions that Nityananda was being built up to succeed Swami Dayananda Saraswati in the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha, and shuddered to think what would have happened if the scandal had broken then.

[Despite denials, the contention that Nityananda was being groomed to succeed Swami Dayananda at the behest of their mutual American bhaktas is corroborated by the personal interest Swami Dayananda took in Nityananda’s resignation from posts in the latter’s own institutions – and protection of ashram properties where Americans may have invested! While the Malhotra e-mail cited above was not available to the writer at the time of expressing this apprehension, the fears stand vindicated by the said e-mail].

On April 1, 2010, the office-bearer replied that Nityananda “has resigned orally and we are awaiting a formal letter from him. Once that is done, we would be removing his name as one of our patrons. Secondly, his name was suggested by his US based devotees including Dr Manohar Shinde, who is one of our Trustees also.”

During further clarifications, the office-bearer denied Nityananda was being groomed as successor to Swami Dayananda in HDAS,

“I cannot comment on HDAS as I am only concerned with GFCH. However, as far as I know, HDAS membership is confined to Acharyas who have mutts older than 300 years. Forget Swami Nithyananda, even Swami Dayananda Saraswathi is not a member of HDAS. He is a non-Member Convener. His successor too will be nominated by the Acharyas and not by Dayananda Saraswathi. This is my information and understanding.”

But there was a Freudian slip. Obviously the gentleman had discussed the matter with someone who literally dictated the response. It was to be communicated as the office-bearers’ own reply, but for a small human error – the office-bearer deleted the masthead and much of the e-mail, but a small portion of the original message remained:

“Also write to her that HDAS is limited to acharyas who have mutts older than 300 years. Even Dayananda Saraswathi is not a member of HDAS. He is appointed as a non member convenor. His successor will be nominated by the acharyas, not by Dayananda Saraswathi. SG” [spelling mistake of convener is original]

Obviously, some non-Swamis have arrogated the powers of HDAS to themselves and speak authoritatively on behalf of the organisation. This vindicates the reservations some of us have about Swami Dayananda Saraswati and the manner in which he is conducting the affairs of the HDAS.

The defence rests with these exposés.

>>Tail piece

One malicious attack on us was a multi-part series on ‘two media cats.’ It instantly brought to mind the observation by the great American writer, Mark Twain:

‘A man who tries to carry a cat home by its tail will learn a lesson that cannot be learned in any other way.’


  • Some of the most vicious abuse – by a man hiding behind a pseudonym – was hosted on Dr Rajiv Malhotra’s Sulekha website:
  • However, it was removed at some stage, possibly after the arrest of Nityananda on 22 April 2010.
  • Readers curious about all the abuse being peddled on the internet may contact Swami Jyotirmayananda, a close associate of Swami Dayananda Saraswati, at His blog VivekaJyoti is currently devoted to this calumny and the latest post (23 April 2010) is by Dr Krishnan Ramaswamy, one of the editor’s of Rajiv Malhotra’s eminently forgettable book, Invading the Sacred. The link is
  • Swami Jyotirmayananda was one of the Program Coordinators of the Dharma Summit convened by Swami Dayananda Saraswati at Rutgers University, New Jersey, in August 2005; and a Coordination Committee Member of the HDAS Second Convention, Mumbai, in October 2005.
  • On April 4, 2010, the writer wrote a final appeal to Swami Dayananda:

Respected Swami Dayananda ji


I am sorry at your continued silence in the wake of filthy abuse launched by your anonymous admirers. Anyone with intelligence can see that some huge vested interest has been hurt by just a few articles written by Radha ji and myself. This vituperative attack cannot cover up the fact that what is being sought to be defended was never in the Hindu or Indian interest. We do not know the dimensions of what has been shaken, but it was clearly very big indeed and you are at the centre of it.

Your continued silence in the face of such hysterical and anonymous hate-peddling is nothing but complicity. Many good human beings have been put off completely and offered private support to us, and you and your supporters will now experience the law of diminishing returns. This is just to put on record another direct missive from me, and to tell you that you cannot hide eternally behind silence when your ethical roofing is in tatters.


Sandhya Jain


The Nityananda saga came to a sordid end when Karnataka Police arrested him in the state of Himachal Pradesh on April 21, 2010. It transpires that the godman was on the run, lacking courage to face his accusers and answer the charges against him – this is what Rajiv Malhotra alluded to in his confidential email cited above when he said the proposed statement in the Bangalore Ashram, surrounded by devotees and Manohar Shinde, had fallen through.

Shame that Swami Dayananda and his American cohorts spent so much time and energy to build up his hollow man, even calling Mr Ram Jethamalani to retrieve the situation. In contrast, Swami ji’s silence during the entire ordeal of the Kanchi Acharyas was simply deafening.