Saturday, March 20, 2010

Geetanjali speaks throughout for her mother Surekha

THE COURT CASES
Case 1 First Writ Petition
4 November 2008: Writ Petition filed by Mrs. Geetanjali JB accepted by the additional government advocate, High Court of Orissa. The court orders that the petitioner “may make representation” before the Secretary of Home Affairs, the Secretary, Internal Security, and the Secretary, Information and Broadcasting, adding that these agencies “may ensure that there should be no publication of the book ‘The Lives of Sri Aurobindo’ by Peter Heehs without obtaining no objection from them during the pendancy of the representation”. Read more... 
Case 2 Keonjhar Criminal Complaint
16 March 2009: The Judicial Magistrate, First Class (JMFC), of Barbil, Keonjhar District, summons Peter Heehs or his lawyer to answer criminal charges in the Barbil Magistrate’s court. Heehs subsequently appears through lawyer. The “occurrence” is stated as follows: “When the Complainant received a copy of the offending publication called ‘The Lives of Sri Aurobindo’ written by the above named accused Mr. Peter Heehs through courrier [sic]”. The sender of the book is not named. Read more... 
Case 3 Cuttack Criminal Complaint
15 April 2009: The Judicial Magistrate, First Class (JMFC), of Cuttack summons Peter Heehs or his lawyer to answer criminal charges in the Cuttack Magistrate’s court. The “occurrence” is stated as follows: “When the Complainant received a copy of the offending publication called ‘The Lives of Sri Aurobindo’ written by Peter Heehs, the accused herein through online purchase.” Sender of the book not named.
Note: The Cuttack summons is virtually identical to the Barbil summons, indicating an identical origin. Read more... 
Case 4 Second Writ Petition - 12 March 10: Updated (Added)
23 November 2009. Writ Petition filed at the Madras High Court by Surekha Jain, the mother of Geetanjali JB (aka Geetanjali Jain aka Geetanjali Bhattacharjee), the petitioner in the First Writ Petition case. The Writ names the Regional Registration Officers, Department of Immigration, Chennai and Puducherry; the Managing Trustee of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram; and the Superintendent of Police, Pondicherry North as deponents. Jain demands that the court order the Immigration Department to take action "against the said Peter Heehs to forthwith deport him from the country." Read more... 
1 December. Heehs files a petition to be "impleaded" (listed as a deponent in the case). The Chief Justice of the High Court accepts the petition and orders Heehs to be listed as a deponent. 
4 February 2010. The lawyer representing Surekha Jain informs the court that he will no longer appear for Jain.
Mr. T. Mohan, the lawyer representing Heehs, draws the court's attention to a fictitious Court Diary purporting to be an account of the proceedings of 21 December 2009. Geetanjali (who speaks throughout for her mother Surekha, the ostensible petitioner) "states that she has not circulated the aforesaid article". This statement is recorded by the court.
March. The case is adjourned on two occasions. 

In his letters, Sraddhalu Ranade has repeatedly denied that he is in any way involved in any of the legal cases seeking to ban The Lives of Sri Aurobindo, in particular the Writ Petition to Stay Publication of The Lives of Sri Aurobindo in India. He makes this claim because initiating legal action against a fellow member of the Ashram is against the rules of the Ashram itself.
His claims of non-involvement in legal actions are untrue. The comparison between the Writ and Ranade’s letter shows that much of the Petition was written by Ranade. He has been involved with the legal case from the planning stages; was in correspondence with the lawyers involved in the case; and personally drafted the material that forms the basis for the case. Though his name is not on the legal document, he has been deeply involved in every other sense of the word. Read more... 

In a recent post, Alok Pandey shows that he and Sraddhalu Ranade are in fact involved in the court cases.
More than that, Pandey's letter indicates that their intent in urging and drafting material for court cases was never a matter of “hurt sentiments,” but rather deliberate political maneuvering. They have been trying to change leadership at the Ashram through petition campaigns and court cases: “If [Peter] chooses to move out... the court cases might be dropped.” Read more...

mirror of tomorrow Posthuman Destinies 20 March 2010
The key issue is whether it is a 'mistake or a mischief'. From all that some of us have noted and pointed out time and again it is more than clear that it is a mischief and not just some ignorance. Mistakes are human but when one does mischief and that too so persistently then can one simply just ignore it as one of those things.

The other important issue is that he has chosen as his target of attack none else than Sri Aurobindo who are the soul and the center of this place and the very basis of the Yoga. All other rules or ways of life here derive from this central truth. If PH's gospel is accepted under any pretext then the very existence of the institution is undermined. Next anyone can come and taking this precedence write anything about anyone and simply take it as one of the paths among many that he is taking. Path yes, but whether towards the Divine or the abyss, that is the question!

Under this blanket cover one can do anything, in fact literally anything and say that this is my path and that if PH can be supported then why not me. Of course one can always crush it by force of administrative authority but that will make it only worse in due course of time.

No comments:

Post a Comment