I would like to comment on Paul Lewis' article in "The Guradian UK" entitled: "The Indian living god, the paedophilia claims and the Duke of Edinburgh awards."
I am deeply disturbed by the fact that ex-devotees of Sathya Sai Baba have been publicly boasting on the internet that they worked in exclusive association with Paul Lewis to write this article specifically against Sathya Sai Baba. This type of hidden bias is reprehensible and it is my sincere hope that the staff at The Guardian look into this matter thoroughly.
As a matter of fact, a vicious critic of Sathya Sai Baba (Sanjay Kishore Dadlani) posted in a Yahoo Group on April 24th 2006 that a coming exposure was due in November 2006 in relation to the UK Sai Youth Group. Come November, Paul Lewis publishes a very poorly written article against Sathya Sai Baba about (you guessed it) the UK Sai Youth Group. Coincidence? I think not!
This critic is now boasting how he and other ex-devotees were working with Lewis for the past six months! Needless to say, nowhere in the article does Lewis divulge the fact that he is advocating for critics and their negative agenda against Satya Sai Baba. This bias is to condemned.
Those opposing Sathya Sai Baba wage an unremitting smear campaign against him that accuses him of "serial pedophilia" and the sexual abuse of "boys" and "children". These allegations are fallacious, unsustantiated and wholly untrue. There are no testimonies from "boys", "children" or parents speaking on behalf of their children that supports the erroneous claim that Sathya Sai Baba is a "pedophile" who engaged in sexual interactions with children. To date, there are no court cases, police complaints, affidavits, public grievances or lawsuits from any parent alleging that Sathya Sai Baba engaged in "pedophilia" with their child. Not even one single legitimate complaint.
Paul Lewis so poorly researched his article that he completely left out the recent developments regarding Alaya Rahm (the BBC "Secret Swami" prime witness) and his self-dismissed lawsuit against the Sathya Sai Baba Society. Alaya Rahm self-dismissed his lawsuit after a witness came forward who refuted all his claims. Needless to say, this information is publicly available on the internet for anyone possessing remedial google-searching skills.
I was also deeply disturbed by the fact that Paul Lewis inaccurately quoted the US State Dept. warning. He said:
"…warning after reports of 'inappropriate sexual behaviour by a prominent local religious leader'…".
Lewis happened to leave out the crucial word "unconfirmed". The warning actually reads (not mentioning Baba by name):
"…unconfirmed reports of inappropriate sexual behavior by a prominent local religious leader…"
Lewis also claimed that Baba was 79 years old and he was inviting the UK Sai Youth Group for his 80th birthday celebrations. Baba is going to be 81 years old this year and he already celebrated his 80th birthday celebrations last year. Is this the poor type of journalism, bias and inaccurate research that The Guardian in the UK promotes and supports? Apparently, that seems to be the case.
I am deeply disturbed by the fact that ex-devotees of Sathya Sai Baba have been publicly boasting on the internet that they worked in exclusive association with Paul Lewis to write this article specifically against Sathya Sai Baba. This type of hidden bias is reprehensible and it is my sincere hope that the staff at The Guardian look into this matter thoroughly.
As a matter of fact, a vicious critic of Sathya Sai Baba (Sanjay Kishore Dadlani) posted in a Yahoo Group on April 24th 2006 that a coming exposure was due in November 2006 in relation to the UK Sai Youth Group. Come November, Paul Lewis publishes a very poorly written article against Sathya Sai Baba about (you guessed it) the UK Sai Youth Group. Coincidence? I think not!
This critic is now boasting how he and other ex-devotees were working with Lewis for the past six months! Needless to say, nowhere in the article does Lewis divulge the fact that he is advocating for critics and their negative agenda against Satya Sai Baba. This bias is to condemned.
Those opposing Sathya Sai Baba wage an unremitting smear campaign against him that accuses him of "serial pedophilia" and the sexual abuse of "boys" and "children". These allegations are fallacious, unsustantiated and wholly untrue. There are no testimonies from "boys", "children" or parents speaking on behalf of their children that supports the erroneous claim that Sathya Sai Baba is a "pedophile" who engaged in sexual interactions with children. To date, there are no court cases, police complaints, affidavits, public grievances or lawsuits from any parent alleging that Sathya Sai Baba engaged in "pedophilia" with their child. Not even one single legitimate complaint.
Paul Lewis so poorly researched his article that he completely left out the recent developments regarding Alaya Rahm (the BBC "Secret Swami" prime witness) and his self-dismissed lawsuit against the Sathya Sai Baba Society. Alaya Rahm self-dismissed his lawsuit after a witness came forward who refuted all his claims. Needless to say, this information is publicly available on the internet for anyone possessing remedial google-searching skills.
I was also deeply disturbed by the fact that Paul Lewis inaccurately quoted the US State Dept. warning. He said:
"…warning after reports of 'inappropriate sexual behaviour by a prominent local religious leader'…".
Lewis happened to leave out the crucial word "unconfirmed". The warning actually reads (not mentioning Baba by name):
"…unconfirmed reports of inappropriate sexual behavior by a prominent local religious leader…"
Lewis also claimed that Baba was 79 years old and he was inviting the UK Sai Youth Group for his 80th birthday celebrations. Baba is going to be 81 years old this year and he already celebrated his 80th birthday celebrations last year. Is this the poor type of journalism, bias and inaccurate research that The Guardian in the UK promotes and supports? Apparently, that seems to be the case.
Homepage:
