Raghavendra Swamy not to accept 'removal'

By K.P.M. Basheer

KOCHI, JULY 25 The row over the removal of Swamy Raghavendra Thirtha as the successor to the 76-year-old Swamy Sudhindra Thirtha, the `matathipathi' of the Kashi Math Samsthan of the Gowda Saraswatha Brahmin community, has taken a new turn with the Raghavendra faction taking the line that the senior swamy's order does not bind on it.

A close aide of the junior swamy told The Hindu on the phone from the Kashi Math at Tirupati, where the junior swamy now lives, that the July 19 `Raayasa pathra' by the senior swamy did not alter his position as the `successor and 21st pontiff.'

"Swamy Raghavendra Thirtha continues to hold all the powers and duties of the successor and 21st pontiff," he said.

The aide claimed that the senior swamy's order relieving the 28- year-old junior swamy "of all duties and powers given to him by our proclamation of November 4, 1994" would not stand the legal scrutiny. He indicated that the Raghavendra faction would consider moving the courts "if the situation came to that stage."

He noted that the senior swamy had on November 4, 1994, had entrusted "all the religious, Dharmic and social activities of the Kashi Math Samsthan except those of Sri Vyasasram, Haridwar", to his "capable and beloved successor, Sri Raghavendra Thirtha, from 12.12.1994" and retired to Haridwar to spend the rest of his life in spiritual pursuits.

After the senior swamy had abdicated all the powers and responsibilities of the Samsthan and handed them over to the junior swamy, in a public proclamation, he could not take them back as he had no legal power to do so. Swamy Raghavendra Thirtha could not be removed from office, the aide said.

He also noted that the junior swamy was made successor not by the 1994 proclamation, but even before that (the raayasa pathra withdraws the powers conferred on the junior swamy on November 11, 1994).

The aide said the senior swamy's hands were being forced by a coterie surrounding him. This coterie, he alleged, had vast vested interests in the enormous wealth of the Samstha in the forms of properties, institutions and valuables. The coterie had been siphoning off the funds of the Samsthan for a long time.

The coterie, fearing that the `young, efficient and intelligent, swamy would stand in their way, had for a long time been trying to plant hatred in the mind of the senior swamy against the junior'.

Citing examples of financial misappropriation, the aide said the coterie had `swallowed' millions of rupees in the name of building a Rs. 3-crore temple for Lord Vedavyasa at Kalpi near Gwalior.

He said the coterie had consistently derailed any attempt to bridge the gap between the senior and the junior. They had always tried to thwart any one-to-one meeting between the two. The coterie feared restoration of peace between the two swamis would hurt its vested interests.

The aide denied all the allegations against the junior swami--disrespect to the senior, arrogance and refusal to meet the senior. He alleged that these were all the `fabrications' of the coterie which cleverly manipulated every incident to its advantage.

The Raghavendra faction also denied that the junior swamy had resigned from his position and requested the senior to relieve himself of all duties. He had only requested for relief from the Dharmic activities pertaining to the Samaj and the Aadhikarika Vishayas of the Samsthan.

Clarifying his November 4, 1999 request, the junior swamy had in a letter on December 5, referred to a complaint sent to the senior swamy by the president of the GSB Temples Association, Mangalore, who questioned his religious abilities and thus hurt him badly. It was in this context that he asked for relief and the relief sought was "only from the Dharmic activities pertaining to the Samaj and definitely not that of our Samsthan. Further, the relief sought from Aadhikarika Vishayas of Samsthan was with the sole intention of avoiding unwanted confusions and dual control over the management of ancillary activities of the Samsthan."

But the November 4 letter, based on which the senior swamy `relieved' the junior from his powers, was manipulated by the coterie to its advantage and gave an impression that the junior himself had wanted to resign from the position, the Raghavendra faction alleged.

The Raghavendra faction's refusal to take note of the `removal order' might further worsen the situation which had been developing for over two years, but the well-knit community had kept it under wraps.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Southern States
Previous : NAFED exempt from ST on copra
Next     : IUML to remain in UDF: Kunhalikutty