Dr. O P. Sudrania exposed as a fantasist

The mendacity, false humility and cocksure false statements of an Indian eye-doctor, Mr. Om Prakash Sudrania, is both instructive and depressing. This 'humble' apologist for Sathya Sai Baba had also set about vilyfying my name in an article in 2011 which he strangely entitled ‘Sri Satya Sai Baba and His Robert Priddy’ (as if I were Sai Baba’s possession in some remote way, which I am remotely far from being). He failed to correct anything after being made aware of his gross and offensive misrepresentations of me (who he never knew) without more than most superficial investigation - and then only for the purpose of his attempt to discredit me without evidence. Readers can see what he wrote and make up their own minds about him, his other target Hans de Kraker and I. His comments on the sex abuse testimony by Hans de Kraker which are scanned from The Telegraph obituary on Sai Baba show how hypocritical Sai followers become when confronted. Firstly, I mention a few of his blunders there (see the full revealing scans of the exchange of comments on this link) Sudrania mentioned my role as a leader in the Sathya Sai Organization and as an academician (as if to cover himself against the charge of total ignorance about me) but shows that he has not read any of the most important pages I have written about why I could not possibly continue to remain a devotee of Sathya Sai Baba (including my credo). For he wrote “…to persist for eighteen years with such a person intimately to denounce him on charges of sexual misconduct (also unproved) with no sign of abatement after so long again sounds hollow and bizarre.” This is all sheer opinion snatched from the air to try to discredit someone who knowledge of facts he does not like. It is impossible for him to understand the conditioners of his mind because he was clearly deeply indoctrinated in Hinduism as most Indians are and found Sai Baba to be an exemplar of ‘divine miracle makers’, even though he admitted he never even experienced Sai Baba close up in any interview. His denial and flimsy ‘investigation’ is evident where he wrote to de Kraker “You could have filed a legal notice against Baba”. But de Kraker replied “I did not file a legal case against Sai Baba as I was a consenting adult.” Instead, he filed an affidavit on the sexual abuse he was subjected to by SB and, further, the former security man at the ashram, Hari Sampath, filed a petition at the Supreme Court against Baba but it was rejected and the public record destroyed (though the litigant’s copy was preserved and legally confirmed!). The Indian judiciary's injustice protected Sai baba at every turn, with the former High Chief Justice Bhagwati acting only on Sai Baba's order in everything, as he has even admitted in the Indian media. Total bias and cover-up… a judge of the bent, elitist kind who ruled the roost in India after Independence. Yet more revealing of Sudrania’s prejudiced attitude was his cocksure words to de Kraker were “Regarding your allegations on the shooting incidence, I am sure you were not present in the ashram nor have you tried to verify the cause.” De Kraker replied, "As far as the shooting incident wa concerned, I was there in 1993 in the ashram. Not just in the ashram, we had been called to come and assist getting intruders out of the ashram… So when the intruders attacked the mandir, some ashram staff approached us. We ran to the mandir. It was a terrible sight. An inch of blood in the interview room….” etc. That Hans de Kraker did not try to learn the cause is obviously a sheer invention of Sudrania. Likewise, the self-deprecating god-blessing hypocrite wrote against me: “He first writes big loud mouthed dissertations, then going all the way backwards to contradict with all his clever blames (offence is the best difence) newly discovered but mindless of his own slippery position, “Why did he stick to Baba for such a long period silently”? What was he doing or researching on there? MRP claims himself as a researcher and teacher but what failed his researches on his Sai Baba for eighteen years? It must be sign of a double and schizophrenic personality at the least or a sign of his criminal conspiracy against Baba acting on behalf of some agency as a secret spy needs a serious investigation.” That is a loud mouht if ever there was one. In short, is about his main activity – fantasizing about people and events on the basis of religious superstition and assumptions he holds so dear. As to Sudrania’s libels against me, you can read them and my rebuttals by clicking here. Previously I posted the following: Dr. Sudrania-Hindustan Times: strongly biased censorship of Sai Baba critics A very relevant comment by a psychologist from the Netherlands was made as follows:- Submitted on 2013/03/18 at 11:27 am Dr. Sudrania’s position is a familiar one, by now, as you surely know full well, Robert. Blinded by his own belief system, a devotee by proxy, with limited knowledge and access to Sai Baba during his life time, he seems utterly convinced he must act as a voice of reason against people who, like you, dare question the veracity of Sathya Sai Baba’s enormous claims. Of course, being a faithful follower, he convinces himself he must answer ‘lovingly’, as a true devotee should… It reminds me of the many rows in Puttaparthi that I witnessed, in which devotees shouted ‘Sai Ram’ at each other, as if this endearing, loving phraseology could cover up their true feelings. Dr. Sudrania makes his opinion of the late saffron sage unequivocally clear by stating: ‘Sri Satya Sai Baba was a towering personality of the highest spiritual order seen in the twentieth and twenty first centuries. Since this ephemeral world suffers from the duality, Baba said that even the Avatars suffer from some human weaknesses when S/He takes on human form. But the difference is, even their such traits are not intentionally meant to harm anyone deliberately, unlike the mortals.’Some human weaknesses indeed, Robert! Love ever, harm never, my foot! I am convinced that his late greatness fully intentioned to do the things he did, speak the words he spoke, that his flaws were plenty and that he meant to harm others if it suited his best interest. It is a sad affair, to see deluded people like this retired doctor lash out at the precious few who, like you, have the courage and endurance to keep informing the public of an important minority’s (or silent majority’s?) opinion, well researched and backed by personal experience. Vilifying the messenger by turning anyone who disagrees with your belief system into a venomous snake is crude and psychologically speaking one of the most primitive of defensive actions. Dr. Sudrania is no lover of uncertainty, except Sai Baba’s. Good for you that you keep on rebutting this kind of sanctimonious drivel. Chris Dokter