An Indian Newslink initiative to bring together two warring groups within the Shirdi Saibaba Sansthan of New Zealand Inc failed to achieve its objective but the parties have assured us that they would remain united at least until the Temple project is completed next year.
As reported in our last (September 15, 2012) issue, former President Bhaskar Reddy Duvvuru and incumbent President Hari Gangisetty have been divided on a number of issues, all of which surfaced in recent weeks through emails, petitions, and exchange of accusations at private gatherings.
Although these did not threaten the ambitious $3 million Temple Project coming up at a property in Onehunga, Central Auckland, most members and devotees have felt the need to end factionalism in what they see as ‘a great organisation with a noble agenda.’
Frank but futile
The negotiation meeting, held in East Auckland on September 27, 2012 was free and frank but could not end the mutual feeling of contrition.
Mr Duvvuru feels humiliated by a generic message sent by Mr Gangisetty to the members of the Sansthan (and/or those on its contacts list) on a media statement made by the former while on a recent visit to India.
But Mr Gangisetty maintained that he had not mention Mr Duvvuru by name in his message although the hyperlinks that he had provided did.
In a letter addressed to us, Mr Duvvuru responded to the article written by Mr Gangisetty in our last (September 15 issue).
While apologising for our inability to reproduce it for space reasons, we reproduced a few portions in the ensuing paragraphs.
Mr Duvvuru said that he had decided not to contest in the election held on July 14, “so as not to create a controversy similar to the 2010 incident” (Indian Newslink, March 15, 2010).
“Mr Gangisetty had mentioned about a few members and their supporters, which he fondly referred as ‘A small Group.’ He and the Executive Committee were elected by a group of 50 members, which included 14 contestants and an equal number of their family members. The last petition was signed by several people, who have been members since the inception of the Sansthan, ardent devotees, proven workers for the last 10 years and major donors of the Temple Project. ‘Who is a small group?’ is left for your understanding,” he had said.
“Mr Gangisetty circulated a letter prior to the election stating that he was the ‘best person’ for the post of President. I still wonder whether anyone can make such a claim for the job and in fact it was a ploy to grab that position,” he added.
Offer rejected
At our negotiation meeting, Mr Gangisetty offered to co-opt Mr Duvvuru into the Executive Committee along with another member of his choice and create a ‘Fundraising Committee’ and make him its Chairman.’
But Mr Duvvuru said he preferred to remain an ordinary member and offer assistance until the Temple project is completed.
However, a number of members have told us that while they were in favour of inviting Mr Duvvuru to join the Executive Committee, they warned against inclusion of people with questionable intentions.
“The EC should scrupulously avoid such people. The Sansthan is not an organisation to promote vested interests,” they said.
‘Negative’ attitude
In his letter to us, Mr Duvvuru said he resented the ‘negative attitude of Mr Gangisetty.
If he carries on promoting himself, the time would not be far away for the members to take these matters to the next level”, he said.
Our hope
Although currently appearing insurmountable, we believe that this impasse would eventually pass with harmony and goodwill reinstated in the larger instance of the Sansthan.
We reiterate our commitment made in our last issue.
Indian Newslink has always supported the Sansthan as one of the finest organisations involved in commendable charitable projects.
Over the years, we have worked, and continue to work closely with its officials, devotees and members in promoting its varied activities, and more recently its Temple Project.
More than two years ago, the organisation was threatened by factionalism, with a handful of members raising their voice against the then EC.
We hope such a situation would not recur in the current context.
