Talk:Dada Lekhraj/Archive 1

Archive 1

Om Mandli

i flagged up on the BKWSU page this the om mandli was not actually the committee

this is factual erroneous and i think you will find it difficult to substantiate against even the Bkwsus own material ,,what is your actual knowledge of this organisation?

i wont argue that Kripalani is notable enough but shouldn't the page be in his own name?

i challenge the use of Dada Lekhraj as , by comparison, it would be a little like having a page on Josef Stalin title "Uncle Joe".........sorry bad example i know.........dada was not his name..........in engligh it is a bit like saying "uncle lekhraj"

but thanks for the good work on the citation , i did not know how to lay them outGreen108 12:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see my reply at Talk:Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University#om_mandli_as_a_committee (diff). utcursch | talk 13:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Birth year

The reference for "1884" birth years is a single book published in 1938-39 book which seems to be out of print (Radhe, Om (1938). Is this justice? Being an account of the founding of the Om Mandli & the Om Nivas and their suppression, by application of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908. The Phermacy Printing Press, Karachi. p. 154.). There's no way of verifying this book which is not available anywhere (including Amazon).

On the other hand there are at least four books, which state the birth year as 1876:

• Hunt, Stephen J. (2003). Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 120. ISBN 0754634108.
• Clarke, Peter Bernard (2006). New Religions in Global Perspective: A Study of Religious Change in the Modern World. Routledge. p. 248. ISBN 0415257476.
• Macgregor, Ronald Stuart (1992). Devotional Literature in South Asia: Current Research, 1985-8. Cambridge University Press. p. 302. ISBN 0521413117.
• Woodhead, Linda (2002). Religions in the Modern World: Traditions and Transformations. Routledge. p. 31. ISBN 0415217830.
• Doktór, Tadeusz (1999). Nowe ruchy religijne i parareligijne w Polsce: mały słownik. Verbinum. p. 37.

These books can be viewed at Google Boook Search. Also, several other sources mention the birth year as 1876: [1][2][3] etc.

Also, I doubt that the Om Radhe book actually mentions his birth year. The "1884" source seems to be a forum thread from brahmakumaris.info that tries to project BKWSU as liars.

I don't really know whether BKWSU is lying or not, but published sources are certainly more reliable than a forum post on an anti-BKWSU site. utcursch | talk 13:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

you can download it from brahmakumaris.info in full or can find copies of it in libraries and other public resources. just becaue you did not try hard enough does not exclude it as a source

you are making erroneous and misleading statements here, sorry Green108 10:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Birth Year reply

Excuse me for saying, but this is another example of where, if you have no expertise in the topic, you really ought to err on the side of caution and discuss changes first.

The problem with the recent bibliography, is that academics have all depended on facts, figures and a version of the history as given by the Brahma Kumaris themselves. Primarily from the hagiography (biography idealizing its subject) of Lekhraj Kripalani called Adi Dev by one of his financially supported followers named Jagdish Chander.

It is also an example of the problem in relying on internet based research.

If you look at the actual text of "Struggles and Sorrows; The Personal Testimony of a Chief Justice" by Justice Hardayal Hardy (p 37 to 39) rather than depending on google snippets, you will read;

"Another case I did involved Dada Lekhraj Kripalani of Hyderabad who owned a jewellery shop in Calcutta. He sold his shop and returned to Hyderabad with approximately Rs 10 lakhs as his assets. He bought a house and settled there. Dada Lekhraj was about 54 years old."

This was in 1938. As Justice Hardy was not only Lekhraj Kripalani's counsel but went on to be the Chief Justice of India, I think we can consider his work to be reliable and authoritative.

Additionally, we have a precise valuation of his wealth at 10 lahk Rupees, Is this correct, I equate that to be;

1,000,000 rupees; So, he was a "rupee millionaire".

However, based on 'Britain and the Indian Currency Crisis, 1930-2': A Comment Carl Bridge from The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 34, No. 2 (May, 1981), pp. 301-304;

1 rupee = 1s 6d september in 1931 and inflation remained within 1% for the ensuing years

1,500,000 Shillings or 75,000 Pounds (12 Pence to the Shilling, 20 Shillings to the Pound)

According to 'Inflation: the value of the pound 1750-2002', 2003 by Grahame Allen Econmic Policy and Statistics Section of the House of Commons Library, the purchasing power of a pound in 2002 compared to the pound in 1930 was 40.2 times (comparing a current price index of 695.1 to 17.3). So, an estate of 75,000 Pounds then would be worth about 3 Million Pounds now. A lot but not enough to make him one of Indian's richest man at that time.

i will attach a copy of the full text, you may delete it if you wish..........excuse the formal style ,but if i have to assert my credibility in comparison to the constant attacks and allegation , then i would like to do so fairly...............i think we will also find out that Is this Justice? was not written by om radhe as well ,but that is for another dayGreen108 18:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lekhraj_Kripalani/Hardy

Please see Wikipedia:Original research.

I might not have expertise in the topic, but the authors I've cited above clearly have. Your edits are clearly original research -- neither the Om Radhe book, nor the Hardayal Hardy source states the birth year as "1884".

The Om Radhe citation was based on a forum post on an anti-BKWSU site, while the above analysis by you is clearly original research. The book doesn't mention the birth year as 1884 (as per the text provided by you at Talk:Lekhraj Kripalani/Hardy). The author simply says "Dada Lekhraj was about 54 years old", to which you've added "This was in 1938."

I've reverted the year to 1876 in absence of any valid sources that state the birth year at 1884. I would suggest we seek further dispute resolution if you still intend to change the birth year to 1884 without original research.

I've no problem with the millionaire issue -- that's irrelevant to the article, as Lekhraj's claim to fame is not being a millionaire or being among the Top Ten Richest Indians. utcursch | talk 05:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Utcursch.........look, if a book is dated 1938 or if a document in a book is clearly dated 1938 and its says his age is 54 it is neither original reseasrch nor rocket science to say his date of birth is 1884.

There are 3 sources of this. Hardy who was his lawyer written in the 1980s, Radhe who was his number two collaborator in the 30s and Chander who was his chief spokesman in the 1970s

which of these books have you actually read?

Chander actually said 55 whereas the two others sad 54 but the actual age would depend on which month of his birth wasGreen108 10:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that none of these books explicitly state that the birth year is 1884. Out of the three books that you talk about, I've read two -- I managed to get access to the Om Radhe book, and I've also read the relevant portion of the book authored by Hardayal Hardy. I couldn't find Adi Dev: The first man by B. K. Jagdish Chander, but I found another book by the same author (A Brief Biography of Brahma Baba).

This age falsifying debate is interesting, but lacks any reliable sources. The debate seems to have originated from a forum post on brahmakumaris.info.

The first poster says that according to the PBKs, "Brahma Baba attained the age of 60 only around 1947/48" -- that would make the birth year 1887-88.

Then another comment says that an article published in the Hindi BK Magazine 'Gyanamrit' (dated February, 1986) mentions, "Brahma Baba's age was 50 years in 1936." (Unhay san 1936 may, jabki unki 50 varsh kee aayu thi...). So, accordingly, the birth age must be 1886.

Now, another poster cites a Brahma Kumari book, which says that Lekhraj was "was about 55 or rather nearing sixtieth", when he started getting visions.

Then, somebody starts discussion on the Om Radhe book. I managed to get access to this book and read it -- there is a list of Om Mandali Members in the book, which mentions the age of Lekhraj Kripalani as 54 (p. 154). The book is dated 1939. I couldn't find any statement that dates the list, but it certainly belongs to the period 1936-39 (which means if this is not a typo, Lekhraj's birth year is 1882-85).

A forum member says that the list is dated 1939, so the birth year is 1885. Then another poster says that the list is dated 1938, and states that "This shows Kripalani's date of birth was 1884...". The same poster than points out Hardy's book and speculates that he might have been the ghost writer of Om Radhe's book.

At this point, we have different posters on an anti-BKWSU site, speculating that Lekhraj's birth year was 1884, 1885, 1886 or 1887-88, and it was falsified by the Brahma Kumaris to coincide with their predictions.

As for Hardayal Hardy's book, where does it mention the year 1938 while speaking about Lekhraj's age? It doesn't say that Lekhraj was about 54 years old when he founded the Om Mandali or when the court case was filed. It says that when Lekhraj bought a house and settled in Hyderabad, he was about 54 years old. According to the Om Radhe book, this happened in 1932 (p. 3) -- that would mean his birth year is around 1878.

So, we can add one more year to the list of speculations -- now we've {1878, 1884, 1885, 1886 or 1887-88}.

(By the way, it's ironic that you removed the sentence about Lekhraj preaching the Bhagavad Gita and preforming Ras Lila, which was referenced from the same book (it's clearly mentioned in the book). But, you're presenting the same book as reference to prove that BKWSU lied about Lekhraj's birth year -- something that's not even mentioned in the book.)

The book A Brief Biography of Brahma Baba by B. K. Jagdish Chander states "Some amongst them were young when they had seen Baba as man of little over fifty-five when he founded the Om Mandali" (p. 73). You can interpret "little over" in various ways and come up with another birth year. Say, if his age was between 55 and 56, one can speculate that the birth year was 1880 or 1881.

So, now we have {1878, 1880-81, 1884, 1885, 1886 or 1887-88} purely based on speculations -- there is still not a single reference that mentions the birth year as "1884". (By the way, Chander's book also mentions a title called On the life and teachings of Dada Lekharaj 1876-1968).

I am no sympathizer of BKWSU, and I am not saying that there is no possibility of the Brahma Kumaris falsifying the birth year (in fact, as an atheist, I believe that all religious movements have a knack for falsifying information). But the entire allegation is original research based on speculations, and there is not a single reliable source that explicitly states the birth year as 1884 (as opposed to several books that clearly mention the birth year as 1876). The fact that the allegation comes from a forum post on an anti-BKWSU site helps little. Given the situation, 1876 seems quite reasonable.

Like I said earlier, if there are still any issues, I am always open to third-party dispute resolution. utcursch | talk 16:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

you have not read the book carefully enough , its is possible to date exactly by the correspondence between Om Mandli and mr Tauton in which it is referred to........its 1938 . Hardy was acting as Kripalani's advocate at this time....

1938 minus 54 is 1884

given that it was written as the events unfolded and during his lifetime by his partner , i think we can accept it as the reliable version . it was jagdish chander in a 1970s hagiography that wrote 55............

if as an atheist you do not know the organization , you will not understand the significance of this and why the Bkwsu is trying to re-write their history and his age , there is no point trying to confuse the issue to win your point

it all has to do witht he channelled messages from God through their mediums that said God entered his chosen medium when the age of his body was 60 years old........this is the source of the problem , Kripalani was not 60

after his death they gradually when into re-write mode and all the modern academics have copied the PR version of their history , it all has to do with the dispute with their AIVV Green108 15:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Lekhraj Kripalani's Age

Here it is.

I was wrong, it was not the Collector Taunton, it was U.M. Mirchandani the District Magistrate

2 July 1938, "Please let me have the list of members of the Mandli and the guardians of the children in the Om Nivas School".

4 July 1938, " Enclosed please find the list of Om Mandlie members and guardians of the childreen living in Om Nivas." Signed Om Radhe.

Lekhrak Kriapalani aged 54

I take to the time to copy this out to emphasise the difference in the manner you work and the exactitude I work. In July 1938, Kripalani was aged 54, as confirmed by his advocate of the time at a later dateGreen108 15:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Name

Hi IPSOS. Good to see you back. I trust you had a good break.

I'm still not clear on the need to refer to "Kripalani" throughout the article. Could you please indicate what policy or guideline supports the rationale, "we do not use terms of endearment or devotion to refer to the subject, we use their last name".

From my side I found the following,

• From WP:COMMONNAME, "We want to maximize the likelihood of being listed in external search engines, thereby attracting more people to Wikipedia. For example, the pagename is Jimmy Carter and not "James Earl Carter, Jr."; the string "Jimmy Carter" in the page title make it easier to find:...", and ,"When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?"

Certainly, no literature from the BKs would refer to "Kripalani", nor do any of the reliable sources or books such as Walliss so anyone searching would most likely search for "Dada Lekhraj" just as they would search for "Sai Baba" and not his real name, "Sathyanarayana Raju". Certainly "Baba" is also a term of endearment.

Would appreciate if you could explain. Thanks & regards Bksimonb 11:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

We went through all this before, I think. WP:COMMONNAME applies to the title of the article. As long as the article is titled as it is, it is correct to follow the title. If you believe the title should be changed, please follow this process to allow broad consideration from the whole Wikipedia community. IPSOS (talk) 12:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I remember going through this before [4] [5] [6]. Each conversation thread I linked to either hangs or is answered without really addressing the points I raised. I don't mind if I turn out to be wrong on this one, just as long as I finally understand why. If different policies and guidelines apply to the use of names in the body of the discussion then what are they? Certainly when Utcursch‎ created this article he used the name "Dada Lekhraj" throughout [7] and also made the correction to the BKWSU article [8] and discussed it here [9].

I'd like to clear this up in principal with regards to the text body before suggesting a page move.

I'd really appreciate finally clearing this up. Regards Bksimonb 15:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm requesting the page move as suggested. I will also allow one week for any further discussion regarding the page body text. Regards Bksimonb 15:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Done Bksimonb 15:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Proposal to rename page according to WP:COMMONNAME. The page describes the founder of a religious institution in India. All the secondary references, and even primary references such as records of court documents and the memoirs of a Chief Justice refer to "Dada Lekhraj". Wikipedia will be setting a new precedent by referring to him throughout as "Kripalani". Although the main issue, as far as I am concerned, is the article body text, I am also suggesting that the article be named according to his most known name, "Dada Lekhraj", since that is most likely to be used as a search term to find this page.

The proposed move is actually to return the page to it's original name. It was moved to "Lekhraj Kripalani" without seeking consensus. Bksimonb 15:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the page per the unopposed request. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Bksimonb 04:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I would like to propose some changes to a this edit. Most of it is sound, such as filling in more bio details, with a few exceptions.

1. The date, 1884, is not supported by the majority of reliable sources. This was discussed exhaustively on a previous occasion on this same talk page between Green108 and Utcursch.
2. No need to say "Founding Medium" in the bio. The template says "Founder". His role as a "medium" is covered elsewhere in the article. Adding it in the bio adds undue weight to the fact.
3. The following paragraph has been gratuitously POV'd up...", although there is no evidence in early documentation to support this. Since 1950, the BKWSU again claims that this being is, in fact, God and called Shiva; that it continued to be channeled via Kripalani and others acting as mediums until his death in 1969 by heart attack,". I suggest reverting back to the previous more neutral version...."Adherents of the BKWSU believe that this being is God and that it continued to be channeled via Kripalani and others acting as medium until his death in 1969".
4. As per WP:COMMONNAME the article should also refer to him as the name by which he was commonly known in and after which the article is named.

Since the edit involves an indef blocked user who is in dispute with me, I am waiting one week for outside comments from uninvolved editors before making the changes. Both me and the blocked editor have COI. For further details about my COI see my user page.

Regards Bksimonb (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Founder father is God Shiva. Medium is Lekhraj aka Brahma Baba. Age is not accurate according to advanced knowledge.

Your personal problems are not concerning me. Be stable in Drama. You are changing meaning to suit Brahmkumaris' version not to follow accurate knowledge. Agyani souls might be fooled but not gyani soul. You need studying Advance Knowledge, Shivbaba's Murli Clarifications at God Fatherly University to be understanding. See http://pbks.info/ with AIVV (Januarythe18th (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)).