स्टेट बँक आणि जाहिरातीचे भारतीयत्व

आज फार काही लिहायचे नाही आहे. फक्त भारतीय स्टेट बँकेचे अभिनंदन करण्यासाठी हा छोटासा खटाटोप आहे. सध्या स्टेट बँकेची गृह कर्जाची जाहिरात सर्वच टीवी चनेलवर जोरदार झळकते आहे. त्यात खेळायला गेलेला मुलगा घरी जरा रागानेच परत येतो आणि खेळ झाला नाही कारण सर्व मित्र सुट्टी असल्याने बाहेर फिरायला गेले आहेत असे सांगतो. 'आपण कधी फिरायला जाणार' या त्याच्या प्रश्नाला त्याची बहीण 'मलाही जायचे आहे' असे म्हणत दुजोरा देते. त्यामुळे मग त्यांचे वडील 'आपणही जाऊ' असे आश्वासन देतात. मुलांचे या आश्वासनावर समाधान होते. पण त्यांची आई मात्र 'घर-कर्जाचा हप्ता दिल्यावर हाती काही राहते का' असा प्रश्न विचारते. त्याला बाबा उत्तर देतो कि 'मी आता आपले गृहकर्ज स्टेट बँकेत नेले आहे. त्यामुळे हप्ता कमी झाला आहे' ही खुशखबर ऐकल्यामुळे सर्वच जण फिरायला निघण्याची तयारी करायला सुरवात करतात, अशी ही जाहिरात आहे.

जाहिरातीचा मुद्दा बरोबर आहे हे सध्याच्या गृह कर्जाच्या बाजारावरून कळतेच आहे. पण स्टेट बँकेने ज्या कल्पकतेने या कुटुंबाचे भारतीयत्व जाहिरातीत सादर केले आहे ते अतिशय मनोरम आहे. कोणतीही अस्सल भारतीय पतिव्रता स्त्री नवरा काही बरोबर करू शकेल असे कधीच मानत नाही. त्यामुळे चारचौघात आणि त्यातही शक्यतो मुलं-बाळं समोर असताना आपल्या पती-परमेश्वराच्या अकलेचे वाभाडे काढण्याची कोणतीही संधी अशी आर्य पतिव्रता गमावणे कधीच शक्य नाही. या जाहिरातीतली महान पत्नीही याच सनातन नियमानुसार नवऱ्याला मुलांसमोरच 'तुम्ही खोटे आश्वासन का देताय' असा जाब विचारते. तिच्या या कृतीने सर्व आर्य संस्कृतीच्या पाईक भारतीय स्त्रियांची मान अभिमानाने आणि गौरवाने उंच झाली असणार यात काहीच संशय नाही. स्टेट बँकेच्या या जाहिरातीने भारतीय स्त्रियांच्या कर्तृत्वाचा झेंडा साऱ्या जगभर फडकला याचा आम्हाला आनंद आणि अभिमान वाटतो. म्हणूनच या जाहिरातीसाठी स्टेट बँकेचे हार्दिक अभिनंदन! (अर्थातच ही जाहिरात बनवणारे  आणि ती स्वीकारणारे या सर्वांच्या कर्तृत्वाला सलाम!!!)

On the pretext of IPL ….

The 6^th season of IPL has entered final phase now and the new champion will be decided in less than 3 weeks. The completion for the top 4 spots has been at the peak and so is the expectation for the unexpected. The old heroes are making way for new ones. Last year’s champion has been knocked out before the knock-out stage and the caps, both orange and purple, are changing heads faster than the politicians around us. In this charged atmosphere, I want to introduce a novel concept that needs to be implemented immediately.

Cricket is supposed to be a team game. But then there are so many, soccer, rugby, baseball, basketball, kabaddi – to name just a few. But cricket and other team games are different on two major counts. For one, cricket is the least popular of the team games. Even kabaddi is played (and played seriously) in more countries than cricket. Cricket, on the other hand, is played in only about a dozen countries. So to count, no more than our hands and feet are enough. The second unique feature about cricket is the concept of ‘man of the match’.  Conceptually, Man of the match is supposed to be the person who has influenced the outcome of the match to the maximum extent. He is the one who has the biggest contribution. Otherwise, again theoretically, many will have to add their might to achieve the result. If a batsman tosses the ball up in air, at least somebody has to be there who catches it. It cannot be the bowler himself all the time. So each catcher will have his share in the result. But a catch and 4 wickets are not the same, by any wisdom. So this man of the match!

Of late, however, a trend is seen in matches. The result is often contributed by more than one player. If they happen to add to the same side, then you have no option but to choose one of them to be man of the match. This is more so because cricket still has not developed the concept of sharing the honours like man of the match. Usually only one beneficiary is chosen. But this system neglects the contribution of other persons, particularly if they are putting their might from the two warring sides. This is a wrong and lopsided system and should be corrected as soon as possible. As a solution to this problem of plenty, I want to suggest a new reward. I propose the reward to be called “VILLAIN OF THE MATCH”.

Hold on, hold on! It’s not that idiotic a concept after all. Let me explain the full logic of the award and then, I am sure, the concept would look acceptable. Understanding the theme is the best possible option here. Let us understand the concept by means of a few examples also. But let me first take examples from out distant past to avoid our emotions creeping in. I have plenty of justifying examples from the current IPL games also. (Otherwise, how would the concept have come to me at this time only?) But the events are too close to us. So neither have we freed ourselves from the emotions associated with those games, nor has the results settled in a real objective manner in our minds as yet. That’s why we begin with distant past.

You see, many times it happens that final result is influenced more by givers than by receivers. Remember the semi final of Reliance World Cup of Cricket, 1987. Kapil Dev led India against England. One of our bowling stars during the period, Manindar Singh, had troubled many batsmen in the World Cup. But English team management had seen the problem beforehand and had thought of the solution. Manindar bowled Gooch his leg-spin on the leg stump and Gooch swept to get a boundary. (Remember those days. Boundary means four runs, exceptions apart.) From then on, that became the story of the match. Manindar kept on bowling on the leg-stump and Gooch kept on sweeping. Neither Manindar could see what was happening and changed his bowling line nor did Kapil, as captain, instruct him to change the bowling line. In fact, Kapil, as caption didn’t even introduce a squarish fine leg to protect the area and reduce the run flow. For convenience of logic, let us call it Kanindar phenomenon. Kanindar phenomenon is the situation where the parties being exploited are not able to see and grasp what is happening and are unable to prevent it, probable due to blind intellect or slow rate of learning. That’s how we understand the terminology.

This Kanindar phenomenon seems to be patented by our people. Right from 10^th-11^th century, this can be seen. Somanath temple in Gujrat was looted 17 times since 1025 AD by Mahamud of Ghazani. Of the 17 loots, 14 were from the same Mahamud Gazani. Every time Kings in Gujrat rebuilt the temple, but none ever thought what was on and how to prevent it. Take the case of India in 16^th to 18^th century. We can see the same story repeated. British kept on winning state after state and province after province by the same trick – quality of weapons and forces. None in India, but, ever thought of how England gets better every time. Everything was happening before their eyes, but thinking was almost a banned activity. Kanindar phenomenon!

Now come back to cricket. It is an age-old knowledge that the best bowling at the end of the inning is Yorker balls. In the famous tie-test between Australia and West Indies, in December 1960, everybody knows what Warrel told Weslie Hall. “For God’s sake Wes, no no-ball. Else you won’t be able to get down from the aircraft, back home”. The moral- No ball at crucial position is an unpardonable crime. Rewind to what we saw in IPL. Royal Challengers are playing Chennai Super Kings in Bangalore. The latter need 2 runs of the last ball. The bowler, Mr. R. P. Singh, runs in and bowls a frontfoot no ball. The batsman hits it to third man and is caught. While the ball is travelling towards the fielder, the batsmen run for a single. The umpire has declared no-ball. A run accrues to CSK for no ball. Since the catch is invalid, the run they ran is allowed and CSK has won. Consider a situation where CSK required 8 runs from one ball to win the match. You surely expect that RCB is home already, don’t you? Not as long as Mr. RP has the ball, mind you. Think of what can happen. RP bowls a front-foot no ball. The batsmen score, say 1 run only. They get one run for no ball. So the requirement is a six of the free-hit that follows. And there are a few matches in this IPL season itself where chasing teams have scored 6 runs on the last ball to win the match. Remember Rohit Sharma’s 6 of the last ball? And that was not a free-hit ball, please remember. Obviously no-ball is unpardonable on the last ball of the match, unless the chasing team needs over 8 or 9 runs with one ball. I remember another match where Kapil, to avoid any possibility of a no-ball on the last ball of the over, bowled without any run-up. But who will tell Mr. RP Singh? Kaninder phenomenon again.

A much more glaring example of Kaninder phenomenon was, however, seen later this season, again from RCB. Against the lowly placed Kings Eleven Punjab, RCB almost did everything right by setting up a winning target of 193 to KXIP. But when David Miller took the attack to RCB camp, everything was lost all of a sudden. All the RCB bowlers were thrown out of the ground at will. That included our own Mr. RP Singh. However, none ever tried for a yorker length. They were trying to avoid the batsmen by bowling wide of the stumps (and were declared wide) at times. But no yorkers. Exactly same was seen when Hussey and Raina were milking Sunrisers attack in Hyderabad. In fact, Sunrisers’ case was more deplorable since Perera did try a couple of yorkers and could stop scoring on those balls at least. But even after seeing that, no other bowler tried anything like yorker. Whether they succeed or not is a different issue. Honest attempt is what we are looking for. But no! It’s not seen anywhere.

In good old days, I heard, bowlers used to practice in nets by keeping a coin on the practice wicket and try to pitch the ball on the coin. That’s how BS Bedi became such an accurate bowler. But with more of fan fare and less of sweat, now nobody goes for practice sessions. So the question of gaining accuracy does not arise. In this edition of IPL all the Yorker length balls in death overs have been bowled by non-Indian bowlers mainly Sri Lankans. Lasith Malinga has been the best bowler in death, according to the Indian captain MS Dhoni. He has admitted for CSK that their worry at present is about the bowling in death overs. We have seen Umesh Yadav, Vinay Kumar, Ishant Sharma, RP Singh, Irfan Pathan, L Balaji, Ashok Dinda and so on and on in IPL death overs. But for Bhuvaneshwar Kumar and to a miniscule extent Praveen Kumar, nobody is bowling yorkers in death. Your work in Champions Trophy appears to be cut-out Mr. Dhoni. It ultimately comes to scoring more runs than can be scored by other teams or take the bowlers to some unknown place and put them to practicing their lines and particularly lengths. Good luck Mr. Finisher!

Coming to our award, by now it is clear how the winners will be decided. The major criteria for judging are like this.

(1) The bowler should have thrown common bowling sense out of window.

(2) Preferably, he may be observing other bowlers able to control the batsmen by their styles, but would have refused to learn.

(3) Short-pitched and good length balls and wide balls should have been bowled in good numbers.

(4)   Preferably one or two front-foot no balls would be desirable.

(5) In death overs, at least one full toss (conceding at least 4 runs) would be appreciated.

(6)   No bowler having economy rate below 7 will qualify for the award.

By the criteria above, it would be clear who the winners are. For the RCB match with CSK, the villain of the match award goes to RP Singh. In the CSK versus Sunrisers tie, the winner is Ishant Sharma. In the RCB encounter with KXIP, the award is shared by RP singh, Vinay Kumar and Virat Kohli, Kohli being picked up for dropping Miller not due to a problem but by trying to catch him with hands covering the eyes. Better luck boys for the coming matches!!!

GOD, GODMEN AND WE

I am addressing one of the hotter topics today, often discussed more emotionally than just logically or intellectually. To begin with the issue, I present a comment made about Shri Aniruddha Dhairyadhar Joshi alias Sadguru Shri Aniruddha Bapu. I am presenting the comment and some reactions posted in support of the comment. The reasons of choosing these pieces are mainly two. One is that none of the people contributing have given their real names. So they cannot be identified. Since their identities are hidden, there is less chance of having a personal score to settle with them. So I am likely to be looking more to the contents and less to the people here. Second prominent reason is that most of the issues and comments given by both the writers are those that are raised typically by many of our fellow persons. I have heard these so many times that I realized that these issues are in many minds. So it was necessary to address them some time or the other.

The original statement posted by one Mr. Papillon goes like below. (The bold type as well as italics in the contents is my addition. I can assure all that my only contribution to this piece is these edit items.)

“Another prominent maharaj (Godman) is Sadguru Aniruddha. Sadguru means 'Good Guru'. Aniruddha is a physician & was a general practitioner. He had a clinic in Parel area of Mumbai. But suddenly he got greedy and formed his coterie. They called him avatar (reincarnation) of Sai Baba.

His simple funda was that medical practise wasn't going to give him more money. I have talked with his previous patients. He is good doctor, No doubt. His following is primarily well educated marathi people. The crowd primarily consists of Bramhins (Upper caste). With his popularity increasing his wife also jumped into limelight. Devotees also attributed divine powers to her. One of disciples of Aniruddha is Vaidya, also can be seen in focus.

So in short everyone connected with him has so called divine power. His source of income is money donated by devotees. He charges hefty amount even to visit home of devotees. If you can't afford his fees then his wife or Vaidya will do the favour at less cost. Previously seen as smoker sitting idly in Dadar area he has now bought properties in dadar and Bandra area.

His shoes are carried in Rathyatra (chariot tour) all over Dadar area and you can see the mad crowd.

Now people have started seeing in them reincarnation of Lord Rama, Sita and Laxman. what a way to go man ! One of his disciples Satish Pulekar has also started his own practice of Buwabaji. A decent actor of films, theatre he sports beard and has number of disciples in dadar area.”

Posted 2nd September 2005 by Papillon”

It is obviously apparent that Mr. Papillon has clear mind in some issues. But he has allowed his vision to be shadowed in few others. According to him, “Aniruddha is a physician & was a general practitioner. He had a clinic in Parel area of Mumbai…… I have talked with his previous patients. He is good doctor, No doubt.” It is indeed heartening that Mr. Papillon has taken pains to know how was Dr. Aniruddha before he chose to be Sadguru Shri Aniruddha Bapu. So his admission that he (Aniruddha) is a good doctor is based on his interaction with the patients of the latter. Where Mr. Papillon kept himself away from the inferences, this is what he got.

But then there is a catch! Mr. Papillon adds “But suddenly he got greedy and formed his coterie……. His simple funda was that medical practice wasn't going to give him more money…. So in short everyone connected with him has so called divine power.” Now we are in for a trouble. All the above statements are the impressions of Mr. Papillon. How he got this information or what made him believe this way is absolutely obscure. None other than Mr. Papillon has contributed to it; or at least that’s how it appears from the content. Mr. Papillon is totally silent on how he arrived at these conclusions. One answer can, therefore, be these are his impressions, whatever they are worthy of and whatever the reasons be. At best, they are impressions, the reasons of which we don’t know. At worst, they are baseless allegations, recorded at a free space with no supporting evidence mentioned at all. If we have to believe all that is posted here, then the real Avatar will be Mr. Papillon only. He knows the minds of others. Reasons and intentions of anyone are available to him like an open book. He knows why Shri Aniruddha stopped his medical practice and came to be a Sadguru. He knows how he (Aniruddha) earns his money. He knows how the crowd attending rathayatra is mad. It is no wonder then that he knows everything about everybody.

Now, if these are his personal impressions and he has every right to have them, then others have equally valid rights to have impressions that may differ from those of Mr. Papillon. Moreover, the worth of those impressions need not be anyway more or less of the worth of Mr. Papillon. It then becomes a simple matter of difference of opinions or different likes and dislikes. If I like apple and somebody else likes pineapple, both are equally fine, no matter what is worth how much and to that extent it’s democratic. No question of large-scale acceptance or rejection arises in these cases, leave away universal acceptance or rejection. On the other hand if they are baseless allegations, then it talks about the person putting them on the free space for whatever reasons. As Bernard Shaw rightly observed, Peter’s statement about Paul reveals more about Peter than about Paul. It talks volumes about the person who does such an act and not about the person about whom the statements are made.

One need not go far for getting more about the holders of this opinion. On one hand Mr. Papillon has accepted that Dr. Aniruddha ‘is good doctor, no doubt.’ In the very next paragraph, Mr. Papillon says Dr. Aniruddha was a ‘smoker sitting idly in Dadar area. Now, that’s a problem. How a person who is a good doctor, can, at the same time, be a smoker sitting idly? When someone starts contrasting himself, the motives obviously become doubtful. Has Mr. Papillon seen what he wants to see? Is it a case of deciding the inferences first, then choosing the impressions that suit those inferences and then putting them without any objective evidence? I really don’t know. But a serious doubt on the credibility of the person arises.

Another subsequent post of Mr. Papillon, on the same issue, goes something like this.

“Many readers have responded on the post. Shreeyashsinh, your comment that lakhs follow him. Even if crores follow that does not mean he is right. Thats the way Gurus work social compliance. That might work in case of fire and emergency to follow people. But it does not work always. The recent sex scandals of Baba in karnataka are prime examples. He also had lakhs of followers.

When someone claims to have extraordinary powers then the proof also must be extra ordinary.”

You are fair Mr. Papillon to the extent that following of lakhs does not make someone automatically right. But do you think unsubstantiated blogs of a few prove somebody wrong? If you do, then it’s a serious problem. No number can prove something right. But at the same time no words can prove it wrong either. If lakhs follow him, at least there is a serious possibility that the man has contributed to change the lives of his followers for the better. What do allegations without proofs show?

One may argue here that how a common man should get proof. Fair enough! But if a common man knows something or has reasons to doubt the credentials of another like this case, there are ways and means of addressing the issue. Take the example of Mr. Papillon’s above remarks. Titles and changing hands of properties is the information available with revenue authorities in every city. Mr. Papillon can surely get records of properties that he suspects. This information is available under Right to Information Act since it falls under public domain. Mr. Papillon is free to post this information and ask for the source of funds to Shri. Aniruddha. It will at least serve the purpose of his ordinary allegations getting substantiated. I, for one, know surely enough that nothing is charged from the devotees for satsang and discourses (Pravachan) on Thursdays. In Guru Purnima and Aniruddha Purnima festivals also nothing is accepted from devotees of Aniruddha. I have seen cases of gift items brought by visitors to Aniruddha being returned. This is ‘aankho dekhee’. If Mr. Papillon has some other information, it’s the moral responsibility of Mr. Papillon to share the concrete information and save all the innocent devotees from being exploited. Why is he shirking of his responsibility?

The last comment is, however, beyond all imagination. “When someone claims to have extraordinary powers then the proof also must be extra ordinary.” It’s extremely hard to fathom what is expected here. Shri Aniruddha has put-up his entire philosophy in a three-volume book viz. Shreemad Purushaarth. In this book, he has said in black and white that he considers himself ‘friend of his friends’. He does not claim to have any extraordinary powers. In fact, in his speeches, he always speaks against the so called ‘Chamatkaars’ that the likes of Satya Sai Baba are known for. He has categorically said in so many discourses and lectures that he can do no chamatkaars. Only his followers talk of many experiences associated with him which have no rational explanation. But if one wants to go into it, one may verify and check the reasons that the followers attribute to their experiences and if they are not satisfactory, refuse to believe them. It might be fair to do only this much and nothing beyond. Whenever, I come across such logic, it always raises two questions in my mind. One is that even today, Shri Aniruddha does not talk about the people who refuse to accept him or believe in him. Why then the non-believers have to talk so much about him? And second issue is that can we ask someone to produce proof for what his friends talk about him? Or even if we can, why would someone pay heed to us? What is so great about you Mr. Papillon that a person like Aniruddha would listen to you and would want your acceptance stamped to him and would strive for that? A small sub-question of this question is that is it always possible to prove what exists? Can everything that is around us be proved? Or absence of proof is often construed as proof of absence? Social facts are so tricky that measuring all by the one yardstick is often misleading. So it’s advisable to allow every aspect of life to grow by its own set of rules. Whether you agree and accept the rules or not is a different story altogether. But let us not force one set on all.

The post of Mr. Papillon has evoked many responses, as was to be expected. Some of them are from the supporters of the post and some from opponents, again as could be expected. I am dealing with only two of them- one about news and newspapers and the other about beliefs and faiths in thinking. The first one is given below.

“Anonymous

He is fraud dear. A Big Big fraud. Please check how many police cases are registered against him and his trust. This was published in news paper.

Kavita

Hello everyone, Yes, there are few police cases again this man and Aniruddha trust. This is confirmed. This is a big big fraud which no one can imagine.”

What does the above reaction suggest? We will be greatly obliged Mr. Anonymous and Ms. Kavita if you give us some insight into the types of Police cases against the big big fraud viz. Aniruddha and his trust. Are they the cases of extortion or disproportionate assets or money laundering; what are they? At least give some information that you remember. Don’t rely solely on newspapers. I can show you well-established national newspapers, giving blatant false information. So if you remember any details, we shall follow it up by calling for the information under RTI Act. Let us do a sincere attempt for the benefit of one and all. Why not? I am aware of the limitations of demands for proof. So all that we can do, is, building-up a prima-facie case only. Rest of it will be decided by the times. (And finally, if it is a big big fraud no one can imagine, except Ms. Kavita, the most likely probability is that this is her imagination only.)

The other reaction is interesting and often heard typical reaction. It is given below.

“Abhay

PROOF:ANIRUDDHA BAPU-A BIG RASCAL,HIGH QUALITY CHEATER
1) Aniruddha Bapu is a social worker who has falsely claimed to be god.
2) I don't think that he has siddhis and even if he has siddhis, he cannot speak any real philosophy that can benefit others.
3) If he is god, then why is he opening an eye donation center ? Why has he written a book on world war 3 ? Does god write books on World War 3 ?
4) If he is Krishna and his brother is Balarama, why do they wear leather chappals and leather belts ? Krishna and Balarama are protectors of cows.
5) Actually there is no need of quoting scriptures for this particular nonsensical person. He has allowed his followers to superimpose his photo on the virata rupa of the Lord using photoshop. He claims that he is Krishna and Sai Baba simultaneously. Therefore it cannot get stupider than this.
6) Just because his name is Aniruddha, does not mean that he is one of the caturvyuhas. If that were so, anyone called Aniruddha or Krishna could become the Supreme Lord.

Srimad Bhagvatam (5.14.29)
kadäcid éçvarasya bhagavato viñëoç cakrät paramäëv-ädi-dvi-parärdhäpavarga-kälopalakñaëät parivartitena vayasä raàhasä harata äbrahma-tåëa-stambädénäà bhütänäm animiñato miñatäà vitrasta-hådayas tam eveçvaraà käla-cakra-nijäyudhaà säkñäd bhagavantaà yajïa-puruñam anädåtya päkhaëòa-devatäù kaìka-gådhra-baka-vaöa-präyä ärya-samaya-parihåtäù säìketyenäbhidhatte
Translation : The personal weapon used by Lord Kṛṣṇa, the disc, is called hari-cakra, the disc of Hari. This cakra is the wheel of time. It expands from the beginning of the atoms up to the time of Brahmā's death, and it controls all activities. It is always revolving and spending the lives of the living entities, from Lord Brahmā down to an insignificant blade of grass. Thus one changes from infancy, to childhood, to youth and maturity, and thus one approaches the end of life. It is impossible to check this wheel of time. This wheel is very exacting because it is the personal weapon of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Sometimes the conditioned soul, fearing the approach of death, wants to worship someone who can save him from imminent danger. Yet he does not care for the Supreme Personality of Godhead, whose weapon is the indefatigable time factor. The conditioned soul instead takes shelter of a man-made god described in unauthorized scriptures. Such gods are like buzzards, vultures, herons and crows. Vedic scriptures do not refer to them. Imminent death is like the attack of a lion, and neither vultures, buzzards, crows nor herons can save one from such an attack. One who takes shelter of unauthorized man-made gods cannot be saved from the clutches of death.
This statement has been given by JadaBharata himself, who is described in the sastras as a paramhamsa vaisnava.

7) If he is Krishna, can he speak Bhagavad Gita and explain all the purports? Can he speak 1 chapter completely?

8) If he is Vishnu, where are his associates? Where is Garuda? And to completely seal the issue, I ask, where is the Vrishni kula??

9) If he is simply a social worker, he should order his followers to stop calling him god. He may have some academic ability, but that does not make anyone god.

10) Sometimes, his followers call him an incarnation of Swami Samarth (who claimed to be Dattatreya, which is another high quality nonsense). If this is true, then where are the mystic powers of Dattatreya ?? Dattatreya is yoga-nātha - the master of mystic yoga. How is it that, a master of mystic yoga has to open eye-donation hospitals? How is it that he has been seen to be worshipping demigods ? Is Dattatreya a worshipper of demigods ? Does Dattatreya have a brother who is also incarnation of Vishnu? Dattatreya has only 2 brothers, Candra and Durvasa.

11) Such people, who claim to be God, while simultaneously not following any scripture, have not heard about the great responsibility that an incarnation of God executes :

Bhagvad Gita 3.22-24
na me pärthästi kartavyaà
triñu lokeñu kiïcana
nänaväptam aväptavyaà
varta eva ca karmaëi

yadi hy ahaà na varteyaà
jätu karmaëy atandritaù
mama vartmänuvartante
manuñyäù pärtha sarvaçaù

utsédeyur ime lokä
na kuryäà karma ced amah
saìkarasya ca kartä syäm
upahanyäm imäù prajäù
Translation : O son of Pṛthā, there is no work prescribed for Me within all the three planetary systems. Nor am I in want of anything, nor have I a need to obtain anything — and yet I am engaged in prescribed duties. For if I ever failed to engage in carefully performing prescribed duties, O Pārtha, certainly all men would follow My path. If I did not perform prescribed duties, all these worlds would be put to ruination. I would be the cause of creating unwanted population, and I would thereby destroy the peace of all living beings.

Prescribed duties means performing duties according varna and ashrama. This Aniruddha Bapu is a modern doctor by profession, which comes in a shudra category. Why has the Supreme Lord descend as a shudra ?? To do social service and open eye banks ??

12) The only difference between Paundraka and his followers and Aniruddha Bapu and his followers is that Paundraka did not have Adobe Photoshop, so he had to make cardboard caturbhuja rupa and pose like that. Aniruddha Bapu is indeed indebted to Adobe for making him god. Without Adobe, he could not have probably have so many variegated forms and incarnations.

13) If you want to read what a real siddha can do, you should read the Chapter of kardama muni in srimad bhagavatam.

14) Ok, so let me for a moment believe that he is a rebirth of SaiBaba (who is just another nonsense, a disturbance to the bhagavatas and follower of no particular philosophy. His only philosophy is that, I am --- and I am great. I will do social service and prove myself to be god)... So let’s say Aniruddha Bapu is SaiBaba. But SaiBaba could cure people's eye problems using magic. Why does this new incarnation have to open eye donation hospitals ???

15) After the disappearance of Tukarama Maharaja, many Maharashtrians have become grossly foolish, taking anyone and everyone to be god. These foolish people of Maharashtra do not know that if there were scheduled to be such an incarnation, many saintly personalities would have described that personality, his father, mother, dynasty in advance. They do not practise what Tukarama Maharaja taught :

harer name harer nama harer namaiva kevalam, kalau nasty eva nasty eva nasty eva gatir anyatha (Brahma Vaivarta Purana)

16) If I am an ordinary man, and I don't know who God is, then how will I know who is God (Aniruddha Bapu or that RaviShankar or Sathya Sai Baba or RamaKrishna) ?? 

17) So, in conclusion, if Aniruddha Bapu is not god, then is he a servant of God ? Yes, but he is not acting in that position. And if he is not acting as a servant of the Lord, then is he acting like a jnani ? No, because he never speaks from sastra. If he is not a jnani, is he a karmi ? No, because karmis are atleast honest enough not to claim to be god. So if he is not a karmi, then is he a yogi ? No, because yogis can demonstrate mystic feats in public, which he has not yet done. So is he one of the members of lower castes ?? No, because the members of lower castes like yavanas and mlecchas do not claim to be god. Then under what category does he fall ?? The conclusion is that he is a pasandi, a complete disturbance to society, a Photoshop version of Paundraka, and this time, not fit to be killed by the Lord. Such people can be delivered if they accept themselves as servants of Krishna and chant Krishna's names themselves, thinking themselves to be servants of Krishna.

bhagavata ye na mane, se yavana sama
tara sastra ache janme janme prabhu yama (Caitanya Bhagavata)

"One who does not accept Srimad Bhagavatam, is a yavana. He will be punished by yamaraja life after life".

Therefore, he shall definitely go to hell, unless he surrenders to Krishna, and his followers will faithfully follow him to that place.”

This is a very interesting reaction. The whole long write-up can be summarized into a simple one-liner. Aniruddha does not behave according to my beliefs or he does not go by the scriptures that I believe are right. So he is no God, but is a rascal and a cheater. Mr. Abhay has a problem of understanding. There is no scripture that wrote how Krishna should behave, before He was born. Scriptures always follow the Lord not precede Him. Basically, according to my information, Aniruddha himself never said he has Siddhis. If he has, then it will make sense to ask for proof. But if ‘I don’t think, so it’s not there’ is the thought, then the real incarnation or ‘Avataar’ has to be Mr. Abhay, simply because what he thinks is the final truth and what he thinks is the only truth. Otherwise, which scripture said or who told him that God doesn’t open an eye donation centre or does not write books? Who, he thinks, is the author of Bhagawad Geeta? Is it Ved Vyaas? No. Vyaas just penned it down. And is it obligatory that God or Sai Baba should always behave the same way and cure all problems by magic alone? Is it that they can’t change their system? Logically nobody can dictate what God should do. It’s solely his wish, his choice. Even creation of Universe is not his duty. When you are thinking at that level, there is no duty, no job nothing; all that remains is his choice, his wish that is supreme. No other rule ever exists. It is stupid to ask whether Aniruddha can speak Bhagawad Geeta. Abhayji, you can visit Ved Paathashaalaas and get scores of students who have entire Bhagawad Geetaa by heart. None of them ever claims to be God. Gods are the ones who create their own Geetaas, not the ones who recite it. None has ever dictated Lord Vishnu, to be born always with Vrishni Kula and Garuda with him. Ram had no Garuda, but had an aero plane instead. Parshuram did not bring Vrushni Kula. Then were they not Vishu’s incarnations? In fact, Mr. Abhay, you have committed several grave mistakes of information in your arguments. Medical profession was never a job of ‘Shudras’. Ayurved is the upa-ved of Rigveda. From humans like Charak and Sushruta to Gods like Ashwinikumars, all practiced medical science and none was a shudra. The facts are far otherwise. Krishna chose to be a chariot driver (saarathee) for Arjuna. That is a shudra activity. He personally entered battlefield to kill Chaanur, Mushtik and Kans. These are khatriya activities. Putting up a trade-based state of the people (Ganaraajya), the Dwaarakaa, is a vaishya activity. It does not matter, however. Krishna is still the same incarnation of God, the Avatar. Fault is at your end, not with the God, Mr. Abhay. He knows what to do and when and how. He arrives to create scriptures and modify them whenever required.

There are some positives of the reaction, nonetheless. Mr. Abhay admits Aniruddha to be a social worker. At many places he has used the term Aniruddha Bapu. That sounds little more sensible. Rest of it is the rhetoric of an “I specialist”.

Mr. Abhay has not considered other fall-outs of his arguments either. According to some of the ardent followers, if Aniruddha has to go to hell, they will gleefully follow him and will be happy doing that. They believe, Aniruddha will convert that hell into heavens and will make it a joyous place. According to some others, only those who talk about Aniruddha in a derogatory way will, in fact, land into hell. What sense does it make to fight on who is going to which hell, when there is no way of verifying it? We better do our duties well and leave the rest to Chitragupta. Let’s not encroach upon his decision and his territory.

Before summing up, I would like to touch one more aspect I always think contributes to such reactions. It is a sad fact in the history of India that we had over six hundred years of foreign rules. I am not referring to the Hoons, Kushans and Shaks. By foreign rule, I mean the Khiljis, the Ghulams, the Mughals and so on until the British. It finally ended by the mid of 20^th century. The problem here was that these foreign rulers had a philosophy of their own, unlike the Hoons, Kushans and Shaks. Islam and Christianity are both religions born in the Middle East. They both originated in similar situations in the Palestine area and therefore have some striking similarities. One similarity I am talking about is the approach towards individuals. Both these religions believe that all human beings are lower ranked and they need agencies of higher ranked people called prophets for their upliftment. Their fundamental assumption is that nobody can reach the Almighty or God without surrendering to the prophets and the prophets defined by the scriptures are the only prophets. None can even imagine that he can be equal and be on the same plane as that of Paigambar or Christ. So there are at least 3 different entities viz. God, prophet and common man. India, on the other hand, is dominated by a different faith, the Hinduism. Hinduism believes that every individual, howsoever significant or insignificant it may be, is a part and parcel of the God. ‘Ansh’ or small piece of the universal consciousness called God is the real nature of every individual, irrespective of any differences between individuals. In the ultimate sense, this belief boils down to the assumption that everyone is God. It’s not only Sai Baba or Aniruddha or Tukaram or Nanak or anybody for that matter that are Gods. Each and everybody is God. Our entire philosophy is based on this principle that is termed as Adwait. During about 600+ years of the foreign rule, however, we have taken over their approach to the relation between God and man and have forgotten ours. It’s the difference between ‘None can reach God unless going through me’ and ‘Aham brahmasmi’. If each person is a small portion of the same God and if everyone has to reach the same stage at some or the other time, where is the issue? Sadguru is only a means to improve the speed of this upliftment and transformation. That’s why, according to our philosophy, Sadguru can produce a disciple who is a better individual than the Guru himself since ability of Guru is less important; the dedication of disciple is much more a necessity. ‘मन्त्रे तीर्थे द्विजे देवे, दैवद्न्ये भेषजे गुरौ, यादृशी भावना यस्य - सिद्धिर्भवति तादृशी’ is the fundamental rule. So everybody is on the same path, but in different state of upliftment, is the presumption. If you believe in the values of Hinduism, everyone can claim he is God, albeit under development.

Unless you accept the value statements of philosophies propagating dwaita, (clear-cut  distinction between God and others) you have no way of finding fault with somebody declaring himself as God. You cannot quote from Bhagawat, Bhagawad Geeta and still call a person cheat because he says I am the God. I have to state here that I’m not at all interested in proving that Aniruddha is God or saint or somebody else. All that I am trying to say is that inconsistent logic, ego and self-proclaimed hybrid value systems prove (or disprove) nothing. It only goes to prove what has been quoted earlier from Bernard Shaw. ‘Peter’s statement about Paul speaks more about Peter, than about Paul.” How true it is!