LETTERS TO RAMAN PATEL Regarding his role at Brockwood Park School / Krishnamurti Foundation Trust (KFT) / KLI (Friedrich Grohe's "Gang"), etc.
Several people have reported that Raman appears to be the most powerful person at KFT / Brockwood, yet he's not a staff member, a Trustee, an external staff, and claims he has no official role but he appears to be part of all the centers of power: The Old Boys, The KLI Gang, and appears to be a management consultant as he's often seen with Nasser Shamim though his background as a gardener and cook doesn't seem fit as a management consultant) -- and there's no way Nasser Shamim and Mina Masoumian would have such power without backing from Raman and his clout as part of Big Money (he's on Friedrich Grohe's payroll). And at the same time some fiascos are reported at KFT that smell like huge management screwups, like implosion of a great K school: Inwoods... and alienation of several ex- long term staff / students / supporters / trustees... I reached out to Raman for a conversation since several people pointed fingers at his unofficial yet very powerful role when we inquired about the state of affairs.
January 2021, Reza Ganjavi
1) Be careful not to fall into the nasty habit of some K places who can’t handle the truth: they try to discredit the messanger in order to discard the message. Also make this very clear to your buddy Nasser, that I am not X, Y, Z – and I have zero tolerance for lies, bogus threats, and slander. I have a lot of friends in these circles and if I hear the old slander trick was used I will act on it. I was too nice to KFA – learned the lesson.
2) My “Fifth Foundation” report which you’re slamming was cherished as a very important artefact that outlined things that were otherwise were being buried, ignored, and not by supreme intelliengence! Several close friends of K and trustee wrote to me thanking for it saying these things were things they wanted to say for a long time but couldn’t.
3) I am interested in truth and reached out to you and others to get your side of the story. Nasser’s response to my call for a dialogue was to block my email. Classy Lol. Now I know that he doesn’t want his side to be understood/examined/questioned – and knowing the facts I now know, I believe the reason for that is not some legal confidentiality excuse, but mismanagement, in my opinion based on several reports from credible sources who do not have a voluntary or coerced NDAs.
4) “were not an original party to” – some people might forget that K was a public figure and his organizations are not private clubs and are answerable to public. Try to grasp that.
5) The “narrative” is based on diligent research – and I even reached out to the “other side” as you know – and parties who have no personal stake in the matter. So the narrative is based on real substance – I didn’t pull it out of thin air.
6) “things you have no understanding of”. I started with having no understanding. I did a ton of research that is ongoing – not just myself, but we have a taskforce. I invited you to have a call since you claim you have understanding of things – so you can enlighten me – that didn’t happen.
7) How could you know all about Inwoods if you didn’t get their side of the story. I guess that was inconvenient! So perhaps it’s you who don’t understand some key facts – in your all-powerful position there’s no reason that should be the case but it is so, probably because it’d be inconvenient. You keep quoting K – yet K spent a lifetime talking about importance of finding truth and you don’t seem to have done that.
8) Raman, your character attack is just supid and wrong. You’re the one going into a convenient pattern of “power centers” that have not acted with nearly supreme intelligence which get engaged in cheapshots. My questions to you have nothing to do with anything else – I think you are mixing things up. Or where did you get your Guruship degree from? All knowing – allowing yourself to arrogantly put yourself in my head and know everything Mr. Omniscient. Be careful – that’s how gurus are made.
9) What are you doing for Friedrich anyway for the salary you’re getting. You haven’t been a missionary because of Covid, so I guess you’re a resident guru now? Consulting people on deep questions of life – be careful it can get into your head – your behaviour exhibits you may be going that direction. And throwing K quotes at people that’s totally out of place. I wrote to you a nice mail a while back and you responded with a totally out of context long K quote because you think in your apparently delusional, arrogant ideas that you know what I need. See, that’s how gurus operate. And also your verbiage – the way you put it – as though you think I need it. Careful Raman for your own sake at least.
10) “which he is totally fed up about” – that’s his problem. There’s a Persian saying that “truth is bitter” doesn’t have to be but it is. There’s another saying “the buck stops at the top” – so when Friedrich sets up an organization, he’s responsible for what happens in it. Perhaps that’s one reason K dissolved Order of Star – and spoke for decades about perils of organizations – and almost dissolved his official organizations too (at least KFI) and wasn’t fond of KFA either as far as I remember. And he’s on record for knowing what happens to organizations – they usually get corrupted. But he wasn’t a usual man or a guru so it’d be a pity to see organizations around him go that direction.
11) “The points in your emails are so incorrect.” – list them out. Let’s see what you came back with listing them:
a. “it was me who hadn’t seen the whole elephant” – it was reported that you had told someone that he is seeing only the trunk of the elephant. How did you know without knowing there’s a whole elephant or are seeing it. How could you have known that if you had not talked to Inwoods about their side of the story. Therefore, I don’t buy your statement, sorry. Perhaps you didn’t analyse it enough yourself to see the implication of your own statement. Again, a guru trait – put the other person down, as though you know and he doesn’t. But it has implications.
b. “emotional reactions” – what emotional reaction specifically? Since you failed to list any specifics, and there are none, and everything I wrote was rationally based, I interpret this as another cheap-shot from you with no substance.
12) “Functional roles are a matter for the parties concerned”. No, in a non-profit, at least in the USA, I don’t know about UK, certain roles need to be officially defined and can’t just be improvised. Also there are strict rules there about roles of donors and what they cannot do.
13) “It is not the business of anyone else to interfere unless invited”. Look, all I asked was what is your role in Brockwood. You said you’re not a trustee or staff member – but you’re there just to give advice on matters of life. So, I asked follow up questions on aspects that didn’t seem to fit your explanations. You can say it’s not my business, but you didn’t in the beginning – only when I scrutinized it because several people have pointed fingers at you and are confused about your role, and think you may be having a far bigger role than providing life advice. And it’s plausible / reasonable to assume that Nasser and Mina would never have such power without being from you via Grohe lineage / having the support of the power / clout / big-money. Plausible
14) “responsibility of the individuals concerned.” If you’re talking about people who were fired from Brockwood – or people who were fedup with the management of the place and left – and saying it’s their responsibility, you got that very very wroing. I guess your lack of education in management science can be a reason that you don’t understand that. Usually postmen, gardeners, cooks don’t have the proper background to assume management consulting roles that reportedly you might have assumed.
15) “not the other way around as you seem to believe” – no I don’t believe the other way around. I know why Friedrich recruited you decades ago and those things you listed were done far after he recruited you so not all of that were the reasons. Sequence of events is an interesting concept.
16) “to assume it is used to manipulate another” Please do not put words in my mouth. I never accused you of manipulating others. Manipulation has a very specific meaning – you may want to look it up.
17) “Brockwood is handled well” – Raman, where are you? The reports are very contrary to what you say and are quite disturbing, and this is why several people couldn’t handle it any more and left. You can’t measure a charitable trust in the same manners as a for-profit business – and don’t forget this is a K place and he had certain clear values, some of which have been apparently thrown out the window. There is a reason many old-timer friends of Brockwood / staff members / teachers / trustees / others are so upset. It’s not random or arbitrary.
18) “Krishnaji: who will hold the place together” – he answered it himself: affection, and applying the teachings. Both seem to be missing in some of the reports we have from some stakeholders. We’re researching and analysing these deeply because we are interested in truth.
19) “genuine questions are always received in good faith” – are you kidding? How about a letter signed by almost 40 parents that was outright ignored – not even the courtesy to answer! Give me a break! You know what K said about ignorance…
20) Raman, you lied about what I purportedly wrote about Stream Garden. I never wrote such a thing. You're making it up. Only things I wrote about it was posting a link to their promotional video in one of my 2013 circular (with no comment). And a quote about it by LC Wong in my 2012 circular. I don't appreciate you making up fake things about my writings. Lying is not cool! Especially when it's used to try to discredit me with a fake argument. You can do better Raman!
21) Raman, you wrote about management team and the "core staff" and that it's a "thankless job".
a) By "core staff" I assume this means "non core staff", externals, etc. are not doing a great job? A letter that circulated from an insider complained about this very thing: the division of internal and external in a very strange way. I've worked in many professional organizations that included internal and external staff -- I was often an external as a freelance program/project manager etc. -- let me tell you from a ton of experience that in most successful settings, there's NO DIVISION between internal and external staff even though one may be on direct payroll (internal) or external. I recall from direct experience and reports from others that Brockwood used to be like that but there are newer reports of a division. Your "core" comment therefore raised an alarm.
b) Thankless job? What do you expect? Bouquet of flowers? Let me tell you from experience "out there" that real-world jobs are "thankless" -- you get paid to do a job -- of course, thanking/motivating/etc., is part of good management practice -- so if staff at Brockwood feel unmotivated and not thanked, and that they should be, that's a management issue. If the management team itself feels not thanked, well let's look: We're talking about Nasser, Mina, Antonio and Bill. As far as I know Bill and Antonio have received perks from Friedrich Grohe or his KLI -- which you're a part of -- in form of travels etc. -- so all that can be considered as "thanks".
Nasser and Mina, I can only judge from a distance that they came for 6 months and secured their position for 6 years so far in a very strong position of power -- and the relationship to the Board in terms of power structure raises questions in some people familiar with the dynamics -- and, they're getting a salary.
I've never gotten a job expecting to be thanks. If Nasser feels he's not being thanked, and he's unhappy about his salary (which he's complained about comparing it with funding for a building!! What a bad comparison -- he reportedly quotes K often but perhaps he forgot the discourses on problem of comparison / measurement) maybe he should get a better job where he can get more thanks and more money. That's not anybody else's problem.
c) "people can’t wait to target them". Hello! People have better things to do than targeting KFT/BP. Investigating Brockwood/KFT's Inwoods fiasco and related matters was nothing something I looked for or even preferred to get engaged in. Certainly it wasn't something I "couldn't wait"!! Everyone else I know, including the task-force members are in the same shoes.
I don't think you understand the gravity of what you're talking about, and are trying to discard it with extremely weak and untrue arguments like "people can’t wait to target them. I assure you I started with a totally open mind and among first things I did was to reach out to the other side. But by now it's very clear to me, that the scrutiny KFT-Trustees/Management-Team/Big-Boys/Grohe's-KLI are subject to is legitimate, and nobody is engaged in it for fun or heck of it.
22) You say things are well run. Was Inwoods well run? Did you look into it? I can tell you from many reports that it was absolutely well-run. We have yet to find a single issue that has merit from everything I looked at -- but we're still looking. We have however come upon a bunch of rumors/hearsay and other unfounded false accusations like it was a cult -- it wasn't -- there's no evidence of it having been a cult. Another question: was the handling of Inwoods that led to the disintegration / implosion of a great school managed correctly? We don't think so, and therefore, that's just one example that negates what you say about how rosy things are. The impact on the kind of behavior that led to Inwood's implosion and other cases, may point out disturbing potential threats to the spirit and values the place was built on.
Best wishes to you. And try to reduce your exposure to RF-EMR.
I think you've chosen to ignore the last email I sent you -- so I give it one last try. I like to have a call with you to go over some things. At the request of some long-term friends of K's work who are deeply concerned, and upset about the way KFT/Brockwood Park has handled the Inwoods fiasco and similar situations, I am researching this entire topic.
Of course I am after the truth and that's why I reached out to see your side of the story, to see the whole elephant and not just the trunk, to use an analogy you used on someone whom you alleged to not be seeing the whole elephant (of the Inwoods fiasco which he was deeply troubled about along with 93% of the parents who quit, and many others who cannot understand the mismanagement that led to this disastrous implosion of a great and rare K school that had taken over 20 years to delicately build), implying that you do see the whole elephant, while in reality, reportedly, you didn't even seek the Inwoods' side of the story.
So it's plausible that you were the one who was seeing it only through the biased eyes of the "Old Boys", "Management Team", Friedrich Grohe's KLI "The Gang" as he has called them -- three subgroups you reportedly belong to or are very cozy with in your official and "unofficial" duties. So apparently you were preaching about seeing the whole elephant, yet looking only at the trunk yourself, which is hypocritical!
On the other hand, I am indeed interested to see the whole elephant... I think I almost see it, given consistent and sensible testimonies from several people -- not necessarily direct victims of the ugly brutal things that have no place in a K school -- like alleged bogus threats to charge people with "gross misconduct" (and reply of "we can't tell you" what the poor person is being accused of, which essentially means, we lied, there's no such gross misconduct, we're just making it up and saying it to intimidate you).
I'm not saying that you said this but you're reportedly very cozy with the Management Team (who's reportedly/allegedly pulled this off on multiple people) -- half of whom (Antonio Autor, Bill Taylor) are part of your "Old Boys" groups (Raman Patel, Derek Hook, Antonio Autor, Bill Taylor) and have gotten perks from the Big Money you supposedly represent (I don't think Raman Patel, without being an employee of Friedrich Grohe would ever have as much power); and the other half, you brought to Brockwood for a 6 month study but they ended up staying 6 years in a position of near-ultimate power... which would probably have been impossible, had it not been for their support and backing by the "long arm of Big Money", Mr. Raman Patel -- and some apparently woefully mismanaged things that followed in a manner that had never been imagined in the history of Brockwood or K's work (in our opinion, very contrary to the teachings of Krishnamurti).
Very similar to what happened at KFA which in my opinion took it to a new low, with the engagement of the other "long arm of Big Money", your pal, Rabindra Singh and the fiascos we've witnessed by Jaap Sluijter in similar power games (details will be published in due time), which again would have been impossible had it not been for the support of "Big Money". You and Rabindra have been on Friedrich Grohe's payroll, and I have no idea what you do for the money you get.
Mind you, both KFT and KFA are non-profit, tax-exempt, charitable organizations that solicit public funding -- they're not private clubs, and what happens there is a matter of public concern, especially given the highly public profile of their founder.
Nobody would normally care -- to each his/her own, but in this case, all this is set up around the work of J. Krishnamurti who is no longer with us physically but some of us met him and have studied his teachings deeply for many years and we feel a responsibility to at least call it out when we see things being done in his organizations which appear totally contrary to the kind of spirit he dedicated his life to promoting.
On 12/21/20 11:48 PM, Réza Ganjavi wrote:
You see one thing leads to anther Your Brockwood email address led to this thread...
You wrote that you've been asked to provide consultations for mature students temporarily and that's why you have a Brockwood email address. And that "I have no official role at brockwood in any capacity, organisationally or otherwise. However, when requested, I do happen to meet with individuals who may want to explore issues of life."
So your only "official" role is with mature students.
1) What are your non-official roles?
Reason for asking is because I've been researching a topic and your name has come up repeatedly as the most influential person at Brockwood. Yes, you have no official role. You're not an internal staff member or trustee, or external employee, yet you reportedly sporadically attend trustee meetings, attend management meetings, and the topics discussed in these meetings are not just "issues of life".
When someone is noted as most influential -- and he says he has no official duty -- it naturally raises the question, of what is the person's unofficial duty.
2) Are you in these powerful unofficial roles as Friedrich's representative?
3) Or representative of KLI?
Thanks for clarifying.