A Fair Process Cannot Begin With a Fixed Conclusion.
Before judgment is passed on a teacher, a sangha, and a community, the record deserves to be examined in full — every dynamic, every side, every silence. This page is an invitation to slow down and look again.
The public narrative repeatedly frames these women only as victims and Anand only as the person with power. But long relationships are rarely understood through one angle alone.
So the questions are:
- 01Has anyone reviewed whether there was pressure, emotional influence, dependency, expectation, benefit, or manipulation on all sides?
- 02Has anyone reviewed the full communication history, not just selected excerpts?
- 03Has anyone examined whether Anand was also being emotionally, professionally, financially, or reputationally pressured over time?
- 04Why are facts being presented without full confrontation, full response, or full context from him?
- 05Why is one side’s interpretation being treated as complete truth while the other side’s experience is being treated as irrelevant?
- 06If these relationships continued for years, why is the public being shown only the final interpretation and not the full evolution?
A fair process cannot begin with a fixed conclusion.
Why We Respect the Legal Route
Sattva has not chosen to respond by playing dirty. In the face of public false allegations, online pressure, deleted comments, and reputational harm, Sattva has chosen the legal route. That matters.
Legal processes may be slower. They may be less emotionally satisfying than social media outrage. But they exist for a reason: to review evidence, hear all sides, protect rights, and prevent irreversible damage caused by incomplete narratives.
The people leading this public campaign may genuinely believe they are doing the right thing. But good intentions do not automatically make a process fair. Believing oneself to be righteous does not give anyone the right to destroy lives, livelihoods, families, teachers, students, and institutions before the full truth is reviewed.
So the questions are:
- 01Why is one side being punished for choosing legal process instead of public retaliation?
- 02Why is restraint being mistaken for silence?
- 03Why is due process being treated as avoidance?
- 04Why is the refusal to play dirty being treated as weakness?
- 05Why are public pressure and online outrage being treated as morally superior to legal review?
- 06If the claims are serious, why not allow them to be tested properly through evidence and process?
- 07If the campaign leaders are confident in their truth, why fear a full legal and evidentiary review?
We respect Sattva for choosing the harder route: documentation, legal response, and due process.
Choosing documentation over performance is not the same as having nothing to say.
Restraint is a discipline. It protects those who cannot speak yet, and the process itself.
Restraint should not be mistaken for guilt. It should be recognised for what it is.
What a painful and vicious public spectacle this has become. What is most disturbing is not only the false allegations themselves, but the number of people participating in public judgment without complete evidence, without full context, and without discernment.
This is no longer only about accountability. It has become gossip at the expense of people who were once called friends, teachers, students, and fellow spiritual travellers. If this is truly about protecting people, why has it not remained focused on truth, process, and evidence?
Why must an entire organization be destroyed? Why must students lose their practice? Why must teachers lose their livelihood? Why must staff lose stability? Why must seekers lose a place that gave them healing, discipline, community, and transformation? Why must every positive experience be erased?
If a leader is to be questioned, let there be a fair process. Let there be accountability — but do not burn down an entire sangha and call it justice. Do not silence students and call it safety. Do not pressure teachers and call it truth. Do not delete positive experiences and call it accountability. Do not profit from teachings while publicly destroying the source and call it integrity.
This is not Kali. This is not Dharma. This is not justice. This is collective outrage pretending to be virtue.
And if we are truly students of the path, we must ask ourselves:
Are we seeking the truth? Or are we enjoying destruction?
Read the Questions. Review the Context.
hear the voices of the wider sangha before deciding for yourself.