Voices That
Deserve to
Be Heard
Personal accounts, shared to preserve context and remind readers that no community is represented by one voice alone.
The public conversation surrounding Sattva has included false allegations, personal testimonies, media reports and strong opinions. However, many members of the wider community have felt that their experiences have been overlooked, dismissed or treated as illegitimate because they do not support the dominant public narrative.
This section provides space for students, practitioners, teachers, staff members, community members and others directly affected by recent events to share their own experiences.
These letters do not represent legal findings. They are personal accounts written by their respective authors. They are shared to preserve context, encourage thoughtful examination and remind readers that no community is represented by one voice alone.
Some contributors have chosen to publish anonymously because they fear harassment, professional repercussions or coordinated online attacks. Where anonymity is used, identifying information has been withheld to protect the writer.
We ask readers to engage with every account thoughtfully and respectfully.
I Will No Longer Allow My Experience to Be Used by Others
One of the women who later came forward contacted me twice—once when she was at Sattva and again when the allegations and public controversy began. Looking back, I now believe that I was misled and emotionally manipulated by her.
She told me that Anand had been saying things about me. Because I believed her, I felt deeply hurt and betrayed. I became upset with Anand and stopped speaking to him.
When the allegations and public controversy began a few weeks ago, I was influenced into saying and doing things against Anand. I went back to this woman and directly asked her about what she had previously told me. At that point, she changed her story and said that it was not Anand who had made those statements, but someone else.
This made me realise that I had reacted against Anand based on information that was not true. I had been influenced into saying and doing things against him, even though I had never originally wanted to do so.
She also asked me to join a Circle group, but I chose not to join it.
More recently, a former Sattva staff member who worked in social media and marketing began messaging me repeatedly. She kept telling me about her experiences and how Anand had allegedly wronged her. This was difficult for me to accept because, from what I personally witnessed, Anand has always professionally supported his staff.
My concern is that people are being contacted privately, emotionally influenced, pressured and encouraged to give statements that support one particular narrative. I can only speak about my own experience, but I no longer feel comfortable being pulled into this process or pressured to say things against Anand.
I have also heard claims about wider personal or organisational ambitions behind some of these actions. Based on my own experience, I believe there is more happening behind the scenes than what is being publicly presented.
I cannot be part of what I now feel is a smear campaign or an attempt by an NGO called Safehouse to take down an institution and a friend who has only done good for me. I can only speak about my own experience, but I do not want my words, feelings or experiences to be used to support someone else’s agenda.
My friendship with Anand began in 2005. Because of our long history, people naturally questioned why I continued to be associated with Sattva. I now feel that false information was used to damage our friendship and create mistrust between us.
Eventually, I checked the facts for myself and understood that what I had originally been told was not accurate.
I will not allow myself to be pressured, manipulated or used to make statements against Anand anymore. I am sharing this because I believe people should check the facts for themselves before allowing private conversations, emotional pressure or unconfirmed claims to influence what they say or do.
Where Did the Love Go?
It has been two months since our world began to shift, and I am writing today because I no longer wish to remain silent.
This has been one of the most challenging periods of my life, preceded only by the death of my husband many years ago.
I have watched, observed, held space and answered questions. I have sat in silence and in tears while witnessing what has felt like the systematic dismantling of a beloved sangha.
For many of us, this sangha supported us through difficult times, celebrated with us during joyful ones, brought continued light into our lives and helped us grow.
Throughout this experience, I have repeatedly returned to the teachings as a cornerstone. They feel as relevant now as they have ever been.
I keep asking:
Where did the love go?
Where did the kindness go?
Where did the compassion go?
And what happened to grace?
My heart has been torn apart. What has slowly begun to piece it back together is the recognition of the humanity within every one of us.
We are all human beings moving through a painful and complicated time. I have observed different states of consciousness rise and fall within us as we move through experience, fear, grief, anger and emotion.
I have experienced sadness, emptiness, confusion and loss. What remains is the understanding that every one of us still has work to do to become our best selves.
I have read and listened to opinions, accusations, blame, partial stories and information presented as unquestionable truth. I have also personally experienced labelling, bullying and harassment.
As women of colour, why are our voices, dignity and lived experiences so easily dismissed when we do not follow the crowd?
Why is aggression toward us normalised when we ask questions, exercise discernment or refuse to adopt a position chosen for us by others?
My eldest daughter was contacted and repeatedly drawn into this situation even though she is not a Sattva teacher.
I continue to ask: what was the purpose of involving her? What outcome was being sought?
I have struggled to understand the aggressiveness and willingness to involve people who were not directly connected to the original false allegations.
At the same time, I have heard the sincere cry of many people who wish to see our sangha move toward truth, togetherness and healing through love, compassion and grace.
In my view, the manner in which this situation was publicly escalated has caused extensive and unnecessary harm.
I pray that all involved find the space in their hearts to move forward justly, with the capacity to recognise one another’s humanity and, perhaps one day, to hold each other’s hands and hearts once again.
The Teaching Is Greater Than This Conflict
The ancient teaching transmitted to many of us through Anand is timeless.
It has supported my practice, transformed my understanding and shaped the direction of my life. Recent events do not erase that experience or the value of what thousands of students have received through years of sincere practice.
I have known several of the people now participating in the public campaign. My memories and experiences with them are complex. Some were warm, meaningful and deeply human. Others were difficult.
Because of those personal histories, I do not accept every public description of events as complete or unquestionable.
I remember private conversations, motivations, disagreements and contradictions that are not reflected in the simplified story now being presented publicly.
However, I do not wish to respond to personal attacks with further personal attacks.
There are many private details I could share about past conflicts, relationships and behaviour. I have chosen not to publish them here because this should not become a competition over who can expose or humiliate another person most effectively.
That would not serve truth.
It would only deepen the damage.
I am not claiming that anyone is incapable of pain or that difficult experiences should be ignored. I am saying that the label of “victim” does not automatically make every assertion accurate, nor does it make the wider context irrelevant.
Human relationships are complicated. Communities are complicated. Memories, motivations and interpretations can differ.
That is precisely why evidence, timelines, context and due process matter.
The greatest mistake anyone could make is to assume that a public campaign can erase an entire tradition, destroy the sincere practice of thousands of students or invalidate every positive experience connected to Sattva.
Sattva is more than a building.
It is more than an organisation.
It is more than any one individual, conflict or public narrative.
It lives through the practices, teachings and transformation carried by people across the world.
I remain connected to Anand and committed to preserving and sharing the teachings that have shaped my life. That is my personal decision, made from my own direct experience.
I do not ask anyone else to make the same decision.
I ask only that people stop demanding that every student, woman or community member adopt the same conclusion.
Discernment is not betrayal.
Asking questions is not violence.
Refusing to join a public campaign is not proof of ignorance or complicity.
I wish healing for everyone involved. I also believe that healing cannot be built through harassment, humiliation, threats or the destruction of an entire community.
The teachings will continue.
The practice will continue.
The truth will not be established through the loudest voice, but through careful examination, courage and time.
A Moral Compass Cannot Point in Only One Direction
I am a woman who has personally experienced abuse.
For that reason, I understand why it is important to listen carefully when someone says that she has been harmed. Silence, dismissal and institutional protection can cause enormous damage.
But listening is not the same as immediately declaring every false allegation proven.
Supporting women should not require us to abandon fairness, evidence, context or due process.
The principle “believe women” was never meant to mean that women are incapable of misunderstanding events, repeating inaccurate information, acting from conflict or causing harm themselves.
Women are human beings.
Men are human beings.
Every human being is capable of truth, pain, confusion, contradiction, kindness and wrongdoing.
A society that treats every accusation as a final judgment does not become safer. It becomes more fearful, punitive and vulnerable to manipulation.
Consider a simple example: if tomorrow someone’s partner were to publicly accuse them of abuse, should that alone be treated as unquestionable truth? Should their entire personal history then be opened up for public scrutiny without evidence? These are difficult but necessary questions if we are to remain consistent.
That standard would not be justice.
It would be collective punishment.
Violence against women must be confronted. At the same time, hostility toward men as a category should not be presented as progress. Dehumanising one gender does not heal the suffering experienced by another.
A moral compass must work in every direction.
It must protect people who report harm.
It must also protect people from false, exaggerated or untested claims.
It must make room for uncomfortable testimony.
It must also make room for questions.
It must recognise power within institutions.
It must also recognise the power created by media campaigns, online groups, fundraising, social pressure and public shaming.
Real justice requires consistency.
Otherwise, justice becomes merely a word used by whichever group currently controls the narrative.
I stand for women.
I stand against abuse.
I also stand for evidence, fairness and the basic humanity of men.
These positions are not contradictory.
They are inseparable.
When Does Advocacy Become Cultural Disrespect?
I am writing as an Indian practitioner who has watched recent events with growing concern.
People from around the world have every right to study yoga in India, question institutions, report genuine harm and seek accountability. No spiritual organisation should be considered beyond examination.
However, accountability must not become cultural superiority.
There is a troubling pattern in which Western voices enter Indian spiritual spaces, benefit from Indian teachers and traditions, and then position themselves as the final authorities on how those traditions should be understood, governed or dismantled.
Indian students and staff members who disagree are frequently described as brainwashed, manipulated or incapable of independent judgment.
Why is a Western woman’s account automatically treated as courageous, while an Indian woman who holds a different view is treated as indoctrinated?
Why are the testimonies of foreign critics amplified internationally while the voices of local staff, families, practitioners and women of colour are dismissed?
This is not equality.
It reproduces the very hierarchy that modern advocacy claims to challenge.
Several Indian workers, teachers and families have experienced reputational, financial and emotional harm because of this public campaign. Their lives are not collateral damage. Their dignity matters too.
Indian institutions should be held accountable where evidence establishes wrongdoing.
But they should not be presumed primitive, corrupt or incapable of self-examination simply because they are Indian.
Nor should foreign campaigners assume that their social, political or therapeutic frameworks are the only legitimate ways to interpret Indian relationships, spiritual practice or community structures.
Cultural context does not excuse harm.
Equally, false allegations of harm must not be used to erase cultural context.
Before supporting the destruction of an Indian institution, the public should ask:
Who is speaking?
What direct knowledge do they possess?
Which claims are supported by evidence?
Which statements are hearsay?
Whose voices have been excluded?
Are Indian women being heard, or only the Indian women who support a predetermined conclusion?
Who benefits financially, socially or professionally from the continuation of the campaign?
These questions are not an attack on survivors.
They are necessary questions in any responsible search for truth.
India has welcomed spiritual seekers from across the world for generations.
That openness should not be repaid with contempt for Indian discernment, Indian voices or Indian institutions.
Who Is Evaluating the People Leading the Campaign?
When an organisation faces serious accusations, the backgrounds, interests and conduct of its leaders are examined intensely.
That is understandable.
But should the individuals leading a campaign of accusation be entirely exempt from similar scrutiny?
This is not an invitation to stigmatise anyone for past trauma, addiction, mental-health struggles, relationship difficulties or personal mistakes. Recovery and healing deserve dignity. A difficult personal history does not make someone dishonest.
However, when people assume positions of public authority—collecting testimonies, interpreting experiences, contacting witnesses, raising funds, speaking to journalists and encouraging institutional action—reasonable transparency becomes important.
The public should be permitted to ask:
What qualifications do campaign organisers possess?
What methods are used when approaching potential witnesses?
Are people asked neutral questions, or are they encouraged toward a particular interpretation?
Are statements independently verified?
Are conflicts of interest disclosed?
Have organisers had previous personal, professional, financial or leadership disputes with the people or institution they are investigating?
How are donations and campaign funds managed?
What safeguards exist to prevent vulnerable individuals from being influenced?
Are contradictory accounts preserved and examined, or excluded?
Have organisers made political, racial or ideological statements that could affect their impartiality?
In some cases, it is also worth asking whether personal rivalries, ambitions or leadership disputes may be influencing public narratives. For example, when disagreements arise within regional communities—such as tensions over leadership roles or control of spaces—these dynamics should be acknowledged rather than hidden, as they may shape how accusations are framed or amplified.
These are governance questions, not personal attacks.
A person’s past should never be used to humiliate them. But neither should a campaign be treated as automatically trustworthy merely because it describes itself as survivor-led or justice-oriented.
People exercising public power must accept public accountability.
Transparency should not be demanded from only one side.
Accountability Must Not Become Anti-Man
I am disturbed by a growing idea that questioning an false allegation is inherently anti-woman, while making sweeping statements about men is treated as socially acceptable.
This creates an impossible standard.
Men are told that they must listen, remain silent, accept public judgment and avoid defending themselves because any defence may be interpreted as further aggression.
Women who question the prevailing narrative are described as manipulated, unsafe or disloyal to other women.
This is not liberation.
It replaces one form of silencing with another.
I do not believe all women automatically.
I do not believe all men automatically.
I listen to people.
I examine evidence.
I consider patterns, contradictions, timelines and context.
This is how responsible adults make serious judgments.
A woman’s false allegation deserves to be heard respectfully. A man’s response deserves to be heard respectfully too.
Neither gender should be granted automatic moral superiority.
When advocacy begins treating all men as potential abusers and all women as unquestionable truth-tellers, it stops addressing individual conduct and begins promoting collective prejudice.
That prejudice will eventually harm women as well.
We cannot build a peaceful society by teaching one half of humanity to fear or despise the other.
We need a culture in which people who report harm are supported, investigations are fair and nobody is publicly condemned without a meaningful opportunity to respond.
That is not anti-woman.
That is justice.
An Open Letter from
Gayatri
My connection with Sattva is not based on social media, international journalism or online false allegations.
It comes from what I personally experienced.
Through the people and initiatives connected with Sattva, I received support, opportunities and a sense that my future mattered.
Today, I see people discussing the destruction of an institution as though only one person or one controversy is affected.
But many other lives are connected to it.
Students are connected to it.
Local families are connected to it.
Teachers, workers, vendors and children are connected to it.
When people call for an entire institution to be closed or destroyed, do they consider what happens to everyone else?
Do they know the people whose education, livelihood or daily support may be affected?
I am not writing to decide whether every false allegation is true or false. I do not possess all the information needed to make that judgment.
I am writing because people like me exist within this story too.
We should not be invisible.
Accountability should focus on evidence and on the people directly responsible for any proven wrongdoing. It should not become a justification for harming every student, worker, family or child associated with an organisation.
Before celebrating the destruction of something, please understand all the lives connected to it.
Please remember that we are human beings, not symbols in somebody else’s campaign.
When Personal Conflict Becomes a Public Movement
Not every disagreement begins as a public cause.
Sometimes it begins with hurt feelings, leadership disputes, unmet expectations, competition, disagreements over authority or the desire to be recognised.
That does not mean later false allegations are automatically false.
It does mean that the complete history of the relationships involved matters.
When people who have experienced personal or organisational conflicts later join together in a public campaign, journalists and readers should examine those prior conflicts carefully.
Were there earlier disagreements over leadership?
Were individuals seeking greater influence or authority?
Were there professional, financial or personal disputes?
When did concerns first arise?
Were those concerns documented at the time?
Did the language used privately match the language later used publicly?
Did individuals coordinate their accounts before publication?
In some situations, tensions within communities—such as competition for leadership roles or influence—can escalate into broader public disputes. These dynamics should be examined carefully to understand whether personal conflicts are contributing to the formation of larger narratives.
These are not accusations. They are legitimate questions about chronology, motivation and reliability.
It is dangerous to assume that everyone supporting an institution must be manipulated.
It is equally dangerous to assume that everyone opposing an institution must be acting from pure motives.
Affidavit and Letter of Support
To Whom It May Concern:
1. My name is Dibbeena Kaur, and I am a citizen and resident of the United States of America.
2. I have been an IT Executive for over 28 years, managing Global International Marketing Platforms and Implementations. I retired after working for Fox Corporation for 22 years (until 2024) and my last position at Fox was Executive Director, Enterprise Applications. I have a Master’s degree in Software Engineering and a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science. Since leaving Fox Corporation, I manage my own Real Estate Investments.
3. I have known Anand Mehrotra for 13 years, and I first met him in June 2013 when I attended a Sattva yoga class he offered in Los Angeles. I found his teachings at this class to be deeply impactful and went on to register for his meditation course which altered my life profoundly. Since then, I have attended many teacher trainings, wisdom immersions, meditation retreats, and journeys with Anand.
4. The impact of Anand’s teachings on me has been life-transforming. Anand’s core teaching to end all violence within ourselves, challenged me to work on myself. Anand helped me to break shackles that had bound me my whole life. He guided me not to be a slave to my mind, to not believe the stories, the patterns, the drama of the mind – and to make conscious choices to transcend them. His guidance and support grew me as a person and as a professional, and helped me achieve enormous success in my career. When my family and I dealt with my mother’s cancer, he silently offered prayers for her healing. And in return for his selfless support and guidance Anand has never asked me for anything.
5. After having known Anand well for over 13 years, I can with a certain authority say that his character is impeccable. He is a rare individual who is deeply devoted to supporting the growth of everyone around him. I have witnessed him unhesitantly help everyone who came to him. He is generous to a fault, and will help someone at his own expense. I have personally visited (a few times) the school he started for children in Rishikesh, India and the incredible work he has done impacting the lives of so many children, giving them an opportunity to get an education and job skills training which they would have never gotten otherwise.
6. I am aware of the unfounded and malicious allegations being made against Anand. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that these allegations are false and have been fabricated to destroy Anand and his life’s work. These vicious attempts to malign Anand aim to not only harm him but also harm all the people and children that thrive with his support.
7. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing statement is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, belief and ability.