B.Premanand
9-8-1988.
Dear Mr. Narayana Pillai,
I was amused to read your article "Kuttichathanum Oru Lakshavum" on page 4 Malayala Manorama Sunday Suppliment dated 26-6-1988 which one of my friends had sent me for reply and comments, as I was one of the parties to the incident mentioned by you in the article.
Except through news paper articles in different names you had never accepted Kovoor's challenge by signing the challenge form before the notary public, nor got your godman sign the challenge form accepting the challenge.
The main point of Kovoor's challenge was "whether there is any miracle" and it is amusing that Narayana Pillai in his article has changed the subject of discussion to a question "whether A.T.Kovoor had one lakh of rupees or not."
If you had clearly read his challenge you would have found that Kovoor himself had said in the challenge that he would have to sell his house etc., to pay the challenge amount if any of the godmen proved miracles.
Instead of accepting the challenge in your own name and without taking the permission of the concerned persons, you wrote in the newspapers in the name of one astrologer Govinda Ganakan of Perumbavoor and in other names. You yourself has accepted this that whenever a news paper published Kovoor's challenge to godmen to prove their miracles you used to accept them in fictious names and addresses.
By your intelligent manipulation, you have changed the whole issue from "whether there is a miracle" to "whether Kovoor has one lakh rupees."
You very well know that S.K.Nair, M.N.Govindan Nair and Kambissery Karunakaran have died, who were the parties to your story. Yourself, Thoppil Basi and myself are the only living persons of the story.
As soon as S.K.Nair wanted a proof for one lakh rupees, I got a phone call from Kambissery and through a friend who came to Podanur I sent a cheque for one lakh rupees as guarantee with my statement to S.K.Nair to arrange the performance of the miracle. When he knew that there was one lakh rupees, he abruptly closed the discussion in his weekly "Malayalanadu" with his and your statement that as Kovoor did not produce bank guarantee you are withdrawing your acceptance of the challenge and he is returning the Rs.1000/- deposited by you while accepting the challenge.
If you read the earlier articles in Malayalanadu, you will find that you never deposited Rs.1000/- with S.K.Nair or Kovoor and it was S.K.Nair who stood surety for the deposit of Rs.1000/-.
As Malayalanadu did not publish my statement it was given to Janayugom Weekly and they published it on 23-2-1977. Malayalanadu again published the challenge of Tikkurissi, but S.K.Nair was not prepared to publish any counter statements and closed the chapter by stating that Kovoor and others can write directly to Tikkurissi.
Tikkurissi's statement of accepting the challenge was published in Cinerama, and though my statement of accepting to pay one lakh of rupees was also published, Tikkurissi with his usual state of mind with "spirits" (bottled) brushed aside my offer stating that he does not want to deal with prostitutes.
In your above mentioned article you have mentioned that Kovoor changed his challenge by adding new clauses to it, that who ever accepts the challenge should deposit Rs.1000/- with Kovoor, Being one of the nominees of A.T.Kovoor's challenge, I find that this clause had been there from the beginning of his challenges. I shall be happy if you would prove that Kovoor's earlier challenges did not mention about the depositing of Rs.1000/- who accepts the challenge.
Your article itself proves that you never accepted Kovoor's challenge, and the acceptance of Kovoor's challenge in spurious names and addresses was only to create nuisance value and to confuse the gullible people and change the issue. If you really wanted to accept the challenge S.K.Nair would have accepted my cheque on behalf of Kovoor and called you to prove the miracle.
In the sixth para of your article, you are mentioning that Kovoor was going on adding new clauses to his challenges and so you wanted to know more about Kovoor. Can you prove that Kovoor was adding new clauses to his challenges.
You state that you enquired with M.T.Vasudevan Nair and he told you that A.T.Kovoor was only an school teacher. I do not know what that has to do with his challenges. That Kovoor was not a scientist as publicised by the rationalists. That the suffix "Dr." which he puts before his name was not given to him by known universities for the research thesis he submitted on the subjects that is taught in schools. That a person who has taken Ph.D. in science would not come to such a low level of teaching in schools in Ceylon.
Instead of taking the opinion of M.T.Vasudevan Nair you could have very well verified the facts by writing to the Colleges where A.T.Kovoor was said to be teaching Botany and got their confirmation. Your investigation was just like the search of an old woman who had lost her needle in a room and as it was dark searching for it in the yard. Please let me know whether you verified the facts with the college authorities before you wrote the article?
I shall also be glad if you can send me proof by way of Kovoor's letters wherein he was putting "Dr." before his name and signing as Dr.Kovoor.
Do you know that lots of scientists, politicians, dramatists, artists, poets, writers etc., who had not stepped into any college being given honorary, doctorates? There is also a system of giving doctorate degree to the preachers by the churches. Please let me know whether you know about these?
If according to you there are miracles will you explain why you should struggle to show a miracle? If your problem was to make one lakh of rupees why did you not accept my challenge when I had issued a cheque for Rs.1 lakh on behalf of Kovoor? The name of the bank was there on the cheque, and you or S.K.Nair could have verified with the bank and if there was no money you could have blasted the hoax? So your accepting the challenge was neither for money or for proving miracles but only to confuse the gullible public and be a party to their exploitation by the godmen. Your accepting Kovoors challenges on spurious names proves this beyond doubt.
You did not publish the stories in paras 11 to 16 earlier when Kovoor was alive. Also what you have mentioned in para 17 is false and you had not deposited Rs.1000/- with S.K.Nair as stated by you. You did not also clarify this in Malayalanadu when S.K.Nair published your statement. Can you prove that the stories in para 17 and 18 are true by sending me a photostat of the matter which you state is printed?
In para 31 you mention that just because A.T.Kovoor did not produce a bank guarantee for Rs.1 lakh the experiment did not work. Now tell me whether you are really serious. If you are going to prove miracles, sign the attached agreement of my challenge before a notary public and send the same to me. If it is not you who is going to prove miracles, but some one else, get it signed by him before a notary public and send me the same. If the miracle is to be shown at Podanur you need not remit Rs.1000/-. As soon as you signed the agreement and is received by me with details of the miracle according to the agreement we shall fix up the date and I shall send you the bank guarantee and I would be very happy to see a paranormal phenomena - miracle. I hope you will reply me if you are really serious.
Your accepting the challenge on behalf of a non-entity without giving you his power of attorney or authorising you to accept the challenge on his behalf has no meaning at all. Kovoor's challenge is to godmen who claim to possess supernatural powers or siddhis. In the instance mentioned by you in your article please let me know whether any person authorised you or you accepted the challenge through press yourself on your own behalf.
Hoping to hear from you by return of post.
Yours sincerely,
B.Premanand.
Back to the Indian Skeptic page
The University of Regensburg neither approves nor disapproves of the opinions expressed here. They are solely the responsibility of the person named below.
[email protected]Last update: 29 August 1998