Peace Thrown Out at Shiva Durga Mandir
By Matie Singh & Annan Boodram

After many months of attempting to seek a resolution to the ongoing dispute at the Durga Shiva Mandir in the Bronx, New York City, the Federation of Mandirs (FHM), threw the court mandate out of the window and held questionable elections that returned to office one faction involved in the dispute.
The dispute which has been documented in a series of articles in The Caribbean Voice during 2000, involves former president, Shyam Boodram and his supporters, on the one hand and Pandit Purshotam Sukul and his supporters on the other hand. When Boodram was elected president of the mandir, he took over an institution with its record-keeping in shambles, with money and assets unaccounted for and with a previous administration that refused to cooperate with him in order to straighten out matters. A court case resulted in the setting up of a four man committee with a clear mandate that included arriving at full accountability for missing money and assets and establishing a true membership register.
The committee was set up and went about its work. And the Federation of Mandirs summoned a 'meeting' on Nov. 5th to discuss the "peace proposal" recommended by the four-man committee.
But according to former president, Shyam Boodram, "Pandit Chandrica said to bring two or three people to discuss the proposal with the other side. When we reached there, the Mandir was full to capacity, with, perhaps, five times the normal attendance."
Pandit Chandrica Persaud (chairman of the FHM) chaired the meeting of about 60 people, including a number of children. Referring to the four-person committee's progress, he (Chandrica) said, "they're going to negotiate peace on both side. We gave them six months. Every time they come up (to give an oral, not written report) they say 'that they're about to have both side agree for peace.'"
But Boodram indicated that, "a peace proposal was given to the Federation. The Federation called both sides on Oct. 29th for a meeting at the Parishad for 4pm. When they got there, Dhanpaul Narine and Roy Singh (Executives of FHM) were leaving and Roy Singh informed them that 'the meeting was finished.'"
"I asked Chandrica what happened to the meeting. He said 'Pandit Purshotam dropped off a letter stating that they don't want peace, that they want to go back to court,'" added Boodram.
The 'peace plan' produced by the four man committee and amended by the FHM stated, among other things, that:
o a newly elected committee will run the Mandir for one year instead of three
o the committee shall consist of 2 members of each sides and a 5th neutral person, whom are to be approved by both parties
Although Boodram's side did not endorse the plan, it was pushed through as Pandit Sukul's supporters, including the children present, voted for it. How many of those who voted were actual members in good standing was never made clear by Pandit Chandrica. And repeated attempts by Boodram to protest what had become manifestly undemocratic proceedings were disallowed by Pandit Chandrica who made statements like "listen Boodram, don't disturb usyou have no right to talkwould you keep your mouth closed"
He continued by reminding the audience that he was the chairman and the president of the Federation. "Now, the peace proposal-we will throw it out," he added.
At that point a five member committee, comprising supporters of Pandit Purshotam Sukul, was selected and sworn in by Pandit Rishi Misir, contrary to the recommendation of the court-mandated four man committee. Effectively Boodram's faction was out in the cold, in what many described as a carefully planned coup by the FHM and Pandit Chandrica Persaud.
"I will never take any sides. We are going on in a democratic manner," he responded with a straight face, when asked about his obvious bias.
The newly elected five-member committee was given until Nov. 15th to provide the FHM with a qualified membership list and a financial statement. Right then a 'membership' list was created when a questionnaire requiring signatures, prepared by one Joe Jewith and endorsed by Pandit Chandrica, was passed around for those present to sign as the official DSM members. Elections were then set for December 10th, 2000.
On December 10th a new executive body, again comprising only of supporters of Pandit Purshotam Sukul was 'elected' - basically the same set of people who had failed to provide accountability for various missing sums of money and that had exhibited conduct deemed 'less than exemplary' by a number of witnesses, on a number of occasions.
At that meeting Pandit Purshotam Sukul went to great lengths to eject this paper's reporter, Matie Singh, even asserting that the mandir "is private property" and had no 501C status.
The police were even called to eject this reporter but ended up offering their protection instead.
Just at about the time that the morning service was finished fifteen persons walked into the mandir. Pandit Sukul handed over the proceedings to Shyam Boodram whom he surprisingly recognized as president. But Boodram's presentation was rudely interrupted by Sukul's supporters even though the police intervened on a number of occasions. "If you all don't conduct yourselves I'll have to close you down," repeated Officer G. Nelson, of the 43rd Precinct, to the unruly group on several occasions.
Boodram reminded the audience that "this meeting is unauthorized, unconstitutional, a conflict with the by-laws and the non-profit laws," before he concluded and promptly exited the Mandir. And though no official membership list was presented, elections were conducted by Pandit Chandrica and his group.
In fact, the court appointed four man committee had concluded in its report, dated November 15, that "only fourteen names appeared on both lists," submitted by both the plaintiff and defendant respectively. The report further stated that there were "great discrepancies, inconsistencies, and differences in the membership documents supplied, which makes it impossible at this time to professionally determine a complete authentic membership list." The report also stated that the plaintiff and defendants' [membership] lists show "124 and 116 members" respectively.
Subsequent to the elections, Pandit Persaud, in an extensive interview with this paper, after beating about the bush for some time, agreed that they had no way of certifying that those who voted at the elections were indeed mandir members in good standing. But he blamed the four man committee for the state of affairs because, according to him, the committee had failed to deliver a ceritifed membership list. He added that he had personally requested that the committee give him all the lists they had so that he could fuse them and invite everybody for the elections, but the committee refused.
Not so stated committee members Gordon Pooran and Pooran Sookdeo. They were emphatic in asserting that Pandit Persaud nor any executive member of the Federation had ever asked them for the various lists.
In fact, "We fused the lists and placed it in the mandir and the Purshotam people were totally against that and Chandrica had access to the list," stated Gordon Pooran.
They added that, contrary to what Pandit Persaud claimed, the establishment of the committee was written into the court order and thus the committee was court appointed. Pandit Persaud had claimed that the committee was set up at his request to the judge and was not a part of the court order. Pooran and Sookdeo also added that they never received support or cooperation from either the executives of the Federation or members of Pandit Sukul's faction. Cooperation came only from Shyam Boodram.
The two gentlemen also stated that while their mandate did not include a peace settlement, they had been working on same because they had no way of reconciling a certified membership list.
"Peace was our initiative - we took the initiative to find out from the judge and he was delighted," said Gordon Pooran. "We had the word of both sides to make peace. They all agreed to work to a peaceful solution. Then suddenly Pandit Sukul decided that he wanted an election."
"But after Gandhi Peace March he agreed to work for peace. We came up with a second peace proposal and that was voted against by Sukul's people."
In effect the two committee members alleged that the Federation did not stay out of the situation and allow them to handle the matter. Nor, in their view, was the Federation impartial in its involvement.
In the course of his interview, Pandit Persaud admitted that the election did not solve the problem but was necessary because "the mandir had to operate and we did not have the resources to run it." He refused to directly address the issue of non-members voting at the elections but Gordon Pooran stated, "Total strangers attended and voted in the elections". This assertion was supported by Pooran Sookdeo.
"The elections were illegal according to not-for-profit law and court order, said Pooran Sookdeo. "The order did not state anything about elections without certified list"
He added that two people pretending to represent the court at the elections but were not mandated by the court to do so and thus the elections were also held under false pretenses.
Pandit plans to hold another elections in a year's time with the hope that the membership matter would have been resolved. And he plans to ask members of the administration prior to Shyam Boodram's, to repay all missing monies. But he cannot guarantee that this would be done since they have no legal enforcement measure and they legally cannot go back beyond three years to ask for financial accountability. With respect to ensuring that the newly elected administration keeps straight records, Pandit Sukul disclosed that he had appointed Shyam Boodram as a director of the mandir with the authority to regularly check the records and bring any anomalies to the Federation's attention.
Shyam Boodram admitted that he had received a letter appointing him as a director but that he did not take it seriously because "the executive is not officially informed that I'm a director."
He indicated that while Pandit Persaud had made an announcement about his appointment as a Director at the meeting, no official communication had been sent by the Federation to the new executive. Meanwhile he is still waiting word from the new executive as as to whether his appointment will be accepted or rejected. "I want to see the reaction of the people, whether they will cooperate. If not I will file an injunction to nullify the elections," said Boodram.
Added Boodram, "I've asked him for voters' list and a copy of the people who were nominated but he did not give me any yet". He pointed out that he had never been asked for his membership list by Pandit Persaud. And he stated that no procedure has yet been set in place to resolve the membership issue.
Pandit Persaud also disclosed that the Federation has learnt from this situation and will establish a code of conduct for mandir administrators as well as a task force to mediate in such disputes in the future. He added that they do have a code of conduct for pandits. Pandit Persaud explained, however, that the code is not legally enforceable and the Federation cannot prevent pandits from practicing because pandits are not employed by the Federation. Thus any such actiosn can lead to lawsuits against the Federation. He also said that the whole situation becomes a frustrating one because, "people support them fellas (pandits) when they do wrong things".
Admitting that he did not agree with the actions of Pandit Sukul, Pandit Persaud disclosed that he had spoken to Pandit Sukul but that led nowhere.