Thursday, July 20, 2017

The terrible truth about who translated Lord Meher

Here is the terrible truth about the ongoing copyright dispute over Lord Meher, and why lies continue about who translated it. Scroll down to the bottom of this page for the recent incorrect 'corrections.'

See my earlier history of Lord Meher, How Lord Meher Came About, also duplicated with full footnotes at Meherlegacy here. One may also be interested in this post on the many versions of the book.

History will bear my account out in the end, and I'll explain why. First some backstory.

When Bhau Kalrhuchi was writing what later became 'worked up' into Lord Meher, he was not planning to copyright it. It was never intended as a book. It was preparatory chronology from his notes, carefully gathered over a two year period following Baba's passing in preparation for a Hindi book requested by Baba, Meher Darshan.

Only later was it suggested by Feram Workingboxwalla, a resident mandali living at the Trust Compound, that he translate the work for Bhau -- with Bhau's oversight.

This project, which took several years, mushroomed and thoughts of publication became more and more interesting to those watching it happen, especially the Kalchuri family. Dollar signs were growing in their eyes.

Now what Feram originally translated was not the final work we see now. It was Bhau's original nineteen handwritten notebooks written in Hindi as preparation for Meher Darshan.

At some point Bhau had the thought to copyright the growing work, so that he could leave this legacy, and any royalties, to his two children. That is a fair and honest thing to do. He did, after all, write it (at least what they began with).

What no one seemed to realize at the time, however, is copyright law regarding translated works. A translator shares heavily in the copyright. This was only realized after the books were already going into print in America. By this time Feram Workingboxwalla had already died, and there was no way for him to transfer any copyright claim to Bhau. Hence, as Feram had no children, all copyright share would and did go automatically to the Avatar Meher Baba Trust.

This created a kind of crisis. Bhau attempted to solve it by amending his story about the way the book was translated, claiming sole credit. The motive was for his children, which is admirable. However, Bhau had already made it emphatically clear on numerous occasions, including in writing, that Feram had translated the portions written by him originally. That is thoroughly documented. So a revisionist story came about after the facts that Bhau was the sole or main translator.

So at the heart of all this controversy is copyright, and future royalties. The estate of Bhau Kalchuri continues to claim the later account.

Later material was added in English by David Fenster and does not fall into the copyright issue. What is at issue are the portions by Bhau (in Hindi) translated by Feram.

Now I have indisputable proof of this fact about the translation of the original material by Feram. That is the part that I have kept to myself. I have an email from a source that is so respected and renowned that no person would ever dare dispute their integrity, who was an eye witness over a long period of time, with no dog in the fight. This email that I have is in a public server and the authenticity of its original sender can be scientifically verified beyond any doubt. The problem is that the sender asked me not to mention their name in the paper I was writing. My own ethics tell me that this agreement will be kept so long as the sender is alive.

However, I am liable to outlive the sender. If so I will at that time fully disclose who it was, and provide the email. At that point any reasonable doubt will collapse about who translated Lord Meher.  All copyright claims beyond those of the Avatar Meher Baba Trust will be seen as based on a false narrative, even if the motives behind that revisionist narrative could be viewed as understandable.

I feel that the Trust's rightful ownership, and the correcting of facts with potentially long term ramifications (legally and for posterity, and just for the sake of truth) override any other considerations.

As said, what is at stake is copyright. Does the copyright of Lord Meher rightfully belong to the Avatar Meher Baba Trust or to the Kalchuri estate? Bhau wrote only a fraction of what eventually came together as the final book. The added material, added by David Fenster later, but before it went to press, has nothing to do with the copyright dispute, which centers on translation of the original material. The book was built upon the parts that are in dispute, and the authorship of book, even with help and input, in my mind remains with the one who crafted the original manuscript that was developed. Hence Bhau's title as author is not in question in my opinion. What is in question is only whether the copyright belongs to the Kalchuris. The Kalchuri's claim to copyright is based entirely on what was written by Bhau, and not what was added.

This is why David is now claiming to have co-authored the book, again in service of the family copyright claim. See David's new introduction to his online version posted after Bhau's death, especially about his involvement with the book 'from its inception.'

What is at stake is snatching the copyright form the Trust. David is Bhau's son-in-law.

Now what about the original nineteen notebooks Bhau wrote in Hindi in his own handwriting? That definitely belongs to Bhau's two children, along with exclusive copyright to same. What is interesting is that the Kalchuris never mention this manuscript and keep it under lock and key. Apparently they do not want anyone to make a comparison, further complicating their copyright claim.

So this is all a big scam, for selfish reasons. Churches are full of such scams.

The translated parts belongs to no one but the Trust.

Let me explain why. There are two parts to the copyright. One is the portion of the copyright that belonged to Feram, that he was not aware he owned. As he never willed that portion to anyone, that copyright would have reverted to the Trust. The other portion is the book at large, as it finally came to be. The copyright for it Bhau sold to the publisher Lawrence Reiter, who in turn sold it to the Trust before he died. Hence there is really no part of the English language book that belongs to anyone else but the Trust.

The entire dispute hinges on a redaction of who translated the original material. And that part is a bogus claim, as I will in time reveal.

But here is the final spin on this. There is too much mystique built up around the English version of Lord Meher. It is frankly a seriously flawed book. Too many hands worked on it, and no record was made of who did what and their sources. As for scholarship, the uncited, constantly morphing book (in a dozen different conflicting versions) is useless. David Fenster is crazy to go on editing the online version, which he updates still on a monthly basis, and is now unrecognizable. He sources nothing, and some recent changes have been proven to be total fabrications. With no sources, the book is being made more and more objectionable and suspect. He is cheapening any legacy the book might have once had.

A real history, that is authoritative and scholarly, will need to be begun from scratch, from original source material. The new hind-sight revelations must end. Or we end up with a hadith.

What the Kalchuris do not realize is that they are sitting on a goldmine, in the form of the original handwritten Hindi manuscript. Explaining why this is will take some words.

Bhau spent two and a half years, starting six months after Baba dropped his body, gathering accounts from witnesses, all in India. These were mostly mandali themselves. These were gathered in little notes in a pile. What the nineteen notebooks are is his putting all these direct personal accounts together in a chronology. Now those witnesses are all dead. What Bhau was doing was real journalism. In those notebooks is Bhau's original recounting of those now lost stories. Hence Bhau's notebooks amount to a genuine second-hand journalistic compilation of what had taken place. They are not hearsay. They are the accounts of the actual witnesses he interviewed. Hence it could be considered primary source material of mountains of information as it was originally told to him. I repeat that these people he interviewed are all dead. Now we only have hearsay. And what parts of Bhau's journalistic effort made it into the final Lord Meher we now have no way to know -- except by reverting to that original source. To make matters even better, that they are handwritten makes the fact that Bhau scribed them unimpeachable. That is extremely close to a perfect source, as close as we will ever get on those stories. Right now we have no way to know what is there.

If the Kalchuris are wise, and leave those notebooks to their descendants to be one-day re-translated (much more professionally) a truly valuable source will be recovered.

I suppose the temptation of making money off the backs of soooo many volunteers that worked to bring Lord Meher to life, by claiming copyright of it, is for now irresistible. This is furthered by the highly exaggerated mystique and importance that Lord Meher has assumed in imagination.

I have a few paintings left to me by my father. Those original paintings, where every stroke was his own, left to me, are of much greater value than any copy or derivative work by others. I hope the Kalchuri family will see what a treasure they actually have, and can see clear to leave the Trust's ownership in peace. The Trust has some of the greatest paintings my father ever did, in the Pilgrim Center in Meherabad. I don't belly ache over them. I am so pleased that they see fit to uphold his legacy and Baba's through their open and free exhibit.

In the end, the original publication of Lord Meher will be the one that lives on as anything worth looking at. A constantly morphing one with no more accounting of sources is a kind of confused degradation of it. The new online version of the book has severely denigrated the authority of the book. It was what it was.

Real Baba historians of the future won't be combing a dozen versions of Lord Meher, for they have no way to know what comes from what. Lord Meher is a dead end, getting deader with each passing revision, growing more suspect with every unexplained change, even if it is 'true.' For without sources no one has any way to go and check. It loses credibility with every "correction." They will say, "I wonder what the reasoning was to change such and such?" No one has any way to know. With each change the book becomes more worthless. Let it go. Lord Meher itself now belongs to history. And from here out, the real history of Meher Baba belongs to the historians, not to the scribes still scribbling their mysterious "original research" half a century after Baba's passing.

If David wanted to improve the authority of Lord Meher (I'm not sure why one would care to do that) he would insert citations to primary sources, or at least sources. The lack of method is baffling. It amounts to mere 'changes' based solely on the authority of David, who never met Baba. David shows all the signs of a man gone completely bonkers with his own self-importance. Hiding in his mansion, scribbling away in secret forever on a book copyrighted 30 years ago, long after its author is dead, he is a veritable Howard Hughes, with all the concomitant paranoia and self-delusion. The following is from his new forward to his online fiasco.
What a blessing and what fortune to be involved with a project that has Meher Baba's divine sanction! Baba's guiding hand was felt, both by the author and by myself, from the book's inception.  (from Fenster's latest forward to his ongoing online Lord Meher)
He appears to believe his every word is "guided" by an invisible hand. Quite a claim. The craziness of the section above by David Fenster is his reference to feeling this hand from the book's 'inception.' That inception happened in July 1969. David first went to India in July 1975. Who can argue with a guy who thinks his hands are guided, and can do no wrong?

At best we can say that the book has driven David 'God-mad,' a term by Baba for a person who, having undertaken a severe spiritual exercise, outstrips the endurance of his mind. (See Wayfarers, p. 24)
The mind of an ordinary madman has failed to adapt itself to the problems of the material world, and has fled permanently into the realm of make-believe to escape an intolerable material situation. But a God-mad man, although he has lost the balance of his mind, and the insight into his abnormal state, has not come to this condition by failing to solve his worldly troubles, but has lost his sanity through continually thinking about God. Although he is mad he is impelled by high desires, and in spite of earning no tangible profit from the majority of his delusions, he nevertheless enjoys his state of God-madness. (Wayfarers, p. 24)

1 comment: