Talk:Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha

April 2025

I removed the new section. The "humam trafficking" section is already in the article (and spelled correctly). The "new" material cites cites a source written by a former IPS officer that has an issue with the leaders of this Hindu group (here; original post). As a pattern, his Facebook rants get picked up by Indian "news organizations" (same post; rant about honeytraps, of which he was "nearly" a victim; his claim that 90% of IPS officers are corrupt...)

His memoir is self-published by a self-funded/vanity press. "Manavvikas trust" doesn't publish any other authors and the author's home address and publisher's business address is the same. There is public record of Savani's address (in this opinion "column"). This address, along with Savani's personal gmail address, match the colophon of another Savani "Manavvikas trust" ebook (Google Image translate recommended).

and we can assume the other source (Indian Express article) is paid promotion, which the outlet has been accused of. There are no other updates about this story - not even any other primary sources from the same time Drew Stanley (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Let's set aside assumptions for a while and discuss facts. There is no "human trafficking" section in this article so there is no case of repetition. A separate section for controversies was much needed (which you just removed ). I have no issues with the removal of Savani source. But, The Indian Express, along with The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, NBC News are considered reliable sources. Please refer the list of Reliable sources/Perennial sources on Wikipedia. Your edit removed content from all these sources which should be restored. Regarding "no updates", it doesn't seem like a good reason to remove the information based on multiple reliable sources. Senapatiji (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Senapatiji Reviewing the 'Allegations of sexual harassment' section you created, I agree the Savani source is questionable for the reasons outlined above and should be removed, and the Indian Express article is also problematic a. Per Wp:SOURCEDEF, the work itself, the creator, and the publisher must each be assessed independently. While the newspaper may generally be considered reliable, the lack of an identified author raises concerns about the credibility of the claims made.

The article was published in 2013, at a time when the individual was still living and would have been ineligible for inclusion under Wp:BLPCRIME. It is now 2025, and I have not seen any independent secondary sources that have covered this issue in the twelve years since. This absence of sustained coverage renders the claims questionable. An entire allegations section cannot stand on a questionable source.

Remember, Wikipedia is not a venue for spreading rumours or gossip, see Wp:NOTSCANDAL. Given the nature of these claims, such content should not be reinserted without consensus. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

And no WP:CENSOR. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Ping User:Tamzin to inform them. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@LGG: so, "he filed a 17-page handwritten complaint" is incorrect? And the BAPS did not issue a statement (denial) in response? Or is the BAPS-site also unreliable? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

This is not a case of CENSOR, the policy reads, "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and using a neutral point of view) or the law of the United States."

I removed the Savani reference because there was clear consensus among three users that it was unreliable a, b, c.

As for the remaining sources, giving undue weight to the claims of two individuals does not align with NPOV, especially when their claims in 2013 and have remained uncorroborated through 2025.

I have participated in enough discussions to know that once material is reverted, discussion should follow on the talk page. However, rather than engage per BRD, you reinserted the material twice with edit summaries that did not provide sufficient justification d, e.

FYI, a review of @Senapatiji editing history shows prior concern raised at ANI f, which led @The Bushranger to remove rights g. Even after @Asilvering discouraged further editing in contentious topic areas and @Senapatiji acknowledged to do better h, this discussion ensued one week later. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

To clarify the comment about BRD, @Senapatiji added content a, @Drew Stanley reverted b and started this thread. Rather than discussing first, @Joshua Jonathan reverted the content in the diffs above. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Not sure if @Ratnahastin has an official wiki tool for checking AI responses but using some free online tools and seeing strong likelihood of AI responses here which was a commonality of the last round of socks to try to censor or sway consensus of the controversies section. Reviewing the edit history but for this particular piece of content, I think all sides are sourced to acknowledge its occurrence so at this point at best perspective is up for discussion. Blunt removal seems unwarranted. As article was written, it states both sides fairly and their opinion. No implications but I thought it fairly represented allegations and responses. Kbhatt22 (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the labor controversy mention could be removed from the history section under the Mahant Swami Maharaj as Guru (2016 – present) section as it fits better under a broader controversies section. That component has moved around a lot (mostly due to prior socks) but a specific controversies section is probably a good landing spot for it. I think that's a pretty neutral agreement to be had. Kbhatt22 (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I see basically two objections being raised here: the reliability of the sources, and the weight to be given to this piece of info.

Setting Savani aside, "we can assume the other source (Indian Express article) is paid promotion" (emphasis mine) is just that, an assumption. So, we accept this source, which is corroborated by the BAPS itself.

As for how much weight should be given to this piece of info, why should it not be included? The BAPS found it relevant enough to respond to... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why the three of us (me, @The Bushranger, and @Tamzin) are being tagged into this. This appears to be a perfectly ordinary content dispute, and calling in admins the moment you get into one isn't a great look. Please try to discuss this as normal, but if you get really stuck, there's always WP:DRN for the content dispute and WP:AE if you end up with conduct problems. -- asilvering (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @asilvering. Tamzin has been instrumental in investigating and stopping a decade long pro-Baps sock/meat farm operation that had been POV pushing in this content space in a very elaborate manor. This set of users has surfaced a few times since the initial investigation and attempted to censor and remove anything critical of this branch or to promote its ideology differences over competing branches. I don't quite know why any of the other admins have been tagged. I think, as you indicated, this is a pretty easy content dispute to navigate and in good faith am not assuming any users have any ties with the prior socks. There are some pattern similarities and if this escalates, Tamzin has been a baller in terms of picking up the pattern of behavior that follows pushback of an attempted removal of branch critical but properly sourced information. Kbhatt22 (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Senapatiji - Whether information is disliked by readers/members of a religious sect - or even liked by you (you called this "much needed") - does not affect its worthiness to be on Wikipedia. I hope you can take my attempts at collaboration (we never got that Pradhuman khachar quote you promised even though you left a citation on the article!) with a positive note.

My edit removed redundant information (as @Kbhatt22 noted; do not conflate my removal of Indian express with removing WaPo etc) and these unworthy sources, as i explained here (at the top of the discussion) and here.

@Joshua Jonathan - you are using a primary source to suggest the reliability of a secondary source. But the point is not to adjudicate whether the allegations were made ("the BAPS found it relevant enough") but to determine whether the sources are worthy and the information relevant to add to Wikipedia. The response of the BAPS at their website is refutation of the allegations - not an corroboration or endorsement of the source - as wikipedia editors, we should care about whether the information adheres to wikipedia policies to warrant its inclusion.

@Kbhatt22 - Given your explanations I can see you have a lot of history with this page but please try not to make any assumptions. However the "Controversy" sections are inferior to describing events with citations within the body of the article - so we should leave the content in the main timeline of the article. "Good landing spot" is not the way to organize encyclopedia entries.

The content dispute is about whether there are sources to support the BLP claims - not about censorship. The new content includes an unreliable self-published source by Savani. The original editor Senapatiji has agreed with the Savani removal, as has @LeónGonsalvesofGoa. Joshua Jonathan and Kbhatt22 keep reinserting the material supported by the self-published unreliable source. Why? It is clear this is not a reliable source. Moreover, as has been explained, as an extraordinary claim, it requires multiple extraordinary sources, especially for BLP content. The online Indian express source is syndicated/news wire Indian express with no author in the byline - it is not exceptional on its own, and per LeónGonsalvesofGoa, it may not even be reliable. Drew Stanley (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I have only ever edited this page 5 times. 4 of those edits came today including 2 for typos so I actually don't have "a lot of history" on this page as you suggest. As I also said, in good faith not making any assumptions but was outlining to asilvering there is some history of nefarious behavior here around items critical of the branch. Content X is undesired. User A edits it, user B opposes it, user C opposes. User A has change of heart, user B and C form consensus. Somehow the whole section disappears. But lets focus on the sources themselves, there is nothing to discredit IndiaExpress. Savani is potentially questionable sure but that is not the primary source being used. The branch itself has commented on it as a first person point of reference. The existence of this occurrence is also not given any large presence on the page but a few sentences in a section it fits into. This has nothing to do with BLP as the persons in question is not living nor is this page a biography of the person (they have a dedicated page) nor is the section about a person. This is around the broader branch....I think there is some confusion or the BLP angle is a red herring. Kbhatt22 (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The only relevant question left is whether this info is relevant to include. Given the long history of breaches of thrust by religious leaders, and the sectarian nature of the BAPS, this seems relevant to me. So far, no answer to this question from the opposite view, except for assuming unreliability of the ToI source. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The content has no reliable sources, as i have explained twice.

In my original post, I explained that the Savani source is unusable because the source is self-published, Savani's rants get reposted by Indian news outlets, and his memoir is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Despite my post with these details, Joshua Jonathan restored the link twice , and the third time it was (conveniently) restored by Kbhatt22 despite the onus being on the editor seeking to include disputed content. After I detailed the unreliability of both sources a second time, Joshua Jonathan removed the Savani citation while preserving the content attributed to Savani. Because of this, the Controversies section that Joshua Jonathan is pushing for has information that isn't described in any source.

@Joshua Jonathan, you are misrepresenting me as assuming unreliability of the ToI source. First, I'm assuming you meant the Indian express, not ToI . Second, the source is not only unreliable, it does not describe the allegations as they are detailed in the current Controversies section. Plus it does not have a byline; the outlet has previously been accused of paid promotion. Thus its reliability in this case is questionable. The claims made in this article are exceptional, so the sources should be exceptional. But the sources are not exceptional, as I have explained here and in previous posts, yet you insist that this information and the Controversies section belongs due to the behavior of "religious leaders" writ large and your evaluation of the "sectarian nature" of the BAPS.@Kbhatt22, as I explained to @Senapatiji - Whether information is disliked by readers/members of a religious sect (you say "undesired") - or even liked by you ("good landing spot") - does not affect its worthiness to be on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia content is supposed to be based on reliable sources and encyclopedic in its content, but even as I reiterate the reliability issues, the information is restored by editors using their personal opinions as justification. Drew Stanley (talk) 05:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Intro

I propose the following revision to the introduction of the BAPS article:

"BAPS was founded in 1905 by Shastri Yagnapurushdas (Shastriji Maharaj), who believed in a lineage beginning with Gunatitanand Swami and positioned himself as its third successor, after legally separating from the Vadtal Diocese of the Swaminarayan Sampraday."

This revision aims to provide a more accurate and contextually informative account of BAPS' founding, while maintaining a neutral tone. As a former BAPS member, I am aware that some editors and contributors have previously worked to portray BAPS in an exclusively positive light. As the growth of temples worldwide increase, there will be an aggressive tendency to remove content that might be viewed as critical.

-Key Points Supporting the Revision-

Legal Separation from Vadtal Diocese: Shastriji Maharaj's departure from the Vadtal Diocese was not merely a personal decision but a legal separation. This distinction is crucial for understanding the historical context of BAPS' formation. He was barred by a judge from entering the diocese. Shastriji Maharaj believed in a lineage beginning with Gunatitanand Swami and positioned himself as its third successor. This self-positioning is significant in understanding the development of BAPS' leadership structure as he claimed he was a manifestation of god.

According to a source from the Swaminarayan Bliss magazine, Shastriji Maharaj claimed to be a "manifest form of god." This claim is notable because it is an insane assertion for a relatively obscure low-class Hindu ascetic who was prepared to violate his own so called god in early 20th-century Gujarat after being thrown out legally. He knew what he was doing and allowed himself to become a source of worshipped. The source states:

"When Shastriji Maharaj found out, he questioned Shantilal about why he wanted to enter samadhi at all and said, “That which you wish to see in samadhi with your eyes closed is right in front of you.” Shastriji Maharaj thus informed Shantilal that he was the manifest form of God."

https://download.baps.org/Data/Sites/1/Media/Otherfiles/2010january.pdf Page 22

This statement reflects how Shastriji Maharaj established his divinity within the new organization and believed his was god.

Deviation from Predecessor's Guidance: Despite professing devotion to the Akshar-Purushottam doctrine, Shastriji Maharaj introduced a new interpretation that positioned himself centrally in the lineage and established his own authority when he was explicitly told not to. Notably, when a lay member named Krishnaji Ada advised him to leave Vadtal (even though before Bhagatji died because he had told him not to), Shastriji Maharaj responded: "I consider that Bhagatji Maharaj himself has spoken through you. I shall, therefore, abide by your wishes."

https://www.swaminarayan.org/shastrijimaharaj/life/29.htm

This response indicates his decision to leave Vadtal despite divine command to the contrary. He wanted the fame and the attention over dying for the cause. He kept using loophole after loophole and blatantly violating Swaminarayan's commands of the organization he created and Pragji's orders to stay and left in order to push himself as manifest of god from his own words. He knew this was the benefit. Akshar Purshottam was a unnecessary, made up creation for him to become a god. He was aware of the doctrinal “loopholes” that allowed him to justify this move. He as cunning and manipulative just like Swaminarayan. He conflated his religious devotion to have leadership ambition and divine portrayal.

Please discuss and revise.

Touchedme123 (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Intentional scriptural manipulation of the Shikshapatri in BAPS version publication

Andrew Carl Kunze’s 2021 University of Chicago dissertation, Transnational Svāminārāyaṇ Hinduism: Mass Mediation and the Rise of BAPS, documents that BAPS has intentionally edited and re-presented core Swaminarayan scripture, particularly the Śikṣāpatrī. Kunze notes that BAPS has never released a full, unaltered edition of the text, instead issuing abridged versions such as Gems from the Shikshapatri (2010) and Śikṣāpatrīnā Ājñāvacano (2010). These editions omit several verses (notably vv. 62, 71–72, 123–134) where Sahajanand Swami establishes the Acharyas and their wives as the hereditary heads of the Sampraday. Because these verses are part of the only scripture personally written by Swaminarayan for all of his followers, their removal significantly alters the meaning and intended practice. Kunze argues that by circulating these versions as authentic scripture, BAPS has misrepresented primary religious texts, leading followers to practice devotion based on incomplete doctrine. Should the BAPS article include sourced mention of this academic criticism — that BAPS’s textual editing of the Śikṣāpatrī amounts to intentional scriptural manipulation and has led to followers’ partial or altered understanding of Swaminarayan’s own teachings?

Proposed addition:

-Criticism regarding Shikshapatri manipulation-

Scholars have noted that BAPS has published only edited versions of the Śikṣāpatrī, the principal text authored by Sahajanand Swami (Swaminarayan) for all of his followers. According to Andrew Carl Kunze (University of Chicago, 2021), BAPS editions such as Gems from the Shikshapatri and Śikṣāpatrīnā Ājñāvacano omit key verses that establish the authority of the Acharyas and their wives. These verses (including 62, 71–72, and 123–134) are regarded by as mandatory to understanding the Swaminarayan Sampraday and Acharya's authority.

Kunze argues that by excluding these passages while presenting its versions as representing the “essence” of the Śikṣāpatrī, BAPS effectively reshapes the scriptural narrative to reflect its own doctrinal stance. Critics see this as a form of scriptural manipulation, suggesting that BAPS followers may be engaging with a selectively edited representation of Swaminarayan’s original teachings.

Source() Kunze, Andrew Carl. Transnational Svāminārāyaṇ Hinduism: Mass Mediation and the Rise of BAPS. PhD diss., University of Chicago, 2021. Touchedme123 (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Intentional Manipulation of Swamini Vato Scripture

There is documented evidence from BAPS has published edited and expanded versions of Swaminarayan scriptures, including Śikṣāpatrī and Swamini Vato. BAPS itself admits in Invaluable Books of Brahmvidya that these texts were compiled and edited by multiple disciples who were untrained in Sanskrit, and that certain “impurities” were removed. Critics argue that BAPS editions include additional chapters not present in the original manuscripts and present them as authoritative scripture, conveniently aligning with BAPS-specific theological interpretations. No parent branch of the Swaminarayan Sampraday recognizes these additional chapters. Including sourced criticism in the BAPS article would provide readers with a clearer understanding of internal admissions regarding the editing of scripture.

Proposed Addition()

BAPS publishes an edited version of Swamini Vato. BAPS itself acknowledges in Invaluable Books of Brahmvidya (Sections 3.2–3.3) that the Swamini Vato was compiled years after Gunatitanand Swami’s death by multiple disciples who were not trained scholars in Sanskrit. BAPS notes that editorial adjustments were made to remove “impurities” in the manuscripts. BAPS editions include additional chapters not present in the original five-chapter manuscripts preserved at Rajkot Mandir under the Vadtal sect. These modern publications present the altered texts as authoritative scripture, coincidentally aligning with BAPS-specific theological narratives. No parent branch of the Swaminarayan Sampraday recognizes these additional chapters as authentic. This has been interpreted as intentional editorial manipulation by BAPS, reshaping scripture to reflect its own doctrinal agenda with the addition of ten found chapters.

Sources: BAPS. Invaluable Books of Brahmvidya, Sections 3.2–3.3. https://www.bapssatsangexams.org/Downloads/Eng_Prag1/BVAG_Final.pdf https://www.baps.org/Spiritual-Living/Scriptures/Central-Swaminarayan-Scriptures/Swamini-Vato.aspx

Touchedme123 (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

BAPS Manipulation of Scriptures

Here is a list of BAPS manipulated, edited or ignored scriptures. This should be added to this page. Sources are easily available.

Shikshapatri

• Manipulation: BAPS publishes Shikshapatri Gems, which removes references to the Acharyas and alters the original focus on their authority.

Kunze, A. (2021). Transnational Swaminarayan Hinduism, mass meditation, and the rise of BAPS [Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago]. Scribd. https://www.scribd.com/document/777501814/Rise-of-Baps . (p. 93)

Vachanamrut

• Manipulation: BAPS's version includes Gunatitanand Swami's name and image on the cover, despite him never being mentioned in the text itself.

https://www.baps.org/Publications/Books/Vachanamrut-60.aspx

https://www.anirdesh.com/vato/index.php?by=prakaran&prakaran=5&sortby=prakaran&beg=143&increment=1

"Gunatitanand Swami’s name is not mentioned in the Vachanamrut."

Desh Vibhag Lekh

• Exclusion: BAPS outright ignores this scripture, even though Indian courts have cited it to affirm the Acharya’s role as both spiritual and administrative leader.

Groups like BAPS..."emphasizes the authority of sadhus over the acharyas and different lineages of gurus downplay or ignore the Lekh as simply an administrative document for temporary application and not as sacred scripture."

Williams, R. B. (2019). Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism (p. 208). Cambridge University Press.

Satsangi Jeevan

• Downplay: BAPS downplays the importance of Satsangi Jeevan—the authorized biography of Swaminarayan—by promoting their edited Swamini Vato as one of their central scriptures over the Satsangi Jivan.

https://www.baps.org/Spiritual-Living/Scriptures/Central-Swaminarayan-Scriptures/Vachanamrut.aspx

https://download.kids.baps.org/Data/Sites/1/Media/DownloadableFile/Satsang%20Vihar%20Part%201%20English.pdf

Jay Akshar Purushottam

• Exclusion: BAPS altered the original Jay Sadguru Swami aarti multiple times newest in 2022, creating the Shri Swaminarayan Arti, version to align with their agenda.

Williams, Raymond Brady (2001). Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 75–76. ISBN 0-521-65279-0.

https://www.baps.org/arti

https://www.swaminarayan.org/announcements/2009/arti.htm

https://www.baps.org/Spiritual-Living/Hindu-Practices/Aarti.aspx

Shri Radhika Krishnashtaka

• Exclusion: BAPS ignores the Shri Radhika Krishnashtaka, reciting their own Shri Swaminarayan Ashtakam instead, and omits it from their scripture list to avoid scrutiny of their edits.

https://www.swaminarayan.nu/youth/aarti.shtml

http://scribd.com/document/711555494/KK-Adhiveshan-Booklet-Jan-2024-FINAL-1 Page 10

Swamini Vato

• Manipulation: Gunatitanand Swami only approved the original five chapters of Swamini Vato. BAPS’s version adds an extra ten "found" chapters that conveniently push a BAPS narrative and theological agenda. These additions, made by untrained disciples after Gunatitanand Swami's death, are not recognized by any other branch of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya.

https://www.bapssatsangexams.org/Downloads/Eng_Prag1/BVAG_Final.pdf Page 70-72

https://www.baps.org/Spiritual-Living/Scriptures/Central-Swaminarayan-Scriptures/Swamini-Vato.aspx

---

Final Note:

All of the above have proof and documented sources. In the BAPS, many of the original scriptures have been edited, manipulated, or downplayed to fit their sectarian narrative. BAPS should not be included in the Swaminarayan Sampraday. This group should be mentioned as a separate group that broke off because their founder, Dungar Patel believe he was a manifest of god. Their theology needs to be on their page. Even the Swaminarayan Sampradaya text box excludes many of these altered versions, avoiding the attention of readers who might notice these significant changes and omission.

Touchedme123 (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you should read the Wiki-article, instead of conducting WP:OR. The only usable piece, emphasizes the authority of sadhus over the acharyas and different lineages of gurus downplay or ignore the Lekh as simply an administrative document for temporary application and not as sacred scripture., already is being used in the article. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

The dissertations and publications are not allowed?Touchedme123 (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)