Anugraha, an ambitious Subud enterprise, opened in 1984 in Englefield Green near Windsor, England. It was intended to be an International Subud Centre as well as a “state of the art” conference venue.

Funds were raised from Subud members and substantial loans provided by several banks to buy the property and to undertake substantial renovations, but by 1989, Anugraha was forced into liquidation by the banks, who were owned substantial amounts of money.

Yes, some say Anugraha could have been saved, and in the last few years trading improved dramatically and were in profit by 1988.  But the debt burden was too high, and in order to pay the creditors the only way out was to sell.  Two offers were made, which would have paid the banks, most of members’ loans and their investment. But for some unknown and incomprehensible reason, the Board of Directors declined them. The inevitable happened, and the Anugraha went into liquidation.

It was on of the most costly failures in Subud’s history.  The consequences of this failure were that many of the small investors lost money and one or two a great deal of money.  Although certain people did assist in trying to in financially help many of these people, the financial and emotional scars are still felt today.

SUBUD ENTERPRISES

Subud has a high-unexplained failure rate in the Enterprises seemingly unable to bring them to successful conclusion. As a result their members lose a lot of money.

• BSB Bank – Collapsed – members lost money. No inquiry. No lessons learnt.
• Project Sunrise, Australia – Collapsed – members lost money. No Inquiry. No lessons learnt.
• Anugraha The International Subud Centre – Lost.  No Inquiry. No lessons learnt.
• Premier Hotel UK – Collapsed. No Inquiry. No lessons learnt.

Subud is a charity, but the organisation has failed to fully address these problems.  Certain people, like the Zyses, who were extensively involved in the development and support of Anugraha, gave their all to this enterprise, both in time and financially. When Anugraha was close to liquidation, certain people withdraw their support, but not the Zyses, who lost over £4 million, and still owe money to the Bank.

INSIDE ANUGRAHA

Anugraha had 4 Boards

BOARD ONE prosecuted by DTI and lost control of finances placing the members into a multi million overspend crisis. The Board was removed.

Bapak sent in Sharif Horthy to sort out the mess. His achievements are unknown but it was at this time Sharif asked for unencumbered houses to which M Lampard of Brecon Becon Wales and A Zys jointly responded by putting their farms up. This was beginning of the journey

BOARD TWO made up of high investors. Did little to develop the International Centre but produced a refinancing plan that would have betrayed the aims of Anugraha as visualised by the Founder and sold the members down the river. It was ousted at an EGM

BOARD THREE established the International Centre. Brought finances under control and on the verge of securing Anugraha forever. Put in place efficiency and effectiveness. MD established the Shareholder Representatives who threw out the MD and brought down the Board

BOARD FOUR Fraud. Failed to sell at £16M and again at £14M. A £16M sale was not successful due to the actions of MD through self-interest. Broke Directors code of conduct. Unprofessional behaviour. Failed to accept one solid bid.

Anugraha was sold in a job lot for £6.4 M. Great suffering descended upon the Subud organisation and its members that continues to this day.

The Shareholder Representatives grew in power and became non-executive directors, acting illegally and eventually fusing with the legal Board.  They brought down the successful MD of Board Three by discrediting, falsifying facts and gang mobbing under the pretense of false and wrongful Subud testing.  Belief and evidence shows that high investors were involved and encouraged their actions.

The fraudulent incompetence of the final Board 4 is hard to understand. It raises serious questions:

• Was Anugraha was brought down intentionally?
• If this is indeed proved, did the organisation – or any individual – benefit?
• Has Anugraha opened a window and offered us a way to greater understanding into why Project Sunrise, BSB Bank and Premier Hotels might have fallen?
• How can such a failure rate and the millions lost be accounted for?

Interestingly it has never been accounted for. The organisation does nothing, and repeatedly failed its members by allowing them to be used as guinea pigs,  or more likely, bottomless pits of money.

Subud‘s refusal to hold an Inquiry is disturbing.  Luke Penensay, WSC Chairman, was the closest, giving hope as negotiations proceeded, but without explanation, he slammed the door shut.  Why?  The organisation is very likely to try to defend itself by saying mistakes were made and all safeguards taken for the future, so such things will not happen again.  Even so, Subud still has the unresolved issues of the Zys situation and the injustice of fraudulent use of innocent peoples’ names that have destroyed reputations and done damage to the individuals involved.  Subud is denying its members the right of Inquiry or redress and thus failing in its duty of care towards those who trusted.

Subud‘s response appears to treat its members as if a commodity. Fails to react showing no concern re the consequences of its actions and the suffering it creates on innocent members.  It is protecting the organisation, those involved and those responsible. It is betraying its members and goes against the guidance of its Founder.

Subud After Anugraha

The greatest damage to Subud has been the failure of the large Subud enterprise. Membership has not grown and the fervour created during ‘s lifetime has died.  Subud is a small insignificant organisation with little importance now to the world. It attracts a minority percentage seeking clarity and enrichment in their inner spiritual journey. As a result, its activities do not come under scrutiny.

There is a view that exists that the organisation incites members to place money in the enterprise in a sense of ‘brotherhood’ but when fails walks away. Hides behinds the laws it uses to defend itself and denies responsibility. The sense of brotherhood or oneness is broken, betrays the members and the organisation is no longer trustworthy, reliable or moral in its dealings.

It is for this very reason that Bapak gave guidance that if an enterprise fails the responsibility is shared.  YOU DON’T WALK.

The fact that Subud does repeatedly walk away, leads to questions if the present organisation is indeed Bapak’s Subud or if it has remodelled itself in a dangerous way.  If good Subud members – past and present – continue in their state of denial and indifference, those who are committing wrong will get away with it, and an honourable man who has been betrayed by his Subud family persecuted and abandoned, will lose his home.

THE KEY QUESTIONS

• Why would a spiritual charity like Subud fail to address the outstanding problems of Anugraha and other social enterprises?
• Why do they not have an Inquiry so that they can learn why these enterprises failed so that they do not repeat the same mistakes in the future?
• How can we find solutions to the problems of Subud so that it returns to its founder’s beliefs and once again return to its spiritual heights?

WE HOPE WE CAN FIND THE ANSWERS