GBC authority and responsibility

[Guest guest]

> Who is going to take responsibility, and save Srila Prabhupada's movement

> from their awful sentence?

 

As I see it either there has to be some kind of police or ksatriyas or

whatever who are authorized to find crimanals and punish them accordingly or

the main body of devotees take care of their children etc. in some separate

arrangement or the third option is to let things go on as it is with the

risk of further abuse.

 

Svarupa das

[Guest guest]

Pamho. AGTSP.

 

> At least His Grace Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu should, as the chairman of the

> GBC for this year, humbly take the trouble to answer the assembled

> devotees. Thank you in advance. Your servant at Prabhupada's lotus feet,

 

I can't answer for him, but when I was in Radhadesh, a few devotees had a

discussion with Ravindra Svarup Prabhu and the question about Dhanudar

Maharaj was also asked (if that's the case you refer too). To my memory, he

answered that there are sides in the story: there are the abused, but there

are also prospective disciples of DM. But what's more important, he said

that justice and mercy don't go together, and they (or him) decided to act

on the mercy principle (towards DM and his disciples). It seemed to be a

proper attitude to me at that time. Mercy is a nice thing. But little later,

pondering on the subject, I came to remember something I've heard once from

my former guru: that the justice is to be followed by the authorities, not

the mercy. Mercy can be shown from the side of the victims, not the

authorities. (That refers to criminal cases, I supose, and doesn't imply

that, for example, TP should not be merciful.)

 

So perhaps it is just an improper understanding of the function and ways of

acting of the 'government.'

 

ys.Gndd

[Guest guest]

At 16:59 +0200 7/31/2000, Govinda Nandini (dd) (NE-BBT) wrote:

>To my memory, he

>answered that there are sides in the story: there are the abused, but there

>are also prospective disciples of DM. But what's more important, he said

>that justice and mercy don't go together, and they (or him) decided to act

>on the mercy principle (towards DM and his disciples).

 

But by doing so they also undermined the Office of Child Protection

and their own agreement to let them handle these matters.

Supporting the ruling by the OCP would simply have meant requiring

the disciples to wait another year and a half. Seems like a pretty

minor consequence in light of the horrible crimes Danurdhar had just

been convicted of.

 

>But little later,

>pondering on the subject, I came to remember something I've heard once from

>my former guru: that the justice is to be followed by the authorities, not

>the mercy. Mercy can be shown from the side of the victims, not the

>authorities.

 

Well, we certainly know that true forgiveness can only come from the

victims. And as a result of the EC's meddling, many of the victims

again felt abused, so it seems unlikely that the EC's action helped

that process of forgiveness and healing. Some even said that it was

the last straw that made them lose faith in ISKCON and got tehm to

join the law suit. Seems like a pretty steep price to pay for

allowing Danurdhar to initiate again so soon. I just don't understand

why he couldn't have cooperated and simply waited 18 more months.

It's not like he was told those prospective disciples could never be

initiated.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

> But little later,

> pondering on the subject, I came to remember something I've heard once

> from my former guru: that the justice is to be followed by the

> authorities, not the mercy. Mercy can be shown from the side of the

> victims, not the authorities.

 

This sounds really good to me, and seems to be an answer to the dilemma I

posed in my last posting.

 

Here is the principle followed in the Arabian Gulf countries.

 

The penalty for murder is death. But the murderer or his family may plead

with the victim's family for mercy, to accept 'diya' or 'blood money'

instead of the death sentence.

 

Often this plea is accepted.

 

This seems to be a good way to deal with the 'mercy/justice' dilemma in

cases where guilt is proved. I wish this would become Iskcon law.

 

By the way, does anyone know, that during the period since the CPO came into

being, how many persons found guilty have escaped the full punishment

recommended by the CPO?

[Guest guest]

Go to the source. Ask Dhira Govinda Prabhu, the head of the OCP:

dgovinda (AT) aol (DOT) com.

 

 

Vijaya-venugopala.JPS (AT) pamho (DOT) net

[Vijaya-venugopala.JPS (AT) pamho (DOT) net]

Wednesday, August 02, 2000 12:27 PM

India (Continental Committee) Open (Forum); Varnasrama development;

Ravindra Svarupa (das) ACBSP (Philad. - USA); Bhadra Balaram (das) JPS

(Mayapur - IN)

Re: GBC authority and responsibility

 

 

> But little later,

> pondering on the subject, I came to remember something I've heard once

> from my former guru: that the justice is to be followed by the

> authorities, not the mercy. Mercy can be shown from the side of the

> victims, not the authorities.

 

This sounds really good to me, and seems to be an answer to the dilemma I

posed in my last posting.

 

Here is the principle followed in the Arabian Gulf countries.

 

The penalty for murder is death. But the murderer or his family may plead

with the victim's family for mercy, to accept 'diya' or 'blood money'

instead of the death sentence.

 

Often this plea is accepted.

 

This seems to be a good way to deal with the 'mercy/justice' dilemma in

cases where guilt is proved. I wish this would become Iskcon law.

 

By the way, does anyone know, that during the period since the CPO came into

being, how many persons found guilty have escaped the full punishment

recommended by the CPO?

[Guest guest]

Thank you for this answer. I also think mercy should come from the victims,

and that the government's duty should be to punish the abusers, not to be

merciful with them; otherwise they are just re-enforcing these bad behaviors

and devotees might think they are covering them up. YS, KKdd.

[Guest guest]

>

> By the way, does anyone know, that during the period since the CPO came

> into being, how many persons found guilty have escaped the full punishment

> recommended by the CPO?

 

As suggested, I wrote to Dhira Govinda Prabhu, who was kind enough to reply

promptly.

 

Turns out, that out of FIFTY (50) cases where the CPO awarded punishments,

there was only ONE case where an element of their decision was overturned

(by the EC of the GBC), namely the Dhanurdhara Maharaja case.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Turns out, that out of FIFTY (50) cases where the CPO awarded punishments,

> there was only ONE case where an element of their decision was overturned

> (by the EC of the GBC), namely the Dhanurdhara Maharaja case.

 

Out of that 50, how many are still in ISKCON?

[Guest guest]

> As suggested, I wrote to Dhira Govinda Prabhu, who was kind enough to

> reply promptly.

>

> Turns out, that out of FIFTY (50) cases where the CPO awarded punishments,

> there was only ONE case where an element of their decision was overturned

> (by the EC of the GBC), namely the Dhanurdhara Maharaja case.

 

It seems that one, was one too much, that could have been interpreted by

some that the leaders are spared where as the small timers are punished.

[Guest guest]

At 21:18 +0500 8/7/2000, Vijaya-venugopala (das) JPS (Persian Gulf) wrote:

>Turns out, that out of FIFTY (50) cases where the CPO awarded punishments,

>there was only ONE case where an element of their decision was overturned

>(by the EC of the GBC), namely the Dhanurdhara Maharaja case.

 

Madhava Gosh (das) ACBSP (New Vrindavan - USA) wrote:

>Out of that 50, how many are still in ISKCON?

 

Good question. It would also be interesting to know 1) the number of

cases that have been delayed or declared off limits (by the GBC) for

the CPO to deal with; 2) the number of sentences that have actually

been enforced by local authorities (sentences don't have to be

overturned to be undermined, they can also be ignored), and 3) how

many "big profile" cases, vs. "mainstream abusers" that have been

investigated to date and what/who is left on the list.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

> > Turns out, that out of FIFTY (50) cases where the CPO awarded

> > punishments, there was only ONE case where an element of their decision

> > was overturned (by the EC of the GBC), namely the Dhanurdhara Maharaja

> > case.

>

> It seems that one, was one too much, that could have been interpreted by

> some that the leaders are spared where as the small timers are punished.

 

your point needs attention. Hare Krishna.

 

ys, bb

[Guest guest]

Thank you for this welcome detail, Vijaya-venugopala. We also need to know

what kind of punishment was given and if that was followed up in these 49

other cases.

That would also be very useful. YS, KKdd.

[Guest guest]

In my opinion, the relevant question to be put to the GBC is did the GBC

body agree with the action taken by it's Executive Committee? I don't recall

seeing this issue addressed in the 2000 meeting minutes. If the full GBC

agreed that the EC did the right thing in Dhanurdhara's case, then it needs

to answer for its poor judgement. On the other hand, if the full GBC does

not agree with the EC action, then we should, at the minimum, expect to see

the EC decision reversed in the meeting minutes. Better yet, would be a

formal reprimand or disciplinary action directed at the 1999 Executive

Committee to make it clear their action was not appropriate or appreciated.

 

This is the question for which we should expect a plain and simply answer

from the GBC Office. If the Office can't or won't answer, then an answer

should be required from the current GBC officers.

 

Your servant,

Sri Rama das

 

srirama (AT) pamho (DOT) net

http://www.krishnagalleria.com

 

 

 

Krsna.Kirtana.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net

[Krsna.Kirtana.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net]

Tuesday, August 08, 2000 7:37 AM

 

Thank you Harsi Prabhu for this valid comment. Mercy can not be applied in

this case; it is too serious. Especially when the perpetrator is neither

feeling sorry nor repentant. This is such a bad example for the society and

so disheartening for the grandchildren and the Child Protection Team.

 

Is that going to be corrected? Is there any plan to remedy this wrong

decision for Dhanurdhara Swami? Please keep me informed. YS, KKdd.

[Guest guest]

> Good question. It would also be interesting to know 1) the number of

> cases that have been delayed or declared off limits (by the GBC) for

> the CPO to deal with;

 

Dhira Govinda prabhu mentioned only one case, as the GBC already had a panel

dealing with the case.

 

2) the number of sentences that have actually

> been enforced by local authorities (sentences don't have to be

> overturned to be undermined, they can also be ignored),

 

Dhira Govinda Prabhu writes;

 

The CPO works with the GBC and

local managers to enforce these decisions. There have been some instances

where obtaining GBC cooperation has been difficult, but generally the GBC

has

been cooperative in enforcing the CPO decisions

 

> 3) how

> many "big profile" cases, vs. "mainstream abusers" that have been

> investigated to date and what/who is left on the list.

 

He has not segregated the cases in this manner. But his letter does not

indicate any bias on the part of the GBC, except for the above caveat.

[Guest guest]

At 9:23 +0500 8/9/2000, Vijaya-venugopala (das) JPS (Persian Gulf) wrote:

 

>Dhira Govinda Prabhu writes;

>

>The CPO works with the GBC and

>local managers to enforce these decisions. There have been some instances

>where obtaining GBC cooperation has been difficult, but generally the GBC

>has been cooperative in enforcing the CPO decisions

 

This really doesn't answer any of my questions. I'll write him to

get a direct answer.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

At 9:23 +0500 8/9/2000, Vijaya-venugopala (das) JPS (Persian Gulf) wrote:

> > >Out of that 50, how many are still in ISKCON?

>

>Don't know. I presume we can trust that the CPO awarded appropriate

>punishment. Or are they also now being doubted? There is no end to this,

>then, I guess.

 

??? What does the appropriateness of punishment have to do with

whether an abuser is still in ISKCON?

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

And then please post on 'Varnasrama development' Dhira-Govinda's precise

answer. You may also want to ask Kalakantha Prabhu as it looks like he has

been involved with all the details and follow-up. YS, KKdd

[Guest guest]

> Good question. It would also be interesting to know 1) the number of

> cases that have been delayed or declared off limits (by the GBC) for

> the CPO to deal with; 2) the number of sentences that have actually

> been enforced by local authorities (sentences don't have to be

> overturned to be undermined, they can also be ignored), and 3) how

> many "big profile" cases, vs. "mainstream abusers" that have been

> investigated to date and what/who is left on the list.

 

Just ask Dhira Govinda.

 

Your humble servant,

Hari-sauri dasa

[Guest guest]

At 20:42 +0630 8/9/2000, Hari Sauri (das) ACBSP wrote:

> Just ask Dhira Govinda.

 

 

Will do, but the fact remains that we already know of one instance in

which the CPO decision was overriden by the GBC EC (Danurdhar), one

instance when they CPO was told not to investigate (Lokanath S), one

instance where local authorities allowed someone to continue

representing ISKCON (Satadhanya) and two instances where the GBC and

local authorities have been involved in some unclear capacity

(Bhakti Vidya Purna S and Nitai Chand S). What all of these cases

have in common is that they involve devotees who were/are in some

kind of leadership positions. It would be nice to hear the GBC's side

on these cases before we look for more. The one exception I can

think of re. the above tendency is re. Muralivadaka, which is one of

the few cases that involved a leader which was handled really well.

 

What will be interesting to find out is if all the wonderful

recommendations (e.g.seeking therapy, apologizing to victims, paying

into a victim's fund, staying away from events where children are

present, not giving class, giving kirtanas) that were carefully

developed have actually been enforced in each case. In some cases,

timelines were given within which some of these things had to happen

in order for the person to be considered rehabilitated. I will write

to Dhira Govinda to find out what kind of follow up or progress

reports that have been submitted to his office by the various local

communities and by the abusers.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

> Will do, but the fact remains that we already know of one instance in

> which the CPO decision was overriden by the GBC EC (Danurdhar), one

> instance when they CPO was told not to investigate (Lokanath S), one

> instance where local authorities allowed someone to continue

> representing ISKCON (Satadhanya) and two instances where the GBC and

> local authorities have been involved in some unclear capacity

> (Bhakti Vidya Purna S and Nitai Chand S). What all of these cases

> have in common is that they involve devotees who were/are in some

> kind of leadership positions. It would be nice to hear the GBC's side

> on these cases before we look for more.

 

So ask the GBC Chairman.

 

> What will be interesting to find out is if all the wonderful

> recommendations (e.g.seeking therapy, apologizing to victims, paying

> into a victim's fund, staying away from events where children are

> present, not giving class, giving kirtanas) that were carefully

> developed have actually been enforced in each case.

 

As far as Satadhanya is concerned, he was banned from doing any

service for 10 years from Mayapur/ Calcutta temples and we have strictly

enforced that. He isn't allowed on our property although he lives just down

the road.

 

Your humble servant,

Hari-sauri dasa

[Guest guest]

At 7:06 +0630 8/10/2000, Hari Sauri (das) ACBSP wrote:

> As far as Satadhanya is concerned, he was banned from doing any

>service for 10 years from Mayapur/ Calcutta temples and we have strictly

>enforced that. He isn't allowed on our property although he lives just down

>the road.

 

 

I'm very happy to hear that this is being enforced now. Do you know

when the last time was that he was on Mayapur's property? Also, when

was the last time he appeared on the gurus behalf in Calcutta (re.

the ritvik lawsuit) and the last time he signed any papers on behalf

of the gurus? Also, have the papers he previously signed on behalf

of the gurus now been re-signed by someone else, so that he is no

longer the gurus' representative on record?

 

Thanks for any information you can provide.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

>

>

> I'm very happy to hear that this is being enforced now. Do you know

> when the last time was that he was on Mayapur's property?

 

On the last day before the ban was invoked in March.

 

> Also, when

> was the last time he appeared on the gurus behalf in Calcutta (re.

> the ritvik lawsuit) and the last time he signed any papers on behalf

> of the gurus?

 

I don't know much about the details on what is happening with the

court case except he is still allowed to do some legal backup work but

without being allowed to sign any documents or represent ISKCON or the GBC

in any official capacity. This is all within the CPO ruling.

 

> Also, have the papers he previously signed on behalf

> of the gurus now been re-signed by someone else, so that he is no

> longer the gurus' representative on record?

 

Again I have no clear idea about this. There was some legal

techincality that made it very difficult to withdraw the papers he

originally signed but as far as I know its a mute point now because since

then, the particular cases that were filed have all since gone through court

proceedings and are now over and done with. The ritviks are not pursuing

those cases anymore because they lost most of them. They are now pursuing

some new ones and I am quite sure that Satadhanya isn't signing on any of

them.

 

Your humble servant,

Hari-sauri dasa

[Guest guest]

<<> > I'm very happy to hear that this is being enforced now. Do you know

> when the last time was that he was on Mayapur's property?

 

On the last day before the ban was invoked in March.>>

 

Why did the GBC put him on the case at all knowing his abominable history?.

Why did they wait until March( when the mechanics of this lawsuit was

already turning) to lower the boom on him?

 

<<> Also, when

> was the last time he appeared on the gurus behalf in Calcutta (re.

> the ritvik lawsuit) and the last time he signed any papers on behalf

> of the gurus?

 

I don't know much about the details on what is happening with the

court case except he is still allowed to do some legal backup work but

without being allowed to sign any documents or represent ISKCON or the GBC

in any official capacity. This is all within the CPO ruling.>>

 

Why is he allowed to do anything on this case? In the US child molesters

are not allowed to do anything signifigant. Why are out standards less than

the so called"meat-eating karmis"?

 

Why is Laxmimoni one of the judges of the CPO? Why are the directives of

the CPO ignored?

 

Why are the GBC saying that we exaggerated the abuse, and that Turley is a

greedy demon? How is that supposed to help us heal? Why does the GBC not

admit their role in the problem and try to settle?

 

Why is danudhara still initiating and giving classes. Why is Bhavananda

still in the Sydney temple?

 

Why does the GBC say one thing, but do the opposite.

 

KA

 

______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Point of information:

 

Firstly Hari Sauri states:

 

"I don't know much about the details on what is happening with the

court case ... "

 

Then he states:

 

"There was somelegal techincality that made it very difficult to

withdraw the papers he originally signed but as far as I know its a mute

point now because since then, the particular cases that were filed have all

since gone through court proceedings and are now over and done with. The

ritviks are not pursuing those cases anymore because they lost most of them.

They are now pursuing some new ones and I am quite sure that Satadhanya

isn't signing on any of them."

 

For someone who claims that he doesn't know much he is happy to say

quite a lot. Unfortunately all of the above is UNTRUE.

 

Fact 1: Only one case was filed by the IRM in Calcutta. The GBC did an

official reply. The only name on that document is Satyadhanya's.

 

Fact 2: The reply submitted by the GBC contained a falsified document.

Thus the Ritviks filed another connected case due to the perjury committed

within the GBC reply.

 

Fact 3: Thus Satyadhanya's name remains as the only name on a very live

and active case. There is NO legal impediment to withdrawing his name and

submitting it again in someone else's name. It WILL cause some legal

disadvantage to the GBC case but there is nothing to stop it happening.

 

Fact 4: No cases have been lost. On the contrary it is the GBC whose

case now looks very weak having been exposed as having submitted a falsified

document. The GBC have missed the deadline set by the court in terms of

replying to the perjury charge.

 

This is where things stand at the moment.

 

Hari Sauri should at least issue an apology for deliberately misleading

the conference.

 

Thus Satyadhanya is still very much on the scene.

[Guest guest]

> > Will do, but the fact remains that we already know of one instance in

> > which the CPO decision was overriden by the GBC EC (Danurdhar), one

> > instance when they CPO was told not to investigate (Lokanath S), one

> > instance where local authorities allowed someone to continue

> > representing ISKCON (Satadhanya) and two instances where the GBC and

> > local authorities have been involved in some unclear capacity (Bhakti

> > Vidya Purna S and Nitai Chand S). What all of these cases have in

> > common is that they involve devotees who were/are in some kind of

> > leadership positions. It would be nice to hear the GBC's side on these

> > cases before we look for more.

>

> So ask the GBC Chairman.

 

We would very much appreciate if you probably feel empowered to inspire him

to finally answer the letters concerned devotees sent him, days, weeks and

months ago about this and other issues.

 

Y.s. Hariballabha dd