Children of ISKCON v. ISKCON: the gurukula abuse lawsuits

Background. ISKCON opened its first boarding school (gurukula) in Dallas in the early 1970s; by 1978 there were eleven in North America, and it ran boys’ schools in Vrindavan and Mayapur, India, to which many American children were sent. In October 1998 ISKCON’s official journal published a study by the sociologist E. Burke Rochford Jr. and an article by Bharata Shrestha Das documenting widespread physical, emotional and sexual abuse in these schools in the 1970s and 1980s. The press called it an unusually candid disclosure (The New York Times, AP and Religion News Service, October 1998). That record is set out under ISKCON’s accusation entry.

The federal suit (2000–2001). On 12 June 2000 the Dallas lawyer Windle Turley filed Children of ISKCON et al. v. ISKCON et al. in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas (No. 3:00-cv-01254) for 44 former pupils, seeking $400 million under the federal racketeering law (RICO) and state law. The plaintiffs are not named on this site. The defendants were ISKCON, about 15 ISKCON-related corporations, six men as executors of Prabhupada’s estate and current or former GBC members: 17 by the count of AP and Hinduism Today, 18 in the complaint’s own list, which also names the GBC’s chairman. The complaint alleged abuse “primarily between the years 1972 and 1990”, worst at the schools in Dallas, New Vrindaban, Los Angeles, Seattle, Port Royal (Pennsylvania), Lake Huntington (New York), Vrindavan and Mayapur. It claimed that the GBC ran the school system, knew of the abuse and concealed it. On 15 June 2000, at the plaintiffs’ request, the court ordered all named defendants “not to destroy, discard, or spoil any documents or records” that might be relevant to the suit, and to instruct “any affiliated companies, persons, agents, or other parties under their influence or control” to do the same (Doc. 4).

The GBC defendants were named by their legal names; the complaint gave their devotee names: Atreya Rsi, Bhavananda, Bali Mardan, Rupanuga, Ravindra Svarupa Das (then GBC chairman), Bhagavan, Bhakti Tirtha Swami, Satsvarupa, Mukunda Goswami, Kirtanananda, Panca Dravida Swami, Tamal Krishna Goswami, Jagadish, Gopal Krishna Goswami, Hansadutta, Balavanta, Hridayananda das Goswami and Brahmananda. Being named as a defendant for having sat on the GBC is not a finding, or even an allegation, that a person abused a child. The Sunday Age reported that there was “no suggestion” in the suit that Bhavananda was personally involved, and that he suggested the case had been “blown out of all proportion”.

Most individual defendants were never served. On 28 September 2001 Judge Sam A. Lindsay dismissed the RICO claims with prejudice, because the former pupils had not alleged an injury to their “business or property” as RICO requires. He declined jurisdiction over the state-law claims and dismissed them without prejudice, and dismissed the unserved defendants. The order made no finding about the abuse. The last defendants, Kirtanananda Swami (Keith Ham) and Hridayananda Das Goswami (Howard Resnick), were dismissed without prejudice on 28 November 2001 (Docs. 135, 137).

The state suit (2001). On 25 October 2001 Turley refiled the claims in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas (192nd Judicial District, No. 01-09282) for 91 former pupils. The petition is hosted here, with the plaintiffs’ names removed. It named ISKCON, 20 ISKCON-related corporations (among them New Vrindaban Community, Inc.), the estate’s executors and 20 current or former GBC members. Besides those named in 2000, it named Bir Krishna Das Goswami (Bruce Jacobs), described as “a current officer on special duty for the GBC”, and the GBC chairman, John Patane, whom Nori Muster identifies as Ramai Swami.

Bankruptcy and settlement (2002–2005). From February 2002 eleven ISKCON temples and related corporations filed for Chapter 11 (jointly administered cases in the US Bankruptcy Courts for the Central District of California and the Northern District of West Virginia): six in California, among them the Los Angeles and San Diego temples, ISKCON Television and the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International, and five in West Virginia, among them New Vrindaban Community. The filing stopped the suit. ISKCON said the suit “threatens to shut down an entire religion” and that bankruptcy would allow a fair compensation fund; AP reported that the temples were filing “to avoid being sued” (AP; BBC Radio 4; ISKCON press release). In 2003 the debtors advertised for claims from anyone abused in ISKCON schools. The Los Angeles Times reported that ISKCON’s lawyer said that “well over” 2,000 to 3,000 children had passed through the schools.

The bankruptcy courts in West Virginia (16 May 2005) and California (23 May 2005) confirmed the reorganization plans. The plans set up a $9.5 million fund, with payments of about $2,500 to $50,000 each, for the plaintiffs and about 450 other former pupils who came forward through the bankruptcy. Further money depended on claims against insurers. ISKCON’s spokesman, Anuttama Dasa, said: “As leaders, it was our responsibility to assure our children’s safety. We failed them, and for that we are very sorry.” The Los Angeles Times counted 535 former students in the settlement. According to Nori Muster’s timeline, Turley announced in November 2008 that all claims against ISKCON entities and their insurers had been settled, for $15 million in total including legal fees; this figure has not been confirmed elsewhere.

The West Virginia cases. The lead West Virginia case was In re JAGA, Inc. (Bankr. N.D. W.Va. No. 5:02-bk-51295, filed 16 April 2002), jointly administered with the cases of the other New Vrindaban corporations, among them New Vrindaban Community, Inc. (No. 5:02-bk-51699, closed in March 2009). On RECAP’s copy of the docket the lead case was closed in May 2011, reopened on 8 April 2024, and dismissed on 14 April 2025 and closed two days later. Why it was reopened is not known: none of the 2024–2025 filings is freely available. A landowner also challenged the plan over the 132 acres that the New Vrindaban corporations held under a 99-year agreement of 1968 (see New Vrindaban); in July 2006 the district court sent that dispute back to the bankruptcy court (Rose v. JAGA, Inc., hosted here).