Lettre ouverte de Sivarama Swami, « Chers dévots », apportant des clarifications sur sa lettre de novembre 2022 concernant Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami (Anirdesya Vapu Dasa), datée du 7 décembre 2022, Mayapur

Dear Devotees,


Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

A month ago I composed a letter to the GBC and ICPO with the purpose of
pointing out ISKCON’s responsibility towards its members. That private
letter was meant to raise questions for the GBC and ICPO to discuss, but
unfortunately it was shared publicly and has been wrongfully interpreted as
my official statement to the entire devotee community. I would like to clarify
my words in their proper context, present my personal opinion on this issue,
and apologise to the devotee community for any misconceptions that letter
created.


While I took objection to a few comments in the CPO report, I would have
never publicly called for the CPO directors to resign. They did not deserve
to be humiliated in public and for that I apologise to them. Since its inception
I have been a supporter of the work of the CPO and particularly appreciative
of the service of the current directors.


In my letter I requested that the Mayapur management be held responsible
for the abuses suffered by devotees under BVP—from now on to be referred
to as Avd.


Furthermore, I petitioned the receivers to consider the role that scriptural
statements like api cet suduracaro have in deciding cases of abuse and other
crimes that come before the CPO, GBC, or Judicial Ministry, as well as what
compensation is afforded primarily to victims and—secondarily and_ if
appropriate—to culprits.


With the newly disclosed history of AVd’s latest child abuse and pastoral
abuse, I mistakenly used him as the example to question whether the api cet
principle was relevant to his crimes, and whether he would be eligible for
compensation. | should not have done that.


Although these were principles and questions to be considered as typical of
guidelines for compensation and their appropriateness—not proposals placed
to the CPO and GBC—those questions have now been mistaken for my way

of thinking and a proposal that AVd receive some stipend and a lighter
sentence.



Nothing could be farther from the truth.


However, that is the interpretation making the rounds amongst devotee
circles, and it is my haphazard communication that has become the cause of
disturbance and anxiety for disciples, well-wishers, and Vaisnavas in general.


As a sannydsi, ex-GBC, and guru my responsibility is to give spiritual
leadership and not to confuse devotees into thinking that I protect a child
abuser. I do not!


Allow me to make clear that I abhor and condemn, and always have, all forms
of abuse, such as child abuse, domestic violence, and pastoral abuse—to name
a few. As for AVd, I am disgusted at the revelation of his recent crimes and |
believe he deserves more punishment than what the CPO has given him.


I have no sympathy for him. He has had enough chances, and enough is
enough.


In my letter, | wrote that I do not think he was a born abuser. That statement
was wrong. I do not know how he was born, and whether abuse was part of
his pre-ISKCON life. So logically I retract that sentence.


Below I will make clear my real attitude to AVd.




Firstly it is important for me to state that this was a private letter written to
confidential conferences and closely concerned devotees. I had no intention
of communicating to the devotee world. Unfortunately, the letter was leaked
and here we are.


In any case, considering to whom | was writing, I did not take the time to
either carefully consider or edit the letter. In my almost 40 years on the GBC,
that would be the way we sometimes presented ideas, which members would

then critique. No doubt had I received feedback from members they would
be saying something like,


      Member 1: Sivarama Swami you have some good points, but some
      of your stuff is really misleading.


      Member 2: It sounds like you are a supporter of AVd, that you
      want to lessen his sentence and give him a pension or something.


      Member 3: You better rewrite this thing to say what you actually
      mean, or just forget the whole thing.


And so I would apologise to them for my muddle and then clarify my words.


I write this to make clear that such was the audience to whomI was writing,
and naturally I would have realised my mistakes—as | do now—and make
adjustments accordingly.


In conclusion, I had no intention or need to write my message to a wider,
what to speak of global, devotee audience. However, I understand that as my
letter has been circulated, it can appear as if I am considering AVd and child
abusers saintly merely because they have been in ISKCON for some time.
That is not the case and I regret the confusion my letter caused.




I want to emphasise that aside from a proposal regarding the CPO,
throughout my letter I either ask the GBC questions or request them to
consider certain topics, including topics on AVd or the api cet suduracaro
principle. In that text | am not presenting my personal opinion, but asking
the ultimate managing body of the Society to consider them and make
decisions as they see fit.


Following that, my primary conclusion is that Mayapur, like any yatra in
ISKCON where such abuse would take place, bears the moral, spiritual, and
financial responsibility for transgressions taking place on its campus.


Next point.

In the introductory background to the letter, I also explain that AVd has
been an acquaintance and not a “bosom buddy.”


That is certainly the truth: a few photos depicting friendly poses during
festivals at which he was a guest do not negate that truth. Aside from his
visits to Hungary, I had no interaction with him via email or phone, and on
my stays in Mayapur over the years he never visited me, nor I him. Indeed,
even at the times when I am in Mayapur, we maintain zero contact via
internet or phone. The exception was the two times that I stayed in a hut on
gurukula campus in the early 90s. But even then we shared minimal
interaction, since I was always in GBC meetings from morning till night.


I emphasise that my letter was not meant to defend a close friend. I offer no
defence for his abuses, neither do I think he requires maintenance from
ISKCON. On this point of a stipend, I will say the following:


If Mayapur offers any laksmi at all by way of compensation, and that is a big
“if,” then there is a long line of abused devotees to whom it will be offered
first. That I make clear in my letter. | do not believe for a minute that there
would be any stipend for their abuser.


One of the many reasons AVd obviously disqualifies himself to deserve
support is that at no time in the past year has he sent a letter of apology for
his misdeeds to his many abused victims. Neither has he sent apology to
Mayapur community devotees, to devotees in general, or to myself and the
devotees of Hungary, where his fiasco has disturbed both the faith of many
in Srila Prabhupada’s movement and their path back to Godhead.




Devotees have asked what my knowledge was of AVd’s atrocities over the
years. My answer to that question is, “As much as any GBC.”


My first knowledge of AVd’s behaviour was in the 1991 investigation, after
which he was restricted in a variety of ways, one being to not stay in Mayapur
all the time, but to travel. In 2000, the newly formed CPO did a deeper review

of the pre-1991 gurukula abuses and gave him further restrictions, such as no
further initiations. No doubt these restrictions were insufficient.


After 2000, the only mention of AVd was the 2015 CPO report on the girl’s
gurukula,   wherein the   sannydsa   ministry   was   requested   to look into
allegations against him. For reasons beyond my knowledge, no report ensued.


In short, between 1991 and 2000 AVd was not charged with any new abuse.
And from 2000-2021, there has been no official investigation or report on
him.


Did I hear of any abuse of that time?


While no one came to me in person to make a report, through the grapevine
I heard a few allegations. However, since no official body took action, I
assumed the allegations were inaccurate. To this day, | do not know why
further investigations didn’t happen.


That is what I knew.


The next question devotees quite rightly raise is, “Why did you let a known
abuser come to Hungary?”


As he had been requested to travel outside India, in 1992 or ’93 he was
brought to the Hungarian ydtrd to help cook for our big travelling festival.
He was liked by devotees for his knowledge of deity worship, culture, and his
interesting classes. So he was invited back on multiple occasions, until 2018.
In that time, he initiated six disciples and gathered a following amongst
devotees, but he was never allowed to deal with children in any way.


Since we were following his CPO restrictions, and since there were no new
charges against him between 1991 and 2021, I mistakenly presumed that he
had reformed his ways, and so I thought it fair to give him a chance.


Srila Prabhupada asked us to reform and not remove devotees who have
erred. For example, we currently have successful GBC’s who had left
ISKCON but were given a chance to return. Similarly, I had experience of a
fallen sannydsis who, when given a chance, successfully reformed. Of course,

violence and Vaisnava aparddha is a different category; nevertheless, |
naively thought he was a changed person. I now deeply regret my naivety.


Additionally, because AVd and I were not close, he never confided his
problems to me.


It may be asked why AVd’s truly brutal and sadistic beatings of children were
not enough for me and others to shut the doors on him.


Three decades ago, I, like the majority of ISKCON’s leadership, was much
less educated on child abuse than I am now. So the 2000 report didn’t ring
the same alarm bells as they would now. I don’t give this answer as any form
of justification, but rather as an explanation of facts.


As I mentioned, AVd had a clean record since 1991, other ydtrds gave him a
chance, and in all his time in Hungary there was never a complaint against
him. He behaved well. That warranted a chance to prove himself.




In conclusion, allow me to add a few points why I and the GBC overlooked a
sadist who was living in our midst in the guise of a sannydsi and guru.


The GBC are devotees who, like everyone else in our Society, joined
ISKCON to chant and be happy. In Srila Prabhupada’s service they accepted
the duties of the GBC whether they were qualified managers or not. Added
to that was the duty of guru for most, and temple president for some, which
meant they carried the workload of two or three people, generally with
insufficient backup. Thus child protection, to which ISKCON only opened its
eyes in the 1990s, while top priority, was still only one of dozens of pressing
issues and of even more other duties. In short, GBC men were overloaded.
And overloaded managers easily overlook things.


However, more significant is the difference between day-to-day knowledge
and historical hindsight.

Today devotees look at the last 30 years of AVd’s acts as a clear picture, and
so they may wonder, “Why didn’t the GBC know what was going on?” Some
even think that there is a massive “cover-up” of child abuse in ISKCON.


However, when AVd’s abuse—known and unknown—is incremental over
30 years, the picture is only gradually filled in and only gains clarity with the
benefit of hindsight.


This is the case with all sorts of crimes committed globally, which are difficult
to detect and only become known with the passing of years.


In hindsight it may be easy to say that AVd’s abuses were obvious, but when
seen day by day over the course of decades they were not. What to speak of I
or others having the foresight in 1991 to see how twisted a person he was.
Thus when devotees ask why I did not see AVd for what he was, and why I
did not distance myself and my ydatrd from him, I can only say that at the time
the picture was not clear to me, whereas now it is evident. I accept that this
is a case of misjudgement and mismanagement on my part, and it also speaks
to the lengths of deceit an abuser will go to in order to hide his crimes.


In my almost 40 years as GBC, while trying my best to serve Srila Prabhupada,
I have made mistakes. Of course, I wish I had not given AVd the benefit of
doubt, and I wish | had not written my recent letter. Both are regretted.


In this letter I have tried to give more detailed reasoning of what I meant by
my letter of November, and why I acted as I did with AVd over the last 30
years.




The last thing I wanted was to create a disturbance in devotees’ minds and
in Srila Prabhupada’s movement. For that I humbly apologise to the devotee
community and request their forgiveness. And I especially apologise to AVd’s
many victims for the pain | must have inflicted upon them.


Abuse of any kind is never acceptable and we, as a Society, must collectively
do better. This incident should not have happened, and we all share
responsibility; the whole system failed the victims. This is a much-needed
wake-up call for all leaders and yatrds to take child protection more seriously,
and to take added precautions in the future. In fact, I urge the GBC and

leaders of ISKCON to make our Society one in which both adults and
children benefit from complete protection and care. Personally I shall
continue to make myself available to victims of abuse and help them any way
that I can.


I am aware that some devotees will critique and reject my presentation, while
others may find it therapeutic. All I can say is that I have tried to act for
others’ best interest and herein I have told the truth. This recent chaos was
the last thing I wanted, for my entire life has always been dedicated to the
service of Vaisnavas.


May Srila Prabhupada and the Vaisnavas forgive me.

Your servant,
Sivarama Swami
7 December 2022
Mayapur.