« Conspiracy of Silence » (« Conspiration du silence »), éditorial de Rocana dasa, The Sampradaya Sun, 1er août 2006

Copy of https://harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/08-06/editorialsS62.htm as it stood on 2020-02-12. Saved for the
record; page furniture (menus, ads, comment forms) removed; the name of a former student is blacked out.



The Sampradaya Sun - Independent Vaisnava News - Editorials — August 2006



 Conspiracy of Silence

 BY: ROCANA DASA


 Aug    1,    CANADA        (SUN)     —    Following     the    recent   weeks of controversy               surrounding
 Dhanurdhara's history and status in the society, attention is again being focused on other
 perpetrators of abuse in ISKCON's past. The names of Satadhanya dasa and Nitai Chand
 are again coming to the fore, particularly in the context of what investigations have been
 conducted by ISKCON and what sanctions have been imposed, or not.


 Having just urged Laksmi Nrsimha prabhu to make the CPO case history on Dhanurdhara
 available for all to read, we could only conclude that the Satadhanya report should also
 be made public. While the document has been circulating for some time, we are not aware
 of its having been published online up to now.

 Aside from the shocking nature of the charges leveled against Satadhanya by his victims,
 we also found          it difficult to accept how the early investigations of Satadhanya were
 handled. When confronted with reports of Satadhanya’s sex abuse, as the report states,
 "the ISKCON Board of Education (IBE) met in Mayapur and decided that Satadhanya must
 comply       with    the   GBC   directive   that   a   child    abuser desiring      to    live      in   an   ISKCON
 community must have the approval of 3/4 of the community grhastas." There followed
 numerous rounds of discussions, meetings and votes. It is hard to image that 25% of the
 Mayapur grhasta community would have been expected to acquiesce to having a known
 child sex abuser living among their children simply because the majority thought it was
 OK. We can only hope that 1992 policy has been replaced with a sensible one.


 In my recent article, Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied, I suggested that the issue of
 whether or not Dhanurdhara got a fair shake from the CPO is far less important than the
 fact that Bhavananda is still at large, in Mayapur and presumably elsewhere, and the CPO
 and GBC have not yet seen fit to deal with him and give justice to his many victims. In
 fact, the CPO report shows that Satadhanya is also protecting Bhavananda. In my mind,
 this fact alone warrants making the Satadhanya report public.


 Behind the lurid stories of both Dhanurdara and Satadhanya, we find Bhavananda. The
 GBC and CPO have seen fit to investigate and sanction both Dhanurdara and Satadhanya,
 and we have heard that an investigation of Nitai Chand was conducted, although we have
 heard nothing of the results. The real mystery is why no action has been taken with
 regards      to     investigating   and   sanctioning         Bhavananda,    whose     is    a     main     source   of
 contamination.


 ISKCON history is rife with many, many stores about Bhavananda, and we know that
 Dhanurdara, Satadhanya and Nitai Chand have many more stories that could be added to
 the   mix.    For whatever reasons, they            have chosen to          protect   him,       as   have the GBC
 members themselves.

[Photograph of Bhavananda, not preserved in the archived copy.
                                                             ]


Bhavananda was a co-GBC in Vrindavan at the time when Dhanurdara was running the
Gurukula there during the 1980's. Anyone following the recent Sun articles will have been
introduced to Bhavananda’s history. A quick Google will result in many of the allegations
made by his victims and stories of observers of his pastimes in Mayapur. In the days
ahead, I'll tell some of the stories of my experiences with Bhavananda in Mayapur.


It was actually        Bhavananda that finally brought down the Zonal Acarya                        system.     His
outrageous activities made it impossible for the Zonal Acaryas to defy the groundswell of
demand for them to give up their absolute grip on the reins of power. But that is also
another story...


What we should focus on is why Dhanurdara and Satadhanya have gotten into so much
hot water on the child abuse issue, while the GBC and ISKCON elite are all welcoming
Bhavananda back to Mayapur. What is it that Bhavananda has on these people that causes
them to look aside, ignoring the history of his flagrant abuse.


What is it that Bhavananda has to offer ISKCON, that the leaders of Mayapur should
welcome him back so warmly? He's not a good manager, not a good preacher, and not a
motivator. He is a famous sense gratifier and a bad example, and he has caused so much
suffering to so many people. Of course, he’s convinced that he’s quite wonderful and
apparently gets plenty of feedback that helps to keep him in that illusion. Following is a
letter Bhavananda wrote in approximately 2005. It's been widely circulated as an example
of his very recognizable mood:


      Subject: from: Bhavananda (das) ACBSP

      Dear     ....,   How    are   you?   I   am   leaving   for   Bombay       on   Jan.   22    to   help   with
      arrangements for the Prabhupada festival [sic] there. Shyamasundar has asked me
      to be the emcee with Nathji for the festival itself and to help organise before.
      Chowpatty has paid for the ticket so it is all go, go, go! It is nice to feel wanted
      again    and     to    have   some   recognition      from    ones   godbrothers.       Apparently       most
      everyone felt I would be perfect for that service including all of the India Regional
      Board. To those who don't like it I will quote Indradyumna Maharaja who said "They
      just better get used to it. You are back whether they like it or not" My trip to
      Mayapur was very successful.


      I gave class twice and gave em the sauce. They loved it. I had devotees thanking
      me the entire week for telling them what Prabhupada wanted at Mayapur. I also had
      a good relationship established with Naru Gopal who I saw every day and who was
      always asking me for advice about different issues at Mayapur. And there sure are a
      lot of issues but that is for discussion between you and I face to face. I also spoke at
      a   LM   meeting       that   Ambarish    held   at   Gurusaday      Rd.    and   I    was   fabulous.    So
      everything is looking good. Will you come to Bombay for the festival? Please! It is
      going to be quite something and I am sure it will inspire you. Love Bhavs


Bhavananda was billed as one of the attractions at the 2005 Mumbai Festival, where he
was scheduled to give class, and was included in the promotional video clips. This festival
attracted many other ISKCON luminaries including Radhanath Swami, Bhakti Caru Swami,
Jayadvaita Swami,           Niranjan Swami, Bhakti Swarup Damodar Swami, Lokanath Swami,

Bhakti Vikasa     Swami, and Ambarisa dasa.            Regardless of his well          known       history as a
flagrant homosexual, and the many allegations that he is also a pedophile, our ISKCON
leaders apparently had no qualms about sharing the stage with him last year.


By and large, Bhavananda has always been the most blatant of all known sex abusers in
ISKCON's history. Laksmi Nrsimha prabhu spelled it out very articulately in saying that
according to law, sexual abuse is far more serious than physical abuse and should be
considered as such, and punishment should be meted out accordingly.


I'm   not aware    of any    evidence that      Dhanurdhara          committed      acts    of sexual       abuse,
although   sex   abuse     was   certainly   going     on   right    under   his    nose    in    the   Gurukula,
perpetrated primarily by the contaminated students who had been abused in Mayapur. The
authorities then were Bhavananda, Satadhanya, Nitai Chand, and the headmaster of the
Gurukula at the time.


These abused students from Mayapur were later transferred to Vrindavan, as were other
sex abuse victims from Kirtanananda’s New Vrindaban. It was common knowledge among
the older boys there, who were too old or big to be abused, that these child sex victims
transferred into Vrindaban from Mayapur and New Vrindaban were sexually abusing the
younger five to seven-year old boys. [MM has told these stories in detail, and
he reported them to | Jagadisa, who was then the Minister of Education.

Dhanurdhara had to deal with this difficult situation, which was undoubtedly a contributing
factor to his abusive acts. These students had been personally sent by the 'big gurus’ who
were also GBC's, one of whom was a pedophile, the other a sexual deviant, at best.
Dhanurdhara      kept    quiet   about   what   was     really      happening      behind    the    scenes.     His
protection of Bhavananda and Kirtanananda exemplifies some of the worst abuse he
meted out.

While we have not yet read the CPO's investigation report on Dhanurdhara, we're told that
he did, in fact, 'name names’. This is very likely one of the reasons the report has not
been circulated - not to protect the names of the innocent, but to protect the names of
the GBC, who were Zonal Acaryas at the time. The name that comes up like fireworks is
Bhavananda, who was co-GBC of Mayapur at the time along with Jayapataka Swami. It is
easy to understand why there might be a cover-up of these case files when we consider
the consequences of it becoming public knowledge that the officials in Mayapur knew
about the child sexual abuse for years, and didn’t make it known to the Society.


Of course, there are rumours galore concerning Bhavananda's relationships with certain
key GBC members.          He and Jayaptaka spent a few years together, virtually alone in
Mayapur while the property was in the pioneer stages. Gopala Krishna Goswami was a co-
GBC of Vrindavan during the era of serious child abuse in the                        1980's. Jagadish, the
Minister of Education, said the reason he couldn't do anything about Dhanurdhara was
because he was being protected by Bhavananda, so you couldn’t accuse him, let alone
remove him. Gopala Krishna Goswami was a straight management man, and he obviously

never took on      the   Gurukula    abuse    issue.    Besides,      Bhavananda      was        such   a   terrible
manager they had to have a co-GBC with him, and Gopala Krishna Goswami was kept
busy handling the details. Bhavananda just played all day, flittering away his time. No one
ever saw him chant his rounds, and he seldom went to a morning program. Even then, it
was a mystery why the other GBC put up with his shenanigans.

Tamal Krishna Goswami was also very close to Bhavananda, and protected him on many
occasions.   I was personally in the                 room at New Vrindavan around                       1985,    at the   big
international gathering to deal with the Zonal Acarya issue, when Tamal Krishna Goswami
got the    phone      call    from Atlanta that derailed             the Zonal train.            When     Tamal     Krishna
Goswami picked up the phone, the Temple President of Atlanta was on the other end. He
had just taken delivery of a notarized statement from a young brahmacari who                                              had
returned from India, where he had been forcibly induced into                               a homosexual relationship
with Bhavananda at the Holy Dhama. Tamal Krishna Goswami tried to make light of it at
the time. I don’t recall his exact words, but I remember that it came as a big blow to him
and badly damaged his strategy for salvaging the Zonal Acarya system. Bhavananda was
the   weakest    link      at the     time,    as    Hansadutta      and       Jayatirtha       had    already   met   their
inauspicious ends.


We must also keep in mind that Jayapataka Maharaja was in Mayapur for a majority of the
time the Gurukula abuse was going on there. There was a                              lot of time when Bhavananda
himself wasn't in Mayapur, especially when he was managing in Australia. Jayapataka
Swami     was there          and    was   in   charge     while    Satadhanya,          Nitai   Chand     and    the   other
schoolteachers        were         overseeing       the   Gurukula.      All    of   them        had    previously     been
contaminated by Bhavananda. All of Jayapataka Swami's right-hand men were right there,
and it's simply inconceivable that Jayapataka Swami did not know what was going on.


So why have all these people chosen to protect Bhavananda, to cover up for him, to
befriend him, to provide him with kingly opulence? What is it, exactly? Bhavananda didn't
have charisma or shakti, but he’s been like Teflon all these years. He’s like the Ganges.
You're made to believe that he’s always pure, regardless of the fact you can feel, hear and
see such filth in front of your eyes. Yet on the authority of the higher echelons of ISKCON,
we're supposed to believe that it's just our own material contamination that causes us to
see him as being impure, regardless of all the evidence. We can only conclude that
Bhavananda is holding something over them, and they well know he's ruthless enough to
use it if he doesn't get his way.

Of course, we also haven't heard a peep out of anyone else who was at Mayapur at the
time.   There        was     Bhagavan,         Rameswar,        Harikesha,       Tamal      Krishna       Goswami,        and
Hridayananda dasa Goswami. You can assume with near certainty that they all knew
about Bhavananda, just as all of them knew, in detail, about Kirtanananda. They knew
Kirtanananda was a pedophile and they knew Bhavananda was a flagrant homosexual, if
not also a pedophile. These men knew pretty much everything that was going on in the
movement,       in    everyone        else’s    zone.     The     pact   they     had    amongst        themselves        was
unbelievably strong. Their club membership trumped all the absolute principles of guru,
sastra and sadhu, the spiritual master, common sense, and morals. The level of their
camaraderie was so great it exceeded the laws of any land, whether India or the western
countries. I've never personally experienced that degree of loyalty, nor have I seen it
exhibited in any other circumstance throughout my life.


Bhav's Back!


As we see in the Mayapur online photo album, Bhav Is Back. Over the last few years, he
has again been made very welcome at the Holy Dhama. The photos below, from 2004 -
2005, indicate that everyone is embracing him like it’s the return of the prodigal son.

[Four photographs of Bhavananda in Mayapur, 2004-2005, appeared here; they are not
preserved in the archived copy.
                              ]




In    the   Satadhanya       report,         we    read       that    the   following      conclusions,         directives         and
recommendations            were    unanimously               accepted    by the        CPO   panel      as     sanctions      to    be
handed down against Satadhanya. They include:


       5) Satadhanya dasa             must not assume any leadership positions in ISKCON. This
       includes a prohibition from leading kirtana and giving class on ISKCON property or
       at an ISKCON function. This directive is effective for the duration of this lifetime.


       6) Satadhanya dasa must not assume any position of influence that is connected
       with ISKCON. This stipulation also includes a prohibition from representing ISKCON...


        10)    Satadhanya       must         not   be shown          any special         privilege or preference              at an
       ISKCON temple or in an ISKCON project, or in a project or organization affiliated
       with    ISKCON.       For example,               he    should    not   be       offered   the    special       privilege     of
       garlanding Srila Prabhupada at an ISKCON program.


So while Satadhanya is banned for life from giving class in the temple, Bhavananda, one
of the most flagrant sexual abusers in ISKCON history, is again seen curled up and purring
on the vyasasana at Mayapur.


While investigations have been concluded on both Dhanurdhara and Satadhanya and they
have    been    punished      by     the CPO,           Bhavananda          has    apparently          never    been       seriously
investigated. To our knowledge no case against him has been opened by the CPO. If an
investigation were ongoing, why would Bhavananda be treated so richly in Mayapur to this
very day?


To talk about justice under these circumstances is almost absurd. While there may be
some justice for the victims of Dhanurdhara and Satadhanya, where is the justice for all of
Bhavananda's         victims?     Not    only      is    he    apparently        not    being    subjected       to    a   rigorous
investigation by the CPO, he is being courted by ISKCON luminaries, given a seat of
honour on the vyasasana, and given facility that the average rank and file devotee only
dreams of having, like the special privilege of applying candana to Srila Prabhupada’s
forehead and offering him garlands at the Holy Dhama.


While Bhavananda was "removed" numerous times from being an initiating guru or a GBC
for his deviant sexual activities, that’s all they did -- remove him, then let him back in.
That happened in the 80's, and now it appears to be happening again. After letting him
return in the 80's, they threw him out again when the taxi driver story surfaced.


While Dhanurdhara and Satadhanya committed serious crimes against children, the real
bad    apple    in   the    barrel      is    Bhavananda.            Dhanurdhara          and    Satadhanya           were     both
contaminated as a result of their exposure to him, as were many, many others. A lot of
apples got contaminated,              including          young       children.    Personally,      I    have    no    doubt that
Satadhanya's sickness was exacerbated by his bad association with                                            Bhavananda, and
Dhanurdhara's situation was severely complicated due to Bhavananda’s direct influence.
Yet neither of these devotees have exposed Bhavananda's role in the affair. We are left to

wonder what power Bhavananda has over them that has kept them all quiet for so many
years.



The big question in the minds of many devotees - particularly the ex-gurukula students -
is why Srila Prabhupada tolerated Bhavananda and Kirtanananda during his ISKCON lila
period.    Why    didn't   he   remove           them?   My       answer to    that      question     is   found     in    my
Sampradaya         Acarya       paper.       I    suggest     that    it's   possible     for   the    very        advanced
Sampradaya Acaryas to neutralize the effects of gross contamination and engage the un-
engageable. That doesn't mean,                   however, that after the pure devotee departs, other
personalities who are inconceivably less spiritually potent -- namely, the Zonal Acaryas
and senior people in ISKCON at the time - can pick up where Srila Prabhupada left off and
manage with the same potency and success. We had to follow a whole different set of
rules than Srila Prabhupada followed. We couldn’t just forgive and engage, and do exactly
what Srila      Prabhupada      did.   But this is exactly the               mantra      Bhavananda         uses -       'Srila
Prabhupada would let me back, Srila Prabhupada would engage me’. That's just what Srila
Prabhupada       had   done,    but the          GBC collectively are         not on      the   same       level    as    Srila
Prabhupada. They'd all like their disciples to think they are, but in reality, it's far from
true.


While I want to see Dhanurdhara get justice, I don't have much sympathy for him given
that he's chosen not to publicly disclose what he knows about how the abuse situation
was handled - what to speak of perpetrated -- by the higher-up’s. He remains silent to
this very day and is protecting people who should themselves be exposed and brought to
justice.   No    matter what       personal         price    he    would     have   to    pay   for exposing             these
individuals, it is his duty as a Vaisnava, a sannyasi and a preacher to expose demons,
even though they may be in the disguise of devotees.

Many of us have a very clear picture of who is implicated at the top in covering up the
sexual abuse that took place at the Holy Dnamas. We see them as demons because they
had all the symptoms of demons. And what's more demoniac than abusing small children?

When comparing Dhanurdara and Satadhanya to the likes of Bhavananda, I'm reminded
of King Kamsa. All the other demons were his subordinate friends, and he ordered them
to go out and attack Krsna in Vrindavan. Putana, Kuvalayapida, and the wrestlers all were
mini-demons compared to the chief demon, Kamsa. In the same way, Dhanurdara and
Satadhanya were like mini-demons compared to Bhavananda and Kirtanananda, who were
class A demons.


In   Chapter 44 of Krsna         Book,       Srila    Prabhupada        describes the       killing   of Kamsa.           This
passage is reminiscent of the inequity represented by denying justice to those who were
ultimately victimized by Bhavananda while the king demon himself goes unpunished.


        "But the   audience      in    the       wrestling    arena    was    not very      satisfied       because        the
        combatants did      not appear to            be equally matched. They considered                      Krsna       and
        Balarama to be mere boys before the wrestlers Canura and Mustika, who were huge
        men, as solid as stone. Being compassionate and favoring Krsna and Balarama,
        many members of the audience began to talk as follows. “Dear friends, there is
        danger here." Another said, “Even in front of the King this wrestling is going on
        between incompatible sides." The audience had lost their sense of enjoyment. They
        could not encourage the fighting between the strong and the weak. "Mustika and

     Canura are just like thunderbolts, as strong as great mountains, and Krsna and
     Balarama are two delicate boys of very tender age. The principle of justice has
     already left this assembly. Persons who are aware of the civilized principles of justice
     will not remain to watch this unfair match. Those taking part in this wrestling match
     are not very much enlightened; therefore whether they speak or remain silent, they
     are being subjected to the reactions of sinful activities."


When we consider the injustice of Bhavananda’s continued presence at Mayapur, we must
sadly conclude that the principle of justice has already left the ISKCON assembly.


In their report on Satadhanya, the CPO writes:


     "If purity is the force, then the rectification of this abuse is at least as important an
     ingredient      in    the   development of Mayapur as             bricks,   marble,     and    architectural
     drawings. This panel would like to emphasize that any restitution or apology is only

     a   token,      a     small    beginning.    The   victims    associate      Mayapur        with     suffering,
     exploitation and lust, and with neglect and callousness on the part of Mayapur's
     leaders. The actual restitution is to make the victims again, or perhaps for the first
     time,    feel   welcome,         safe,   honored   and     transcendentally      blissful     in   Mayapur--
     something any resident or guest should be able to take for granted.                                Mayapur's
     supporters and donors should understand the necessity of making child protection a
     cornerstone of all future development in the holy dhama.


     Regarding       ISKCON         Mayapur, the ICOCP hereby           recognizes and       appreciates that
     ISKCON Mayapur has established an active Child Protection Team (CPT). Although
     the history, prior to 1992, of child abuse in Mayapur is one of the worst in ISKCON,
     the     Mayapur administration,           especially during the past three years,                  has shown
     commitment to various aspects of child                   protection,      including    supporting a CPT,
     investigating         and     adjudicating   allegations     of   child   abuse,      implementing         child
     protection education programs for students, teachers, and managers, preventing
     child    abusers from          having access to children and the property,                  caring    for and
     assisting victims of child abuse, and endeavoring to rectify child                            abusers as a
     condition       for    their    continued    connection       with    the    organization.         Since    the
     establishment of the ICOCP in April, 1998, the Mayapur CPT and management have
     been very cooperative with the ICOCP in investigating and adjudicating cases and in
     furthering the other aspects of child protection."


In much the same way that the CPO very graciously pointed out in their report all of the
good qualities displayed by Satadhanya over the years, they have pointed out above all of
the good qualities the managers of Mayapur have displayed in recent years regarding the
child abuse issue.


But while Satadhanya and Dhanurdhara have been punished, the management of Mayapur
has not even been made to publicly disclose the details of what took place during their
dark history. This disclosure must happen, and it must include a detailed                           public truth-

telling as to the         role played    by ISKCON's most senior officials,             who were ultimately
responsible for all that took place on their watch.

To simply punish Satadhanya and Dhanurdhara while Bhavananda runs free and the GBC
in charge evade confrontation is not unlike punishing two boys of tender age (the children

of Vrindavan) while Kamsa himself remains undeterred.

    | The Sun | News | Editorials | Features | Sun Blogs | Classifieds | Events | Recipes | PodCasts |
                 | About | Submit an Article | Contact Us | Advertise | HareKrsna.com |

                       Copyright 2005, HareKrsna.com. All rights reserved.