Письмо директора Central Office of Child Protection (Центральный отдел защиты детей) ISKCON Бхакти Викаше Свами (Bhakti Vikasa Swami) и членам GBC по делу Бхакти Видья Пурны Свами (Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami)

Subj:       Re: case processing
Date:       Friday, April 7, 2000 11:36:51 AM
From:       Dgovinda
To:         Bhakti. Vikasa.Swami@pamho.net, ljyadasa,
            GBC.Discussions@pamho.net, Taskforce@bbt.se
cc:         Tridandi.Sannyasa@pamho.net




        CONFIDENTIAL: ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT

                                         Dhira Govinda dasa
                           ISKCON Central Office of Child Protection
                                    ~      P.O. Box 1438
                                 Alachua, Florida 32616-1438
                            Tel: 904-418-0882 FAX: 904-418-0982
                                   email: dgovinda@aol.com

April 6, 2000

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


Bhakti Vikas Maharaja wrote "BVP Maharaja's being removed from his role
in the Mayapur ‘older student's’
gurukul and forbidding him from lecturing in Iskcon centers in no way
benefits either those who have been abused or anybody else."


Based on my experience with hundreds of victims of child abuse, and their
parents, and dealing with well over a hundred cases of child abuse
connected with ISKCON, I'd say that the above statement is not accurate.
In asserting this | am not commenting on the validity or lack of it of the
allegations against Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaja. Rather, | am commenting
on the apparent presumption in the statement that, if a devotee was
responsible for child abuse in the past, then restrictions as describ
                                                                                         ed
above do not benefit anyone. There are many child abusers conne
                                                                                       cted with
ISKCON, and the official decisions of the Child Protection
                                                                                 Office have
often restricted such persons, at least for some time,
                                                                           from giving class
leading kirtana, and assuming other services that imply lea
                                                           dership. In                         |
many cases these devotees are adept at
                                                        giving Srimad-Bhagavatam class
leading inspiring kirtanas, etc. What happens wh
                                                                    en someone who was             |
abused by the person walks into a Hare Krsna
                                                              temple and there on the

                     4/13/00            America Online : ljyadasa       Page 1

vyasa-sana is the person who did the abusing? Or a devotee walks into the
temple, perhaps for the first time in a long time, and the person leading
the kirtana is the very same person who abused the visitor when the
visitor was a child in gurukula? | spend lots of time dealing with young
adults who were abused, and their parents and friends, who contact me to
describe such situations, and the pain and suffering it causes them, what
to speak of the destruction of whatever tiny shred of faith they may stilt
have in the ISKCON organization. Conversely, when the abusing devotee Is
restricted (for at least some time, commensurate with the degree,
duration, and extent of the abuse) from such leadership services, it sends
a message that the organization is sensitive to those who suffered child
abuse while under the care of the organization, and that we don't advocate
child abusers taking leadership positions, and it lends some integrity to
the organization.


| recall one letter that | received from a mataji more than a year ago. In
the letter she described a recent incident wherein she walked into an
ISKCON temple and witnessed a known child abuser leading a kirtana. For
her this was the last straw, and pushed her over the edge to make the
decision to no longer have any connection with the ISKCON organization.
She is the mother of children and decided that an organization that is so
insensitive and callous does not deserve her support.

I'm not commenting here whether such restrictions should apply in the
case of Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaja. I'm only commenting on the fact that
there is benefit to such restrictions for some, and perhaps many, in at
least some cases.


Whatever restrictions the Child Protection Office may impose on a child
abuser, we expect that it's understood that, no matter how severe the
abuse was, we hope and pray that the abuser continues to perform
devotional service and contribute to the sankirtana mission. Whatever
restrictions may be imposed, there are still a multitude of ways for the
devotee to serve Srila Prabhupada's mission. But it is not the direct
service of the Child Protection Office to enumerate those ways, or to
direct the devotee as to what sort of service to perform. It is one of the
services of the Child Protection Office to define restrictions. Still, we've
now added a paragraph such as the following to the official decisions:


                    4/13/00   America Online : ljyadasa   Page 2

    This Official Decision describes restrictions and recommendation
?      °      °      °   8        °

                                                                       s concerning []. It is of course
understood that devotional service is the ultimate and primary
                                                                  means for purification and
rectification. [] has shown himself to be a dedicated
                                                        servant of Srila Prabhupada’s mission, and
ISKCON and the ICOCP would like that he continue to serve
                                                               this mission within the organization
within the parameters outlined herein. Within these paramete
                                                             rs there are a multitude of ways in
which [] can contribute to the sankirtana
                                            movement."

The decisions could include statements such as "The Child Protect
                                                                  ion Office encourages [] to chant
16 rounds per day and encourage others to do so, and to regularly
                                                                   study Srila Prabhupada's
books, and distribute prasadam, and hold home programs, ..." but, as stat
                                                                          ed above, such support
to perform devotional service is implied in the
                                                decisions.

So, even if Bhakt Vidya Purna Maharaja were to be restricted in the ways discussed at
                                                                                            the Feb. 17
meeting (and as of now he has not been restricted in any way by the Child Prot
                                                                               ection Office), he
could still, by so many means, provide spritual guidance and inspiration to those
                                                                                  who seek it.

Bhakti Vikas Maharaja wrote "Why single him out for punishment? Why not punish
the local GBC,
i.e. Jayapataka Maharaja, in the same way? Is he not equally responsible?"

These are very important points for discussion. The ISKCON Child Protection Task Force Report
defines a type of child maltreatment called neglect of supervision. Although there are also
accusations of other types of more direct child abuse in the cases of Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaja
and Dhanurdhara Maharaja, neglect of supervision is a primary element in the allegations of these
cases. Since these two cases have, from the opening of the Child Protection Office, been placed on
the docket for the CPO to address, and since neglect of supervision is a type of child maltreatment
defined in the Task Force Report, the CPO assumed that the GBC wants the Office to resolve
these cases according to the parameters of the Task Force Report, including the accusations of
neglect of supervision. Some are implying that although neglect of supervision may be a type of
child maltreatment, the one who is culpable should not be restricted (perhaps, especially, if they
are sannyasis) in ways such as being restricted from giving Srimad-Bhagavatam class. If the GBC
wants to impose such constraints on the consequences for various types of transgressions, the
Child Protection Office will of course abide by those boundaries, though not necessarily
understanding the logic behind them. (It could be argued that for the extent of neglect of child
supervision in some of the cases we have, some governments would put people in prison, and
therefore it may be perceived as curious why ISKCON is mortified at the thought of restricting the
neglecter from giving Srimad-Bhagavatam class.) Also, if the GBC wants to define the constraints
on imposed restrictions, then the need to even give such cases to the CPO is questionable. That is,
let the GBC resolve the cases itself.

Regarding the case of Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaja, the CPO has received several responses from
GBCs indicating dissatisfaction, even outrage, at the processes and course of discussions of this
case. I can understand the affections from which these objections derive, though I do not see a
rational basis for them with regards to the GBC mandate from which the CPO was established, or
with regards to the facts of the case file. Of course I understand that the commentators are not
familiar with the entirety of the case file, and they are trying their best to give valuable input based
on what they've heard from here and there (Often the comments I read seem to assume too much
about what happened or didn't happen, what Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaja knew or didn't know).

                             4/13/00    America Online : ljyadasa        Page 3

Stii ll, I take Seriously the many
                                   and vehement protests from the senior
that thaedivathis case on hold until it
                                                                               Vaisnavas. Therefore, the
                                          receives a letter from the GBC Execut
Maha:
                                                                                      ive Committee stating
               1s satisfied with the way th
                                             e Office has handled the ca
                                                                            se of Bhakti Vidya Purna
     araja and stating that the GBC requ
                                            ests the CPO to continue processin
                                                                              g the case till
FP retion. Or, the CPO will contine to




                                                                                                                  ..
                                              process the case when it receives a letter fro
   ecutive Committee that defines the sh                                                        m the GBC
                                              ortcomings of the CPO intervention th
as well as a prescribed course for recti                                                  us far in this case,
                                          fication, and a stipulation that if the re
                                                                                       ctification is achieved
then the CPO shoutd continue to proc
                                     es     s the case.

Apart from this particular case, | think it's a go
                                                    od idea if the GBC provides some formal
evaluation for the entirety of the CPO functi
                                                 oning. When I signed the contract to do the se
director of the CPO, more than two years ago, | de                                                    rvice of
                                                          liberately required that the contract include a
yearly evaluation for the CPO, so that I know
                                                    how I'm doing, rather than hear innuendo, partia
                                                                                                            lly
informed opinion, and rumor. I am always open to
                                                           hear suggestions as to how the CPO can be
more effective.

There is also the question of neglect of supervision that is
                                                             ind     irect. That is, whether and to what
extent the authority of the authority is responsible for
                                                             the children who were abused. The CPO has
received many pressured requests from many sources, urg
                                                          ing that the Office must deal with the
cases of everyone who was in authority positions at the time
                                                             of the extensive abuse. This would
include several devotees who currently retain ISKCON leadersh
                                                                 ip positions. I believe that it is
important for the integrity of ISKCON to responsibly deal with
                                                                  these cases. However, I don't
think it's the best idea for the Child Protection Office to handle these situation
                                                                                   s. Rather, and this
may be unrealistically ideal, the GBC should deal with these situations directly.
                                                                                      It is questionable
whether the GBC gives its full mandate for the CPO to even deal with cases of dire
                                                                                          ct neglect of
supervision (e.g., the cases of Dhanurdhara Maharaja and Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaja
                                                                                                ), what to
speak of cases a step or few removed. Without a clear and strong mandate, there is no poin
                                                                                                   t in the
CPO getting into these cases. Also, the nature of the cases themselves are inherently amorphous,
even more so than the typical physical or sexual abuse cases the Office adjudicates. These neglect
of supervision cases concern how much someone knew, what was said, what was perceived to be
said (since almost nothing is in writing, this involves retrospective interviews asking the
interviewee to remember a statement that was heard, perhaps second hand, 19 years ago), what
response was given or perceived to be given, all in the context of what was understood about child
abuse at the time of the events. So, especially considering the doubtful authority given to the CPO
by the GBC to deal with cases such as this, especially when they involve GBCs or close friends of
GBCs, I believe that taking on these cases would simply involve the CPO in unnecessary disputes
and distract the office from effeciently performing other services, such as adjudicating relatively
non-controversial cases, processing grants for abused children, and helping ISKCON temples and
schools to establish child protection systems. I think it might be advisable for the GBC to deal
with these situations as an administrative issue. For example, it is common in some governments
and companies that if there is a major scandal in a department, regardless of how much was
known or not known by the director of the department, the director resigns from the position. Or,
at the very least, the director takes full accountability for the happenings in the agency (again,
regardless of what was known or not known), and offers personal apologies to those who were
hurt by the misconduct.

Srila Prabhupada has made many statements similar to the following (SB 3:16:10 purport):

“Those who are helpless must be taken care of by their respective guardians, otherwise the
guardians will be subjected to the punishment of Yamaraja, who is appointed by the Lord to
supervise the activities of sinful living creatures. The assistants, or messengers, of Yamaraja are

                        4/13/00           America Online : ljyadasa          Page 4

                                                                                                         o   oie
                                                                                                             ”




likened here to vultures, and those who do not execute their respective duties in protecting their
wards are compared to serpents. Vultures deal very seriously with serpents, and similarly the
messengers will deal very seriously with neglectful guardians.”


I believe that to some extent we have adopted the mentality that the above purport does not apply to
us as guardians, because no matter how negligent we may appear to be, we are practicing a
transcendental process and are therefore transcendental to punishment by Yamaraja and vultures,
and all such unpleasant consequences. Individually, some of us may or may not be transcendental,
but as far as the message that the organization sends to the society of devotees as well as the larger
society (keeping in mind that the vast majority of both of these societies decidedly does not
consider ISKCON leaders to be transcendental to much of anything), ISKCON leaders would
probably be well served if they acted as if they were subject to ordinary laws. Thus some
consequences for neglectful guardianship, albeit less severe for more distant instances, should be
in place (again, regardless of what is claimed was known or not known).

Concerning the effect of sincere apology, below I include an excerpt of some notes that I took
from a conversation I had with a gurukula veteran. This young devotee considers himself an
ISKCON supporter, practices some Krsna consciousness, and is against suing the movement.
Still, he had an extremely rough time growing up in the movement, was badly abused by many
teachers, etc.

"T] remembers a teacher named T, who was an asrama teacher when [] was in .... T beat [] badly
many times. But [] has fond memories and these incidents are resolved for him because a few
years ago T, who had left the Hare Krsna movement, contacted [] and made a heartfelt apology to
him. T had no excuses but made a sincere apology, and therefore [] can put the incidents with T
behind him, but not so with the incidents involving the other teachers, because they haven’t
apologized. [] and I discussed for a while that in most cases this is all that is needed. The gurukula
veterans want to be heard, and to hear genuine apologies. This would take care of most of the
problem. [] emphasized that even if the apologies were not from those who directly did the
abusing, but from someone who was in the line of authority (and who in many cases continues to
hold an authority position), the former students would feel much satisfaction and relief, as did [] in
the case of T."

I understand that apologies from persons in authority may pose legal risks, because a real apology
includes acknowlegement of what happened and taking responsibilty for it, and I won't attempt to
enter into the nuances of that discussion here, except to mention that an apology that is too
legalistic in spirit and word often does more harm than good. From the standpoint of the integrity
of the institution, as well as the therapeutic benefit to those who suffered abuse when they were
children under the care of ISKCON, and to the ISKCON society itself, it is very important that the
leaders, past and present, take full responsibilty for the mistakes and suffering of the past.

This point of leaders taking responsibility was briefly addressed in the Official Decision on the
case of Satadhanya. In that decision the CPO recommended that ISKCON Mayapur take some
responsibility for the abuse suffered by Satadhanya's child sexual abuse victims, and specific
recommendations for how this responsibility could be expressed were given in the decision. If
ISKCON Mayapur (and some of the leaders in Mayapur were in responsible positions at the time
when Satadhanya was abusing children, and some weren't) accepts these recommendations |
believe it will be a very good example for the rest of the ISKCON society.

I've made the point before that the general tenor of comments from GBCs are that the official
decisions of the CPO are too heavy on the perpetrators, and the general tenor of comments from
                        4/13/00         America Online : ljyadasa        Page 5

other devotees (including temple presidents, senior
                                                        devotees, new devotees, gurukula veterans, —
parents, etc.) is that the decisions tend to be too light on
                                                               the perpetrators. Nowhere
                                                                                      is this dynamic
more evident than in the case of Dhanurdhara Maharaja
                                                      . Am       ongst the various criticisms that the
     has received concening this case (and the CPO has also received many complim
                                                                                            ents- in fact
mostly compliments- on this as well as its other decisions. So this
                                                                       isn't about complaining that the
office is receiving criticism), the one that I find most valid is that Dha
                                                                             nurdhara Maharaja is being
used as a scapegoat. Similar criticisms are being leveled concernin
                                                                   g the processing of the case of
Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaja. I don't believe that either of these Mahar
                                                                          ajas are being scapegoated,
in the sense that their cases, in terms of internal consistency and due pro
                                                                           cess, have been dealt with
fairly and justly. However, the perception that they are being sca
                                                                    pegoated is valid if ISKCON
does not responsibly deal with the cases of others who were in
                                                               the line of authority when and
where extensive child abuse occurred.


Hare Krsna.

Your servant,

Dhira Govinda dasa




                     4/13/00          America Online : |jyadasa
                                                                        Page 6