©1997-2004 VNN
|
EDITORIAL   Persistent Child Abuse Problem In The Hare Krishna Movement (I-II) BY BHAKTIN MIRIAM EDITORIAL, Sep 28 (VNN) — Someone has got to speak up concerning the persistent child abuse problem in ISKCON. This is not a thing of the past, it's happening right now. Seeking help from ISKCON's upper management and leaders has not helped because they are the ones causing the problem by deliberately covering up for and protecting child abuse perpetrators whom they favor. It is our moral responsibility to stop this practice now in order to restore the integrity of our commitment to the child abuse victims. ISKCON is making a mockery out of this very serious issue by having the victims and the world believe that it is committed to doing everything in it's power to deal with the child abuse problem, but the facts prove that this is not necessarily the case. Let's first back-up a bit and examine some of the possible causes of child abuse in ISKCON. ISKCON established its first formal boarding gurukula school in 1971. But by 1986, all ashram-only gurukulas closed its doors with the exception of the Vrindavan and Mayapur schools. According to Dr. Burke Rochford's report entitled "Child Abuse in the Hare Krishna Movement 1971:1986 (ISKCON Communications Journal, Volume 6, No 1, June 1988), there were three determining factors that when combined created a context conductive to child abuse: "These factors were sankirtan, lack of institutional support for the gurukulas and exclusion of parents from the gurukula." "The children were abused in part because they were not valued by leaders, and even very often, by their own parents who accepted theological and other justifications offered by the leadership for remaining uninvolved in the lives of their childrenÉ"The leaders saw no reason to invest resources in the gurukula because it couldn't fail, given the elevated spiritual status of the childrenÉ.Without a workforce of dedicated sankirtan devotees, ISKCON's missionary goals and financial stability were placed in jeopardy. The solution rested with the gurukula because it relieved parents of the burdens of children, this affording them the opportunity to work full-time sankirtan. É. Sankirtan represented the foundation of ISKCON's sectarian world, and the movement's sannyasi elite took measures to assure that it was protected against the pressured deleterious effects associated with the expansion of marriage and family life. While initially established to spiritually educate ISKCON's children, the gurukula ultimately served the interests of ISKCON's missionary activity, and the need to raise money in support of the movement's communal way of life. ÉGiven the leadership's view of gurukula and its purpose, it failed to provide the support necessary to maintain an educational institution. ÉThroughout its existence the gurukula operated with insufficient staffing, funding and oversight.É.it became an institution defined by neglect, isolation and marginalisation. Because of these qualities, the gurukula also became a context in which ISKCON's children became subject to abuse. In essence, Dr Rochford is illustrating that our children were abandoned because we put more value on distributing Srila Prabhupada's books then the health, security, and the education of our children. Everybody abandoned them, their parents, the leaders, and the rank and file devotees. We abandoned them as if they were already liberated souls. When the gurukula children became adults, they started to recount their horrific stories of abuse in the hands of their teachers and caretakers. According to Bharata Shrestha prabhu's report entitled, "ISKCON's Response to Child Abuse: 1990-1998," (ISKCON Communications Journal, Volume 6, No 1, June 1998). "In May 1996, at the North American GBC meeting in Alachua, Florida. Here a group of former gurukula pupils, invited to speak by the leadership, detailed case after case of heart wrenching suffering at the hands of school authorities which reduced the entire audience of educators to tears. Virtually every former student (these included those who had attended schools over the last twenty years) at the conference was either a witness or a victim. Children suffered denial of medical care for life-threatening illnesses, serious bruises and contusions, lost teeth, broken noses, scarring from caning, repeated sexual abuse and even homosexual rape at knifepoint. The perpetrators of these very serious crimes were none other than the Teachers, the ashram leaders, the administrators, and in some cases even sannyasis and ISKCON gurusÉ "Éan entire generation of children had been subjected to horrendous treatment at the hands of those entrusted with their welfare by parents who thought that they were doing what was best for their children. The children, now adults, had complained before and no one had listened." One wonders how could things have gone so wrong for so long. There are no easy answers, but it is due to the general attitude that children are not a priority in ISKCON. We will examine this later, but first let's take a look at what has been done to deal with the child abuse problem up to now. It took a long time for ISKCON to finally confront the child abuse problem. At the 1990 annual GBC meeting in Mayapur, Resolution 90-119 was passed to rectify future allegations of child abuse. Resolution 90-119 only dealt with the issue of child abuse prevention and not with the rehabilitation of the victims. Its guidelines carried no force of law; therefore, it was effectively unenforceable. Consequently, in the 1998 annual GBC meeting in Mayapur Resolution 98-305 was passed to remedy those issues. In 1997, the GBC established a Child Abuse Task force to develop a comprehensive plan to address past, present and future cases of child abuse. At the 1998 annual GBC meeting in Mayapur, the GBC approved the establishment of ISKCON's Central Office of Child Protection, also known as the Association for the Protection of Vaisnava Children (APVC) which open its doors on April 1998. The purpose of the Child Protection Office is to resolve past and present cases of child abuse in ISKCON; to care for the victims of child abuse in ISKCON by establishing a grant program for funding and referrals for therapy, as well as vocational and educational opportunities; and establishing screening procedures for all volunteers and employees in our schools, temples and projects, setting up child protection teams throughout ISKCON, and educating children, parents, managers, and others about child protection. Unfortunately most temples still do not have a child protection team and its members do not have knowledge of the principles of child protection. As a whole and individually, ISKCON has not educated its member on how to protect its children. An important independent grass roots organization run by Gurukuli alumni, was started as a result of the May 1996 North American GBC meeting in Alachua, Florida. This according to Bharata Shrestha was "a spontaneous response by participants of the meeting." This organization is called Children of Krishna, Inc. and it is composed of both first and second-generation devotees. Their mission: Children of Krishna, Inc. supports, furthers, and protects the educational, economic, emotional, and spiritual advancement of the children of the Hare Krishna Movement through our grant programs, information network, and associated resources." The Children of Krishna website states that "Within our grant program, we offer assistance for education, therapy, events and other non profit projects." According to Bharata Shrestha prabhu's report, there were several flaws in the GBC resolutions that dealt with child abuse. Two such flaws were: "Loop holes that can be used by abusers who have 'friends in high places' and "the appeal procedure puts final decisions in the hands of people who may or may not qualified to pass final judgement." Unfortunately, these two flaws have come to haunt us. Perpetrators who have "friends in high places" have certainly taken advantage of their good fortune and have successfully lobbied for themselves so that they could be protected by the leaders of ISKCON from having to follow the Child Protection Office mandates. One such current case has to do with a devotee leader who a team of panel members of the ISKCON Child Protection Office determined that ten years ago he committed statutory raped with a 13 year old girl. This case had been investigated and adjudicated in July 26, 2002. A full report of its findings and adjudication has been sent to every ISKCON leader. All the temple presidents, gurus, GBCs and leaders have been informed about this man via the Child Protection Office reports sent to them. The Child Protection Office report on this man stipulates that this devotee cannot give classes, hold administrative positions or lead kirtanas. Regrettably the leaders of ISKCON have allowed this man to do exactly all of the above. In fact there is an ad in the Internet right now listing his name as one of the dignitaries in a large celebration to be held in Boston in September 24-26 of this year. Last month, on June 12, 2004, I was puzzled, and frankly angered to see this devotee leading the kikrtan in one of the Ratha-Yatra carts during New York's Ratha-Yatra parade through Fifth Avenue. I even spoke with one of the New York leaders a few months ago about this man and he gave me his personal assurance that he will make sure to bring up this issue with the other ISKCON leaders. Did I have any reasons to feel hopeful by his reassurance? Apparently not because this perpetrator was here last month as a kirtan leader for the NY Ratha-Yatra, and as I walked around in Washington Square Park during the Ratha-Yatra festivities, one devotee was handing out flyers for a special program to be held in Boston on September 24-26. One of the persons listed in the flyer along with other gurus and Malati Devi prabhu is this same devotee that I am talking about. By the way I am making a point of mentioning Malati Devi because I have read one letter that she wrote and posted in Chakra.org challenging anyone to show her proof that the GBC is covering up for child abuse in ISKCON. She is also the same GBC member who has specifically received a letter (and I believe there were more) sent by the former Child Protection Office director complaining and seeking her help because the above mentioned perpetrator was being allowed to break the Child Protection Office mandates with the blessing of ISKCON leaders. Did she do anything about it? Apparently not since she is also listed along with the perpetrator's name in the flyer and other ads for the upcoming Boston event. In the 26 Second Avenue's newsletter entitled "Matchless-gifts", for August-Sept 2002, there is an announcement that this devotee, who I will call devotee A will give a class on August 23, 2002. Last summer, I was also personally present in 26 2nd Avenue where I heard one of Devotee A's lectures. This lecture took place more than a year after the Child Protection Office issued its report on Devotee A. I was also present in the annual NY Ratha-Yatra held two months earlier on June 29, 2003 when this devotee was one of the kirtan leaders. In fact, the New York devotees published a nice article in Dipika.org entitled "New York Ratha-Yatra Kijai" In that article Devotee A's named is listed along side the many gurus of ISKCON who also participated in the NY Ratha-Yatra. I was also present in a huge program organized by 26 2nd Avenue in June 28, 2003, which took place in the Angel Orensanz Art Center, a former synagogue. Radhanatha Swami, Sacinandana Swami, other New York leaders and a huge crow of devotees attended that program. Devotee A was the only Kirtan leader in that long and wild kirtan held that evening (please see article: "Ecstasy on the Lower East Side). While visiting the 26 2nd Avenue website one day, I found Devotee A being featured in their past events section. They have him featured in two different events with the following titles: "Maha Harinam @ Times Square with [Devotee A]" which took place on 10/19/2002 and "Harinam via Broadway with [Devotee A]: Amazing Harinam through the streets of the Lower East Side with the famous kirtaneer, [Devotee A]," which took place on 8/23/2002. There are a total of five pictures of him leading kirtan in that website. The website also has an audio file so Devotee A's voice could be heard singing. In New York and maybe other devotee communities as well, there is CD being sold entitled, "Ecstasy in the Lower East Side" It contains highlights of Devotee A's kirtan. As a matter of fact, I have that CD at home. While reading the Dipika.org, website, I found a June 28, 2003 article entitled, "Puerto Rico Adapt a Temple" with the following statement, "The temple president is (Devotee A), who is one of the most dedicated, hardworking, and selfless temple presidents I've ever met." In Dipika.org website, under its "OldChakra.com" section, I encountered an article entitled "Christmas Employment in Puerto Rico" where it says the following: "We at Amrita International (A business partnership of four devotees including the temple president and GBC representative for Puerto Rico, His Grace (Devotee A) are seeking responsible devotees for Christmas employment at our malls in Puerto Rico." In Dipika.org there was also an article dated January 5, 2004, entitled "Puerto Rico temple needs New Pujaris:" The article said the following: "We have had a change in management here in ISKCON, New Govardan Hill, Puerto Rico; the past temple president, (Devotee A), in no longer here." It is curious that this article came out in January 5, 2004, yet according to one temple president who I spoke with and whom shall remain unnamed, Devotee A was present at the temple president's meeting a few months ago. I do not know in what capacity he was attending the president's meeting, but he was there. I met the temple president of 26 2nd Avenue, Dayananda prabhu in person, on March 27, 2004 and informed him of my concerns regarding Devotee A. He told me that until recently he was unaware of the Child Protection Office decision on Devotee A. OK, but it would be too much of a stretch to also believe that all the other NY leaders, and all the gurus present at the NY Ratha-Yatra in 2003 were also unaware of this since the Child Protection Office sends reports of all their decisions to all ISKCON leaders and gurus. Isn't it weird, none of the other leaders had even bother to tell Dayananda prabhu about this devotee for more than a year after the Child Protection Office issued its report on Devotee A. And as far as this past NY Ratha-Yatra is concerned, no NY leader can say that they were unaware of this devotee's past. Devotee A is appealing the CPO decision, which he has every right to do. But, until the appeals procedure is finalized, he must follow the Child Protection mandates. Moreover, ISKCON leaders have the moral responsibility and obligation to make sure that Devotee A's mandates and all other mandates are being enforced. Letting Devotee give classes, lead kirtans, sell his CDs and be a temple president demonstrates that the leaders are not concerned with protecting the victim's rights. So where is their commitment to the child abuse victims? Along with the rank and file devotees who commit child abuse, leaders who commit child abuse should also be held accountable to the same extent of the law and should follow the same procedures as anybody else. Just because someone is a guru or a leader does not mean that the law does not apply to them and that there should be special exemptions and preferential treatment for them, and of course, they should never be exempt from following Child Protection Office mandates like devotee A and others have. Another current case of a perpetrator who has 'friends in high places' is the manager of the ISKCON restaurant in Vrndavana, India. He has harassed and been sexually involved, at least in a minor sense with several adolescent girls. The Child Protection Office has tried to address this with various leaders, yet the person has retained his position because of his connections. And so he continues harassing adolescent girls. There are many other such examples throughout ISKCON. The leaders of ISKCON and the GBC have even gone as far as to intervene in some cases that should have been investigated by the Child Protection Office just because the accused perpetrator had a leadership position. One such case involved an initiating guru and sannyasi that molested a preteen girl. The GBC did not allow the Child Protection Office to investigate that case. Another instance where the GBC stepped in to protect the perpetrator is in the well-publicized case of Dhanurdhara Swami, an initiating guru and sannyasi. In his case, Ravindra Svarupa who was then the head of the GBC's Executive Committee, stepped in favor of Dhanurdhara Swami and overturn the Child Protection Office's Official Decision on Dhanurdhara Swami to not allow him to conduct initiation ceremonies. To this day, ISKCON devotees have not received a rational explanation for why Ravindra Svarupa did this other than that he wanted to protect his friend. I personally witnessed one of my acquaintances getting ready to get initiated by Dhanurdhara swami without having prior knowledge of her guru's past. The only things that she knew were very sketchy and inaccurate. So, I gave her a copy of the Child Protection Office's Official Decision on Dhanurdhara Maharaja, which can be found in the Internet. I then proceeded to inform the NY authorities that an unauthorized initiation ceremony was about to take place only to find out that they were well aware of it and that in fact supported it. When I contacted Romapada Maharaja, the GBC for NY, he told me that I had no right to get involved in a ceremony that was to be held in a private home, a clever technical loophole, I may add. Nevertheless, that home was none-other than the home of his then personal secretary and it was built and used as a preaching center for devotees. I personally attended at least one program there. Besides overturning one important part of the Child Protection Office (CPO) official decision, the GBC and ISKCON leaders allowed Dhanurdhara Swami to violate other restrictions. For further information on this, please read "Dhanurdhara Maharaja should have followed the ICOCP injunctions" by this author, and Krsnacandra dasa's article entitled "GBC Reaction to Child Abuse Ruling," both articles are posted in Dipika.org's "oldchakra.com") The report on Dhanurdhara Swami read "If Dhanurdhara Maharaja violates any of the points of this decision, then his connection with ISKCON will be suspended until his case is reviewed by this panel." Yet he is still very much part of ISKCON and is an initiating guru even though he had also violated other Child Protection Office injunctions which were not reversed by the GBC's Executive Committee. According to Dhira Govinda das, the former CPO director, in his article entitled "Child Abuse and the Hare Krishnas" published in the book, The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant: "Currently there are a few other cases involving devotees with leadership roles. The standard APVC [Association for the Protection of Vaisnava Children] processing of some of these is being contested by many ISKCON leaders, as (to summarize their views) they believe that whatever may have happened in the past, these devotees should be free to use their experience and talents to serve ISKCON, without being substantially inhibited by restrictions from the APVC." Of course, that is another way of saying that children are not a priority in ISKCON, what is more important is to protect the reputation of devotee perpetrators who are favored by the ISKCON management. This is the same type of mentality that caused the child abuse problem to perpetuate all these years throughout ISKCON, and as anyone can see, that corrupted mentality has not changed a bit. If this mentality persist in ISKCON we will continue to have child abuse in our schools. The Persistent Child Abuse Problem in the Hare Krishna Movement - Part II By bhaktin Miriam The leaders of ISKCON and the GBC are most responsible for what has happened to our children because they have the authority and power to do something about it. Yet, for decades, they looked the other way and child abuse persisted despite their knowledge. To date, these leaders still have not been held accountable for what has happened. Let me give you one case in point of this type of corrupted mentality in the works: On July 11, 1991, Tosan Krsna, Adikarta, Bhaktarupa and Dayarama prabhus issued an investigative report on child abuse incidents at the Bhativedanta Gurukula Village (BGV) which was then headed by Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaja. The report identified 11 serious child sex abusers and more than two dozen victims. The report described several incidents of sexual abuse, rape and molestations by older boys to smaller boys, including children as young as 5 years old. The report clearly indicated that there was pervasive, forced sexual abuse, coercion, intimidation and fear. At the time of the 1991 investigation, the report also described the school atmosphere surcharged with repeated threats to the boys so that they wouldn't talk to the investigators. Besides the July 11, 1991 report, several persons involved with the school maintained that incidents of forced sexual abuse were prevalent throughout the year and over a period of many years. Attached to the July 11, 1991 report is a letter (the Child Protection Office has an original signed copy of this letter) from Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaja and Naresvara Prabhu that identifies more than 30 boys who were involved in sexual abusive incidents. Eight long years later after the horrific 1991 report, the Child Protection Office (CPO) got established, and Dhira Govinda prabhu, its former director, went to Mayapur to speak with the headmaster of the Bhaktivedanta Gurukula village (BGV). What he found was that the headmaster was none other than Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaja, the same headmaster as when the July 11, 1991 report was written. Unbelievably, no one had even bothered to remove him from his post! Dhira Govinda prabhu met with Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaja on 2/11/99 and 2/19/99. A report entitled "Report on the Bhaktivedanta Gurukula Village" described what transpired on those two meetings. From those meetings between Dhira Govinda prabhu and Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaja, one can read just how difficult it is for our movement to deal with child abuse in the spirit of objective appraisal, and, more to the point, with empathy for the victims. In place of truth, too often one finds denials, at times even outright deceptions, and, most disturbing, as the investigator himself writes, a complete lack of remorse for the plight of the victims. When asked about two incidents of child sexual abuse that happened in 1984 and 1987, Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaja explained that it happened in January, just when the spring starts, after the rainy season, after Ratha-Yatra, because that is a dangerous time of the season for such things since: "..The lust is there, but also they've been active and then suddenly they can't move around because they get slowed down by the rain. And then Kartika. You know Kartika, you see all the animals, that's their time, you know, all the dogs are fired up...all the birds, its like the time, you know?" In a classical manner of absolving himself from any personal responsibility for what happened in his school, Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaja actually says in this excerpt that the determining factor for the abuse of children inside his school were the unnatural animal inclinations toward lustiness in the children themselves, peaking during the Kartika season. In other words, the victims are seen as somehow less than human and, of course, they are to blame! At first, at the 2/11/99 meeting in which Anuttama and Sad Bhuja prabhus were also present, Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaja denied what was said in the July 11, 1991 report asserting that there was no forced sex between boys of different ages. But later he conceded that there was indeed forced sex between boys of different ages. Also his own-signed letter referred to 2 specific incidents of child sexual abuse involving boys of significantly unequal ages. The July 11, 1991 report paints a gloomy picture of the school staff, it states "The staff of the school cooperated with the investigation. However, the general attitude of the staff towards the investigation was disturbing. Many seemed to be downplaying its importance. Many have, as yet, failed to accept that they were neglectful in not preventing the occurrences. Many have failed to demonstrate that they have honest feelings of sympathy for the abused small children." The 1999 BGV report confirms this also, "current discussions with Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaja reveal a similar mentality of minimization, even to the point of blatant denial of facts that were uncovered and acknowledge a few years prior." The children themselves lived in fear. There were so many repeated incidents of sexual abused in the school that the children were known to go to bed with knives under their pillows. On February 1999, eight years after the July 1991 report recounted horrific, pervasive incidents of child and sexual abuse in the Bhaktivedanta Gurukula Village school, Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaja confirmed that there were problems in communication between the Child Protection Team (CPT) and the school; that there was no Parent-Teacher Association; that there was no Board of Directors for the school. Nor the school had a comprehensive Counseling program using devotee counselors. Therefore, the school still remained vulnerable to child abuse because it did not have any outside structure of support. The BGV report states that the Child Protection Office had "several reports from former students that they informed Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaja of the sexual abuse, but he failed to act. Sometimes, they claim they would be beaten by him for making such reports." The BGV report, recounted (at that time unconfirmed) child abuse incidents by Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaja himself where it is stated that he engaged in severe beatings with a stick. After 1984, this happened on a daily basis. One former student reported that Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaja beat him about 30 times. For further information, please read the Official Child Protection report on Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaja. All the GBCs and ISKCON leaders received the reports on the Bhaktivedanta Gurukla Village situation and the involvement (or lack of) of its former headmaster, Bhakti Vidya Purina Maharaja. They have also received a child abuse report on Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaja on the child abuse that he himself inflicted. Nevertheless, he is still a prominent personality in the Bhaktivedanta Gurukula Village school today and what is more, he has been allowed to remain a spiritual leader and guru. One wonders what has happened to accountability in our ISKCON institution. Another child abuse case in which it took ISKCON a decade to do anything substantial about it because the leaders wanted to protect the reputation of the perpetrator is the case of Satadhanya das. The July 11, 1991 report on child abuse in the Bhaktivedanta Gurukula Village school mentioned that Satadhanya dasa was the Chairman of the Mayapur Administration Council (MAC) and that he "openly spoke on at least two occasions during the investigations, that he though that too much was being made of the investigation and that these activities were normal in a boy's school." Satadhanya dasa is a well known figure in the child abuse saga in ISKCON, and by July, 1991 the Mayapur leaders knew of some of his past child abuse behavior, yet he was still a prominent figure in Mayapur. In fact, eight years later, in 1999, he was made the ISKCON representative in the court of law in India. Satadhanya dasa used his position of authority when he was a sannyasi, to entrapped and forcefully engaged in sexual acts with boys and young men during the early 80's. Over the years as more and more details of his past abuses surfaced, he nevertheless continued being an important leader in ISKCON Mayapur all the way until the beginning of 2000 when he was finally expelled from Mayapur by the dint of the Child Protection Office. The "Official Decision on the Case of Satadhanya dasa" written in January 25, 2000 points to relevant facts about Satadhanya dasa's character. The report states: "The pattern persists that Satadhanya appears to admit to child abuse only when confronted with allegations and evidence that would be very difficult for him to deny, and even in those admissions consistently provides incomplete and misleading information. Here is a summary of that pattern, taken from documentation in the case file, using only Satadhanya's testimony: --When informed in 1991 that there were allegations of abuse against two victims, he admitted to two victims, ages 23 and 25. He also implied that there was only "two incidents" altogether, both occurring at about the same time in 1982. --When confronted with a third victim later in 1991, the first known underage victim, he admitted to this third victim. --For eight years, from 1991 to 1999, Satadhanya steadfastly maintained that there were only three victims, and that there was only one underage victim. --In August, 1999, Satadhanya was confronted with a fourth victim's name and admitted to sexually abusing this person, though not revealing the duration or severity of the abuse. --In November, 1999, when questioned again by the ICOCP (the Child Protection Office), Satadhanya clarified that there were four victims, and admitted to previously overestimating the ages of some of the victims, when he had estimated their ages as being 25 and 23 years old. How did the Mayapur leaders reacted to this sexual predator? By the time his third victim surfaced on March 5, 1992, the ISKCON Board of Education decided that the community must give their 3/4 vote approval for Satadhanya to remain a member of the community. But on March 29, 1992, Satadhanya wrote a letter to the IBE (ISKCON Board of Ed) requesting that the 3/4 vote be discarded citing that "Since I am so well-known in all government circles, amongst the life-members, and the surrounding villages, informing the local Bengali grhastas will be tantamount to informing the government and press. I am the primary ISKCON representative interfacing with government in various important dealings." So, the IBE made a concession on behalf of Satadhanya and told him that "the vote could be taken just among the non-Bengali grhastas." But when the Mayapur Administrative Council (MAC) presented the vote to the community, instead of having them vote for whether a child abuser should stay in the their midst and continue to be such great prominent figure of authority in the holy land, they were instructed instead to vote to outs him from the community only if he represented a threat to their children (which he didn't). Also, according to the report on Satadhanya, "The MAC (Mayapur Administration Council) representative also stated that he did not agree with the idea of having a vote, declined to answer questions about Satadhanya's offenses, and became upset when the parents persisted with their inquiries." The Western parents were also upset that they had to vote on behalf of the Bengali parents without even informing them. When the vote was finally counted, the Western parents voted that they did not want Satadhanya dasa in the community. Shortly after the Western parents voted, a second meeting was arranged, this time the Bengali parents were included. At this meeting the discussion focus solely on whether or not Satadhanya dasa was a threat to the children of the community, and not whether a child abuser should have so much prominence and be allowed to be in their midst. This time the vote was in favor of allowing Satadhanya to continue living in Mayapur. Many parents reported that they felt apprehensive and intimidated by the MAC during those meetings. One parent wrote later, "We even feared some reprisal may come to disturb our ability to continue living and serving in Mayapur." In January 1993, and at other times, the Mayapur GBC Committee expressed the opinion that Satadhanya dasa was punished sufficiently enough by being dishonored and being forced to give up his position as regional secretary. Nevertheless, some members of the committee were upset because Satadhanya was a child abuser who was still very prominent in the community and the fact that he was never punished despite his record of sexual abuse. So, in March 1995, after much prodding from the community, the international GBC resolved that Satadhanya should undergo a psychological risk assessment. "If he receives a 'low to no risk' approval, he can live on ISKCON Mayapur property." For this psychological risk assessment Dawn Fisher interviewed Satadhanya. He told her that his youngest victim was 16 years old when in fact the child was only 11. He also told her that the longest sexual abuse that he had with his victims involved a few meetings when in fact, they involved about four years. Since Dawn Fisher did not know of his real past, and only heard his fabricated side of the story, she proclaimed him to be of low risk to the children; therefore, he was allowed to remain in ISKCON Mayapur. The residents were still not satisfied. They didn't think that he should be allowed to stay in the community, that he was awarded positions of significant responsibility, authority and compensation instead of being punished. Consequently, another community vote was scheduled in February 1997. But before the vote could take place, Satadhanya agreed to move down the road of the ISKCON Mayapur property. He also agreed to pay $3,000 to one of his underage victims, which he did. What is very disturbing about this case is that ISKCON authorities, leaders and the GBC knew about this sexual predator for over eight years, I repeat, eight years and they didn't punish him. In fact, he was awarded positions of authority and continued to be a prominent figure in ISKCON Mayapur. Unfortunately, this is a systematic problem throughout ISKCON. That is why even though while we are in the middle of a child abuse case in the courts with 500 claimants, ISKCON leaders continue to protect child abusers by allowing them to retain their positions of authority and prominence and not follow the Child Protection Office's mandates. A persistent theme of the above chronicles is the link between child abuse incidents and the lack of accountability by our leaders. As long as we continue to protect child abusers and allow the upper management of ISKCON to escape responsibility for what has happened, the message is that abusing children is not such a serious crime and this encourages more abuse. The outcome is that the children of ISKCON will continue to be abused. We can no longer tolerate that! When it comes to holding our leader's accountable for their crimes, we look the other way and use the old tiring and ready made excuse: "Even if one commits the most abominable action, if he is engaged in devotional service he is to be considered saintly because he is properly situated in his determination." In that case all devotees are saintly because we are all engaged in devotional service. Doing devotional service doesn't exempt any of us from being held accountable for our actions regardless of what title or position we might have. To be sure, the vast majority of leaders and managers want justice for the children and want to fix the child abuse problem as best they can, but the fact of the matter is that they are so blinded by fear of reprisal, and loyalty to each other and the institution that they have allowed child abusers to remain in leadership positions, to escape punishment handed out by the Child Protection Office and to even interfere with child abuse investigations- I believe the name for this is obstruction of justice. The Child Protection Office cannot and should definitely not depend on the GBC for its financial survival because as we just saw, it would be a conflict of interest. As illustrated above, the GBC and other ISKCON leaders have been protecting devotee perpetrators. So, if the Child Protection Office wants to do its job properly, how can it bite the hand that feeds it? We have already seen the Child Protection Office shutting down because the GBC stopped funding it, in fact, it was barely funded for over a year. To overcome the problem of depending on the GBC to survive financially, the Child Protection Office must be separated from the clutches of the GBC. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that by going after abusers that the GBC favors and protects the Child Protection Office will end up being threatened, intimidated, manipulated, and or shut down, as already has. This practice of protecting people that have important positions or connections from being prosecuted has got to stop. Also, as long as we put the institution's image above the truth, or lack the personal character to speak up when we see others who are protecting perpetrators, then we will never achieve child abuse reform. More importantly, as long as the same cast of characters who were in charged of ISKCON when there was rampant child abuse in the schools are not held accountable for what had happened, then things will remain virtually the same and the children will continue to suffer child abuse. REFERENCES Association for the Protection of Vaisnava Children. "Report on the Bhaktivedanta Gurukula Village." (1999). Association for the Protection of Vaisnava Children. "Official Decision on the Case of Dhanurdhara Maharaja." (1999). Association for the Protection of Vaisnava Children. "Official Decision on the Case of Satadhanya dasa." (2000). Association for the Protection of Vaisnava Children. "Official Decision on the Case of [Devotee A]" (2002). Bhaktin, M.. "Dhanurdhara Maharaja Should Have Followed the ICOCP's Mandates." www.oldchakra.com/mainpages/childabuse/index.htm.August 16, 2000. Das, B. S. "ISKCON's Response to Child Abuse: 1990-1998" ISKCON Communication Journal, 6 (1) (1998): 71-79. Das, D.G." Child Protection Office Closing!" www.chakra.org. February 5,2004. Das, D. K. "The 39th Anniversary of Srila Prabhupada's Arrival in the West. www.chakra.org. July 3, 2004. Das, V.B. "Ecstasy on the Lower East Side" www.dipika.org. August 18, 2003. Dasa, K.. "GBC Reaction to Child Abuse Ruling." www.oldchakra.com/mainpages/childabuse/index.htm. May 22, 2000. Dasi, J. "Puerto Rico:Adapt a Temple."www.dipika.org. June 28, 2003. Dasi, J. "Christmas Employment in Puerto Rico." www.oldchakra.com. Dasi, J. "Puerto Rico Temple Needs a New Pujari."www.dipika.org.January 5, 2004. Matchless Gifts Newsletter. "Feature Speakers."www.krishnanyc.com/ newsletters/August-Sept%202002%20Newsletter.pdf - NY ISKCON. "New York Ratha-Yatra Kijai."www.dipika.org. July 3, 2003. "Puerto Rico Temple Needs a New Pujari." www.dipika.org. January, 5,2004 Rochford, E. B, Jr. and J. Heinlein. "Child Abuse in the Hare Krishna Movement: 1971:1986" ISKCON Communication Journal. 6 (1) (1998): 43-69. Wolf, D. "Child Abuse and the Hare Krishnas." In Bryant, E. F. and Ekstrand, M. L. eds., The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant. pgs. 321-343. Columbia University Press. 2004. 26 Second Avenue Website."Maha Harinam @ Times Square with (Devotee A)."www.krishnanyc.com/archives.htm. October 19, 2002. 26 Second Avenue Website. "Harinam Via Broadway with (Devotee A)." www.krishnanyc.com/archives.htm. August 23, 2002. Related VNN Stories Contact VNN about this storySend this story to a friend
NEWS DESK | EDITORIALS | TOP |
