VNN Editorial - Impact Assessment Of The Poison Controversy

EDITORIAL

October 2, 1999 VNN4849 Related VNN StoriesComment on this story

Impact Assessment Of The Poison Controversy

BY DHANESVARA DAS

EDITORIAL, Oct 2 (VNN) — Part 2 of a 3 part series

As we have discussed in the previous segment this whole poisoning affair has immense implications that almost naturally create a knee-jerk reaction based upon both our experiences and the outcome we desire. Therefore we have heard many devotees make statements to the effect that this couldn't possibly be true "because . . .(fill in the blank)." The arguments why this cannot be true run an entire gamut from Prabhupada's self-realized, pure devotee status to someone's personal relationship with those who would have been the so-called conspirators.

Despite the fact that we may have so many reasons why it could not have happened, we do have one very strong reason to believe that it did-Srila Prabhupada said that he was being poisoned. The result is a controversy.

Each side seems plausible enough to deny the other conclusion outright.

However, I contend that to do se would be a mistake regardless of which side one might be on, and the only manner to come to know the complete truth is through very thorough and independent research. In this paper I outline the reasons that such a(n) investigation(s) will be of the greatest benefit to all concerned parties.

Conducting an Impact Assessment

Most organizations when faced with a challenge this serious will conduct an impact assessment-a study that outlines the impact that would result from the different courses of action that they could take. Having made such an assessment the managers then generally choose the option which will have the best favorable result and the least negative impact among all of the combined constituents. Motivated managers however may concern themselves only with the faction that is most influential or that they are most concerned about.

Every group or organization has a variety of stakeholders that are interested in the activities and affairs of the organization. They would include insiders such as management, and outsiders such as staff, their stockholders, their customers, the government, the general public, and so on. Generally each group will have a different set of interests that are important to them, and while the interests of one group may be very different from the others, in most cases there will be overlapping interests.

ISKCON's Stakeholders

Since the passing of Srila Prabhupada a number of stakeholders have arisen in and around the institution of ISKCON. These would be (in no particular order) : Prabhupada's diksa disciples, Prabhupada's uninitiated followers, Prabhupada's disciples who have taken the role of initiating guru, the now mature second generation of devotees (born into the Movement) , those who have taken initiation from Srila Prabhupada's disciples, disenfranchised and still practicing devotees, those who are in the Ritvik initiation camp, the GBC, sannyasis, those who are (or have been) ISKCON reformists, and the (current) non-devotees who are future recipients of Srila Prabhupada's mercy. The list is perhaps incomplete, but the point is sufficiently made.

Further, each of these groups, by now, has a considerable size excepting the GBC, the sannyasis, and those who are initiating gurus, whose numbers are relatively small. And each of these groups, by dint of their differing relationships with the others, are going to view the activities, issues, decisions, etc. which concern the Movement from their own, unique perspective.

In carrying out an impact analysis the question to be asked is how is any course of action (or inaction) going to impact each one of these groups. The managers or leaders who are faced with the task of making and carrying out decisions generally make decisions based upon a political index that indicates which among these groups is it most important to satisfy and so on. Although amongst secular organizations there may be little practical reason to consider anything else, in the case of ISKCON the motivation is (or should be) much different.

Given that ISKCON's mission as Srila Prabhupada's representatives is to bring Lord Chaitanya's mercy to all the fallen souls of this world, and that ISKCON thus views itself as the very ambassadors of the Supreme Lord in this world, then weighty decisions might well demand that in addition to the above list of stakeholders would be added the founder-acarya, as well as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Given Their preeminent positions, the GBC would do well to consider Them first and foremost, above all other considerations in making decisions and taking actions. The idea here is that by pleasing Krishna everyone becomes pleased. By pleasing Srila Prabhupada we would stand to gain his mercy, and thus Krishna's. And in both cases our efforts would be blessed and would be more likely to be successful. Further, I don't think that it would be at all out of line to suggest that neither Srila Prabhupada, nor the Lord Himself will be pleased by anything other than the truth, regardless of how unappealing that truth may be to any of the rest of us.

This impact analysis is therefore done to help us understand the impact of our action or inaction on the varieties of ISKCON's stakeholders, including Srila Prabhupada, and the Supreme Lord Sri Krishna.

Investigation Defined

Before proceeding I feel the need to be specific in defining what I mean when is use the term: "an investigation." To qualify as a true investigation it must necessarily be independent, and complete. If these factors are compromised then the investigation may be compromised. If the investigation is compromised then it cannot return the result that is meant for: credibility that the investigation reveals the complete truth.

If the investigator is not independent, but is influenced by others, then his results will be suspect. If the investigation is not thorough, but avoids certain areas, then the results will be suspect. What isn't investigated is as important, perhaps even more important, than what is investigated. Therefore, in the following analysis when I speak of investigation, I specifically mean an investigation as just defined. At the minimum, a compromised investigation is no investigation at all. And an extremely compromised investigation can in fact become just the opposite: a cover-up.

The Impact Analysis

In this analysis there are four possibilities considered:
1) In fact, that Srila Prabhupada WAS NOT poisoned, and
a) That no investigation is made, or
b) that an investigation is made.

And,
2) In fact, that Srila Prabhupada WAS poisoned, and
a) That no investigation is made, or
b) that an investigation is made.

Premises Considered

Let's first consider the possibility that Srila Prabhupada was NOT poisoned, but before we do we must first state the premises of the coming arguments.

Those would be:
1) There are many devotees that already believe that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned.

2) There are many devotees who also already believe that Srila Prabhupada was not poisoned.

3) The GBC are the people who are responsible for handling the affairs of the society, and thus they more than anyone else are responsible to the future of ISKCON.

4) The GBC has a credibility problem with many devotees. Large numbers of devotees both within and currently disaffected from ISKCON are distrustful of the GBC and their approach to this, and many other affairs.

5) The GBC has stated in its past resolutions that they desire to reunite Srila Prabhupada's family of devotees. We take it for granted that this desire remains.

6) Everyone is interested in knowing/confirming the unadulterated truth of this matter.

Beginning with the scenario that Prabhupada was in fact NOT poisoned and NO INVESTIGATION was made, what would be the consequences of such (in) action?

1) Since so many are already convinced (by whatever evidence) that this tragedy did occur, it is likely that no investigation (again, by my definition this would also mean a shoddy or influenced investigation) would alienate these individuals even more from the GBC if not ISKCON. They would likely become very distrustful, or even more so. The society of devotees would thus become even more fragmented, and those alienated persons may have difficulty in maintaining their Krishna Consciousness without association, thus diluting the Movement in its totality.

2) According to the VNN poll those so convinced are somewhere around 50% of the people who responded to the poll, a very high figure, representing a large number of people. If the leaders of ISKCON are serious about wanting to be inclusive, to reunite and keep Prabhupada's family together, they can ill afford to lose the good will of such a significant number of Vaishnavas.

3) The consequences of this (in) action to the camp of "no-poison believers" would likely be minimal, except perhaps to doubt the integrity of the GBC or at the least consider them to be irresponsible. The consequences for this group would likely show up only at some future date when they then have a stake in something that is not dealt with properly. At that time they will remember the GBC's irresponsibility on this issue even though at the time they were on the same side.

4) At best in this scenario, the GBC would appear to be weak, or ineffective. At worst such inaction could make them appear to be corrupt, and more of a threat to the future welfare of the society than a trustee fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility.

5) Given the likely reactions to this scenario we must ask: would Prabhupada be pleased? Would Krishna be pleased by this course of (in) action?

Next consider the case that, in fact, Prabhupada was NOT poisoned and a thorough and independent investigation was made.

1) If the evidence of an independent and thorough investigation showed that Prabhupada's passing was indeed the result of "natural causes" EVERYONE would be greatly relieved, and most interested parties would likely be satisfied. The genuine faultfinders may remain as much. The misgivings of those suspecting foul play would be allayed and they could appropriately reconcile their relationships with the suspected conspirators. They would be grateful to the GBC for disproving their fears and feel relieved that Srila Prabhupada's passing was as a result of his own, or Lord Krishna's desire.

2) Those who were raising alarm in an attempt to be vigilant for the maintenance of Srila Prabhupada's legacy will be satisfied that this affair was handled responsibly.

3) The action of the GBC, in insuring (a) complete and independent investigation(s) , would be a demonstration of respect to the feelings of all devotees, particularly those who suspect the worse. This would be a strong statement and testament of ISKCON's leadership that they are concerned with all parties, and would be a generous effort demonstrating their concern for the members of the society, regardless of how they feel about it.

4) Other stakeholders would likely feel that the GBC had carried out their responsibilities in a proper way, and rest assured that the dealings of the society were being handled correctly.

5) This action would benefit the GBC as much as, or even more than anyone else, and there are no stakeholders who would be negatively impacted by a thorough, open and independent investigation. There would be many pluses and no minuses.

6) Given the likely reactions to this scenario we must ask: would Prabhupada be pleased? Would Krishna be pleased by this course of action in determining the truth?

The consequences of the second case, that in fact Srila Prabhupada was poisoned, are immense and terrible to contemplate. Beyond coming to know that such a thing had in fact happened, everyone will have to deal with the many implications and consequences. Past, present, and future consequences will all simultaneously clamor for attention. Feelings of betrayal and mistrust would rise to extreme levels. The entire history of the society as influenced by those involved in the conspiracy would have to be reconsidered. It is immediately implied that any persons who had any hand in this most despicable activity would have to be immediately expelled from the society at the very least, and given the fact that all those who were close enough to Srila Prabhupada at the time to have participated in this are now gurus there would be immense implications for those who had accepted initiation from them as well.

It is the terrible implications of this possible truth that make the situation difficult to contemplate. Nonetheless, the analysis is being done to help us understand the best course of action. Let's therefore follow through with it.

Now let's consider what the consequences would be if such a heinous act did take place, but that NO investigation is done, or that an incomplete, botched, or covered-up investigation is done, to the point that those who participated were not revealed and had no censure.

1) In this scenario everyone loses (with the exception perhaps of the perpetrators) ! Undoubtedly every stakeholder would be (has been) negatively impacted by the premature loss of Srila Prabhupada. The entire society and every stakeholder would be affected and influenced, but in what way and to what end?

2) The close enough to Srila Prabhupada to have been perpetrators, would have been, and have since been, very influential in directing Prabhupada's society. Again immediately there are questions: to what end is their influence? What was their motive in removing Srila Prabhupada? Does that figure at all into what has transpired in ISKCON since 1977? After having witnessed so many thousands of sincere devotees sadly leave the association of devotees that they once loved, the tragedy for them has been compounded many times over.

3) Next, consider all future generations whose spiritual life hangs uncertain. Can those who participated in such a ghastly affair possibly give them suitable guidance in their spiritual life? Can a society influenced by such individuals competently carry forward Srila Prabhupada's mission? What are the implications for a governing body who has failed to determine conclusively the truth of this matter? For the uninitiated what are the consequences of innocently taking as a guru one who is the killer of his own guru, and Srila Prabhupada no less?!

4) The GBC would be considered completely derelict of duty, and totally irresponsible. What can become of a society whose leadership does not responsibly guide it by making a thorough and independent investigation? How could these men and women lead a spiritual society that thinks of itself as the Movement to save the world when they cannot even save their own society?!

5) Those who are fairly, if not mostly, convinced that the poisoning took place will recognize the irresponsibility, and become further disgusted with such bogus leadership. Again a wedge will be driven, or driven deeper, perhaps alienating them once and for all. The GBC's stated intention to (re) unite the devotees would be foiled, and this (in) action would bring just the opposite result.

6) Newcomers to the society that is supposed to rescue them from the morass of material life, would be offered as their guru someone who has poisoned the founder-acharya. And those who participated in the conspiracy would go on with the charade of being devoted followers and pure devotees, misleading the innocent, the foolish and the na�ve.

7) Given the likely reactions to this scenario we again ask: would Prabhupada be pleased? Would Krishna be pleased by this course of (in) action?

In this scenario, if Prabhupada was poisoned and a complete and independent investigation is NOT carried out, who would benefit? The conspirators only.

Who suffers an inestimable loss? Everyone else.

Now in the final scenario, if this tragedy did occur and is properly investigated, and the truth so ascertained, then depending on the skill of the investigators and the legality of such things, consequences and action would happen on many fronts.

I won't at all suggest that the results of ascertaining this truth would be simple, clear-cut, or in any way black and white. To learn this truth every person who has ever had an interest in ISKCON will have to deal with a tremendous emotional upheaval. As I noted in my last posting, this would undoubtedly be a(nother) tremendous test of faith for so many devotees. I believe there would however be significant results of which we can make some general statements.

1) First, although the followers of Srila Prabhupada would be grief stricken to know the truth of the matter, they would then be able to would be able to amend or adjust their relationships with those involved, be they their guru or whoever. This is tough for anyone, but imagine the test for those who had taken diksa initiation from one who was involved. How would you feel as a disciple not having a clear answer to this issue. Any disciple would want to know unequivocally, one way or the other. For Srila Prabhupada's other disciples, they would now have the opportunity to understand perhaps why some of the history has gone the way it had.

2) For the perpetrators themselves, being exposed would offer them the opportunity to become publicly repentant. After all, it would seem to be an enormous burden to carry such a guilty conscience and yet pose oneself as a sincere follower of Srila Prabhupada, and his representative to others.

Being exposed would afford the guilty the time and space to deal with their consciousness, and their offenses, and perhaps before leaving this present life be able to receive Srila Prabhupada's forgiveness. And even if not repentant, if convicted in a court of law they would have the welcome opportunity to work off some of this karma in the present life.

3) The leaders of the institution, the GBC, would hopefully be able to clean house and expose and remove any persons who had any participation in the affair once and for all. Result: the institution that Srila Prabhupada founded would now be run by his loyal followers, for the welfare of all future generations. Considering that those who participated in this affair would have to be extremely ill-motivated, one wonders what the motivations were, and of course what the motives have meant to Prabhupada's society in the twenty-some years since his passing away. The questions are numerous and may find some answer, and learning the truth of the matter might just allow everything to make more sense.

4) Given the likely reactions to this scenario we again ask: would Prabhupada be pleased? Would Krishna be pleased by this course of action in determining the truth?

In this case we see that those whose interest is served from learning this truth would count everyone, even the perpetrators, and countless future followers. Those who would not be served would number exactly zero. The truth must therefore hold the highest ground and we should all seek to know the complete truth of this matter.

The result of this risk assessment clearly shows that just about every interested party, including the GBC and ISKCON as a whole, will suffer by avoiding the investigation, or if the investigation is incomplete or influenced, even if Srila Prabhupada was not poisoned. This investigation must be done properly and brought to a swift conclusion! Clearly, the institution of ISKCON, the many sincere devotees, and all future generations have a great stake in getting to the bottom of this affair, however unpleasant this business is.

Fortunately, the GBC have elected to have an independent person carry out an investigation. It is hoped that Balavanta Prabhu will make the results of his investigation open to all of the interested stakeholders so that it can be known that a complete and thorough investigation was actually made. If the report is closed then it will be worse than if no investigation were done. After all, silence is generally taken to be a confirmation. And if the results showed that no poisoning took place then why would the report need to remain closed to the purview of the body of devotees?

It is also hoped that Balavanta will use every sophisticated method available to him in carrying out his research. Modern technology affords us opportunities to determine the truth of statements which were previously indiscernible. For example, there now exist very sophisticated lie detectors which are so accurate that the can even determine if the speaker is trying to be deceptive, what to speak of lying. We hope that Balavanta will take depositions and analyze them with these sophisticated tools. Additionally, there is another tool that amazingly will reveal the unconscious mind of any speaker. That tool is recognized and used by investigators around the world to unravel crimes and point to evidence otherwise kept secret. It is the tool that I have used to conduct my own independent investigation, and it will be the subject of my next post.

In Srila Prabhupada's service,
Dhanesvara das