Dear Vaisnavas, please accept my humble obeisances; All Glories to Srila Prabhupada. After I wrote the article entitled "Why are we Ganging Up on Dhanurdhara Swami?" in October I came across these documents, which I found to be quite shocking. They show to what extent some GBC members are willing to go to protect paedophiles; specifically when, as in the case related below, the perpetrator is a friend.

Below are some excerpts from "The Report on the Status of the ISKCON Child Protection Office in 2004", a status report from CPT. The reader can draw his/her own conclusions, the report is self-explanatory.

Again I take this opportunity to invite the devotees to consider that if we do not take personal responsibility to put an end to corruption within Prabhupada's movement; we as members of the society are to some degree responsible, because we are thus allowing our leaders to get away with it.

I am looking for concrete information on an alleged scandal that is said to have taken place recently in Mayapur Dham involving Bhaktividyapurna Maharaj and the local girls school. If it is true, it makes me wonder how many more innocent victims will have to be sacrificed before the GBC will understand the necessity for a zero tolerance policy on child abusers within our society. I will greatly appreciate any concrete evidence on the issue.

Thank you,
Hare Krishna
Your humble servant

Gurukulidas

P.S. if you whish to contact me you may do so at gurukulidas@gmail.com.

Favouritism and the Appeal Process

Shortly before the Task Force Report was issued, a committee of devotees, separate from the Task Force, critiqued it. The committee's main concerns with the system proposed by the Task Force were that it contained "Loop holes that can be used by abusers who have 'friends in high places'", and that the body of appeal for CPO Official Decisions is the GBC Executive Committee. These concerns have proven to be warranted.

Though the GBC has allowed the CPO to process and adjudicate the great majority of cases, the few instances where the GBC has intervened are cases involving persons closely involved with the ISKCON power structure. Also, systemic GBC involvement with the appeal system has in several instances caused at least the perception of cronyism and bias towards alleged perpetrators.

Processing Cases of Leaders in Supervisory Positions

An issue for the CPO is whether and to what extent to prioritize the processing of cases of persons who served in the line of authority of schools and temples where extensive and rampant child abuse occurred. These are not persons who directly physically or sexually abused children, or even the supervisors, or school headmasters in the first line of authority for the actions of the perpetrators. In addressing cases of neglect of supervision by gurukula headmasters in schools where abuse was extensive, the CPO met with impassioned resistance from GBCs and other leaders who have worked closely with the headmasters, or former headmasters, under investigation. In a first world justice system acting within a society holding contemporary views toward child protection, cases of the supervisors of the managers would likely be processed. Considering the extent of child suffering and maltreatment in some ISKCON locations, a secular court would very possibly find criminal neglect on the part of the overseers of the administrators. To date, the CPO has not substantially investigated or in any way adjudicated the cases of upper-level leadership.

It has been more than two years since the CPO has taken a consequential survey of CPTs, screening procedures and education programs around the world. An updated assessment and its publicity around ISKCON will be an important goal for the CPO to pursue. Even the surveys that were done from 1998-2002 primarily focused on North America and Europe, and somewhat on India. The child protection situation on all continents needs to be assessed, and especially areas where such assessment has not yet been conducted. We urge ISKCON leaders throughout the world to take personal responsibility to ensure that child protection safeguards, such as education and screening, are in place at the temples under your jurisdiction.

Culture of Accountability

Amongst ISKCON leadership there are varying degrees of responsibility and common sense regarding child protection issues. "Responsibility" is used in the sense of "able to respond" to child protection concerns in a manner that is rational, protective, reflective of integrity, and possessing common sense. "Responsibility" is herein used differently than "accountability". Lack of "culture of accountability" refers to an organizational culture that does not necessitate, or even highly value, a call to account for actions or words. Consider, for example, the following actual scenario.

The CPO receives allegations, in the form of first-hand written testimony from the alleged victim, of child sexual abuse that allegedly occurred almost a decade prior. The allegations involved accusations of consensual sexual intercourse on several occasions during a period of about one year with a girl in early adolescence by a middle-aged adult. CPO staff contacts the accused, and begins an investigation. After some preliminary investigative steps, the accused engages a lawyer to represent him. The lawyer is a member of the GBC body and a GBC Minister.

As per standard CPO procedure in cases such as this, the CPO informed leaders, including several members of the GBC body, in the locality and on the continent where the alleged abuser was serving, in the capacity of temple president, that an investigation was being conducted. This also included standard CPO precautionary recommendations that during the process of investigation the accused not have service connected with children and not assume a position of leadership.

The advocate for the defence questioned these recommendations, and the local and continental leaders declined for a substantial time period to follow the recommendation of removing the accused from a leadership position. The CPO confirmed that the suggestions were consistent with other recommendations from the office through the years, in similar cases, and that the office recommendations at that point were not binding, and were presented for the protection of children and the integrity of Srila Prabhupada's movement.

The CPO was repeatedly challenged by ISKCON leaders about the reasoning and impartiality of such recommendations, and the CPO wrote several letters of explanation. An excerpt from one of them is included below.

"… the criteria used to make the recommendation in this case is consistent with the criteria used in all cases processed by this office since the opening of the office. Based on these criteria, this case does not even fall into a legitimate grey area with regard to the advice given. Of course, those criteria can be questioned, and I'm open to and interested in that discussion. If any of the receivers of this posting would like me to define more clearly the criteria by which these recommendations have been made, I will do so.

Briefly, the APVC has received first-hand, written testimony of statutory rape against a minor. In his initial responses to questions about this, the alleged perpetrator did not clear himself, based on criteria of written content analysis as used by world renowned experts in the field (names and credentials available upon request). The above in no way proves that the alleged perpetrator is guilty of sexually abusing a child. It does, however, constitute credible evidence, by what I consider to be reasonable criteria, that the testimony of the alleged victim warrants an investigation, and that, during the course of the investigation, the alleged perpetrator should not be in a position of leadership in Srila Prabhupada's movement, and that he should not be in a service that involves connection with children."

The CPO compiled an investigative file, including analysis from a renowned expert in written content analysis, who confirmed the apparent authenticity and truthfulness of the statements of the alleged victim, writing "Generally speaking, this is a very strong assertion of truthfulness, which is very rarely found in deceptive people." Regarding analysis of the writing of the accused the forensic authority pointed to "definitely a very strong signal that the subject is 'problematic' or 'cannot be cleared'."

The accuser and accused were both personally interviewed by two of the panel members on the case. After analysis of evidence the panel issued an Official Decision, determining that the allegations of sexual activity with an adolescent of minor age are, at the preponderance of evidence criteria, true. Shortly thereafter the defence appealed the case to the GBC Executive Committee.

To check and confirm its processes, and with a view to learn and improve, the CPO sent the case file to a practiced lawyer, with extensive experience in criminal defence. The lawyer reviewed the file and wrote "After reading the correspondence, statements, notes, test results…I came to the conclusion that your committee made the right decision in deciding that [ ] was guilty of the charges levelled against him." The lawyer's response provided extensive reasoning and explanations for his conclusions.

During the months following the issuance of the Official Decision the CPO received many challenges, provocations and denunciations from ISKCON leaders about the Official Decision. One wrote "…I consider the APVC's statement an insult to the intelligence of ISKCON's leadership…There is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL in the APVC's document…" The CPO responded to each of these letters, addressing each point and query regarding procedure and content, with reference to the GBC's mandate for CPO case processing and adjudication.

On the basis of this case several ISKCON leaders called into question CPO procedures, CPO use of power, the process for selecting panel members for the case, and many other aspects of office functioning. The CPO responded with openness, within the bounds of professional confidentiality, inviting any individual or group to review the procedures followed in this case, and in any case. Also, the CPO reminded the protesters that the CPO was simply following guidelines and procedures established by them, the members of the GBC, as described in the GBC Child Protection Task Force Report. In fact, the CPO director demonstrated that in this particular case, in several ways, the office applied unusually expansive measures to ensure fairness and consideration for the defence. Repeatedly the CPO asked for specifics regarding where or how the CPO procedures differed from those authorized by the GBC and used, without incurring protest, in all other cases. Such specifics were not forthcoming.

Based to some degree on this case there was a move amongst the GBC to adjust the evidence criteria to something more stringent than preponderance. This motion has not succeeded for several reasons, included amongst them that many amongst the leadership are reluctant to make a change that will likely result in more child abusers in ISKCON being found not guilty.

Also based to some degree on this case is a move to adjust the appeal system, and a move to review office procedures. At present this situation is, at least to the extent that the CPO staff has been informed, quite muddled, to the point where it seems that restrictions on a perpetrator, as confirmed and defined by a CPO Official Decision, can be suspended simply by submitting an appeal to the GBC Executive Committee. The GBC has expressed that appeals are suspended till the CPO procedures are reviewed. Practically, the GBC has not moved forward on appeals for an extended period of time. Though a review procedure has been discussed for years, and the CPO welcomes and invites this, the CPO director was not informed about the review process, or the members of the review team. One GBC member suggested that, as per "a USA court of law", the accused should be essentially freed of restrictions during the appeal process, and inquired whether the CPO follows this due process. Others, however, pointed out that, in standard judicial systems, during the appeal process the defendant generally spends time in prison, and it is after arrest and prior to verdict that, for some allegations, bail and freedom from some restrictions may be applied.

In the particular case under discussion, various ISKCON leaders have grasped for ways and means to extricate the accused from CPO investigation and restriction. This discussion is not about the contents of this case itself, but rather it is about the dynamics amongst the leadership, especially in regards to a culture of accountability in child protection issues.

Restrictions in this case, as described in the Official Decision, include that the person should apologize and pay some restitution. If he does this, then he may participate with ISKCON on several conditions, which are specified in the decision document. These include not leading kirtana or giving class at an ISKCON function or on ISKCON property, and showing the decision document to the temple manager if he regularly visits a temple. The decision includes clauses such as "If [ ] violates any of the above conditions, then he is prohibited from any connection with ISKCON or ISKCON-affiliated organizations until his case is reviewed by the APVC," and "The Official Decision described in this document is effective immediately, and the perpetrator must abide by its guidelines during the appeal process, should he choose to appeal this decision."

Lacking legitimate, rational agency for accomplishing their goals, the leaders simply disregarded their own policies, and allowed, even facilitated, the accused to flagrantly violate the constraints of the CPO decision. Such transgressions were flaunted, as in articles on popular Vaisnava websites proclaiming the accused leading kirtanas at ISKCON functions.

The accuser, now a young adult, as well as her friends and family members, patiently and regularly inquired about the case after the decision was issued. Some correspondence follows: 11/4/03: From the young adult: "I was wondering if there are any new updates on the case. Please let me know."

11/4/03: Response from the CPO Director: "Thank you for your letter sent earlier today. As you know, the GBC decided to hear the appeal, but to delay the process till after the Mayapur meetings of 2003. Now, I've been informed that they decided to delay the appeal till after completion of a review of the child protection office. I've heard for almost a year that the GBC is planning to review and assess office procedures, but I've not yet heard anything practical about how or when they plan to do this. But they have stated that the case of [ ] will be delayed till they process the office review. I'm sorry you have to experience this delay. I'm sure it's frustrating for you. I'll keep you informed with information as I receive it."

The accuser wrote to a member of the GBC Executive Committee: "The specific violations I am thinking of are his leading of kirtans, performing sacrifices, and visiting temples without letting them know the verdict of the case…My best friend…has heard that he is leading kirtans and did some sort of sacrifice at the [ ] temple. Also a long-time friend of my sisters has said that she saw him lead a kirtan at the [ ] Rath….Will the original consequences stated in the decision be followed through on once his actions of not complying are found to be true? …This is all I am asking at this point. I feel that I have been very patient in this whole process. Please let me remind you that it is still very painful for me over ten years after it occurred…It is once more a plea to please not take any part in letting this happen again to another girl…

A member of the GBC Executive Committee, in this and other letters, assured her: "If he has been violating the decision and we receive clear evidence of this, then yes we will take it further…We will also look into whatever sanctions we can impose on [ ] directly, should clear evidence be presented to us confirming what you say is factual."

On the day that the CPO Director received the above letter from the member of the GBC Executive Committee, he sent to the GBC member abundant clear evidence, such as website articles depicting the violations of the CPO restrictions, and the implicit, obvious awareness, and apparent complicity of the transgressions, of ISKCON leaders.

For years, the CPO Director has regularly spoken to several members of the GBC body about the apparent lack of integrity, responsibility and propriety about this case, and the likely damage to the credibility and image of Srila Prabhupada's movement, what to speak of the possible risk to children and youth. Frequently this was met with assurances of remedial action, with no action, or at least no results, actually ensuing. In one recent exchange the CPO Director mildly requested "an accountable explanation" from some of the leaders for their actions and inactions in connection with this case. A GBC who heard this request responded with belligerence, "Well, you may not get it!" He was apparently incredulous towards the simple appeal for accountable explanation from ISKCON leaders.

As of the writing of this report the subject of the case under discussion is advertised throughout ISKCON temples as a featured speaker at public events, celebrations, and festivals, and, with the approval of ISKCON leadership, disregards CPO restrictions. Perhaps the reader has the impression that this case is connected with an undeveloped area of the world where awareness about child protection has not yet been cultivated. Actually, the above case relates to North America. Also, many of the ISKCON leaders mentioned in the scenario have demonstrated enlightenment and sensitivity in child protection matters over the years.

This case illustrates that, although individuals within the system may act at various times responsibly and prudently in child protection matters, the system lacks a culture of accountability. This lack, when combined with fears and needs inherent in the group dynamic, for acceptance, approval, and maintenance of position, prevents rational decision-making in regards to child protection. The machinations described in this case are quite typical. In many instances where ISKCON leadership has a vested interest in the confirmed or alleged child abuse perpetrator, the intrigues, inconsistencies and paucity of reasonableness are considerably more involved and severe than in this case.