"In other words, as it often does, the GBC deferred the matter to local management, deeming the matter a local issue and had no further participation."
PADA | August 26 | 2010 — Now the GBC is arguing that Aindra’ being harrassed in Vrndavana was nothing to do with the GBC, this was all the fault of the “local managers” who are all vociferous agents of the GBC? ys pd
“Response to Krishna Chandra”
by Malati dasi (ACBSP)
In a statement by Krishna Chandra, the following assertation was made:
“Just one week before Aindra das left his body in Vrindavan his long-awaited book was to have been published. I believe that the GBC had requested him not to release it, warning him that if he did so, he might have to leave ISKCON.”
It is always a good idea to check facts before making any assertive statements. In this case, the statement is a conjecture. After carefully checking, I would like to present the following statement from the GBC EC member, Hrday Chaitanya das:
“Last year on Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance day Aindra prabhu was interrupted in his speech because the leaders felt it was inappropriate. If I do not mistake, Gopal Krsna Maharaja stopped him or at least tried to stop him.
Soon after, during the VEB (Vrindavan Executive Board) meetings, Aindra prabhu was requested (by the VEB) not publish his book otherwise their would be some restrictions put on him.
*Please note: This request came from the VEB, not the GBC. The GBC were not in any way involved.
This year, after leaving his body the subject of the printing of Aindra prabhu’s book came to the attention of the EC and the EC requested the VEB to deal with it.
The GBC-EC expressed to the VEB that they were of the opinion that if the book is published, and then it is deemed to be necessary, we’ll respond to it later.”
In other words, as it often does, the GBC deferred the matter to local management, deeming the matter a local issue and had no further participation.
Malati Devi Dasi is simply passing the buck with the above positional paper.
The Vrndavan Executive Board has taken the place of the GBC for Vrndavan
to all extents and purposes. It is comprised of GBC men and some members
of the Regional Governing Board India.
To try and float the idea that this Board is merely ‘local management’
“In other words. as it often does, the GBC deferred the matter to local
management, deeming the matter a local issue and had no further
participation.â€
Clearly shows a feeble attempt at sophistry to avoid taking responsibility
for the unforgivably offensive attitude of the VEB members towards
Aindra Prabhu.
The VEB represents the GBC as much as the GBC Executive Board
represents the GBC. Local Management is commonly understood to
be the Temple Authorities under the Temple President.
Malati Devi Dasi as a junior member of the GBC only portfolio is
an ‘interim’ member of the Vaisnavi Committee, yet she is now
seemingly addressing the Devotional Community on this issue in
her official capacity as GBC member.
She qualifies her official position on the GBC by quoting the GBC
Executive Board Vice Chairman Hrday Chaitanya Dasa on this issue
yet the VEB men and their decisions and actions are merely local
management.
The GBC members can hide behind whatever word jugglery they
like but the fact remains that the Vrndavan Executive Board is the
GBC for Vrndavan and the GBC men on that board threatened
Aindra Prabhu.
The GBC’s lack of straightforwardness is evident when they allow
Malati Devi Dasi’s, a junior GBC Member who holds an unrelated
position, to give a positional paper by the GBC on this issue.
If they did not, then perhaps members of the GBC need to be
educated on how to properly conduct themselves as official
representatives of Srila Prabhupada and the GBC, in front of the
devotional community.
Aindra Prabhu told me personally, a short time after he was called
in to a VEB meeting to answer for his Vyasapuja offering how specific
members of the VEB ranted and raved on what they perceived as his
problems and his alleged negative influence within ISKCON and in
particular ISKCON Vrndavan.
As far as Aindra Prabhu stated to me and several others on numerous
occasions that the GBC qualified the:
“Aindra prabhu was requested (by the VEB) not publish his book
otherwise their would be some restrictions put on him – Executive Board
Vice Chairman Hrday Chaitanya Dasaâ€
By stating; that they vehemently threatened him that should his book be
published that he would not only be removed from the Krsna Balaram
Mandir but also excommunicated from ISKCON.
Aindra Prabhu expressed to me personally that this encounter with the
aggressively hostile Vrndavan GBC members proved to be singularly the
most hurtful experience of his devotional life.
Any discomfort that the members of the VEB or GBC or Rubber stamped
ISKCON Gurus may have experienced from Aindra Prabhu’s offering or
what they may experience when they read his book pales into insignificance
to what the GBC men in the VEB did to him on that day.
Malati can attempt to distance the GBC Body from this regrettable
occurrence however;
“*Please note: This request came from the VEB, not the GBC. The GBC
were not in any way involved.â€
Only shows the GBC’s pathetic attempt at ‘plausible deniability.’
If this movement is to mature as a Spiritual Society then the GBC
members have to take the lead in this. They also by default have to
take the responsibility for any immaturity or offensive actions of their
representatives.
A mature person or society should be able to allow either their friends
colleagues or members to express their honest realizations no matter how
painful they may be to hear. Aindra Prabhu has a right to write a book
and members of the devotional community have the right to chose
what they read.
To take away that right or choice is most certainly not morally or
ethically correct and reprehensible.
It is a shame that Aindra Prabhu had to experience such a life as a
devotee in an ISKCON institution that is more interested in policing
the devotional community members than it is to care love and protect
them.
Please read the minutes of the minutes of last year’s GBC meeting to
find how half of it is dedicated to laws aimed at controlling the members
of the society. http://dandavats.com/?p=7111
These very same laws will be applied to any devotee (including Aindra Prabhu)
should the institution deem it necessary.
However, does anyone actually believe that the GBC will apply these
same laws to their very own representative members who offended
Aindra Prabhu in such a disgraceful manner?
Yours in the service of Srila Prabhupada
Krsnacandra Dasa
Please make note that I am not the Krishna Chandra that is referred
to in Malati’s letter.
Krsnacandra dasa