[PADA: Massive foot dragging going on here, to the peril of children, agreed. ys pd]
The CPO and ISKCON Need Your Help
BY: SANAKA RSI DAS
Jul 20, 2011 — After publishing my recent article on Bhaktividya Purna Swami, a number of devotes asked me to officially request the CPO to have Maharaj’s case reviewed. Over the last few years I have interacted with the CPO in two different capacities. Unfortunately my experiences bring me to believe that any effort to have the CPO address Maharaj’s situation adequately and satisfactorily would be time consuming, frustrating and most likely ineffective.
There are several reasons that have led me to this conclusion. One of the more prominent is my recent experience working on the revision of the CPO Manual. The current, ineffective version is several years old and badly in need of a comprehensive update.
Early in 2010, the GBC requested me to help with its revision. Anuttama prabhu and Tamohara prabhu are the GBC members that were appointed to oversee its ratification process. Unfortunately as Praghosa Prabhu suggested in correspondence with me, it is important for me to understand that they do not have as much time as they wish they had to dedicate to the revision of the CPO Manual.
I apologize, but I do not understand. As it turned out, they were too busy to complete the task. My personal opinion is that a more likely cause for their failure to honour their commitment is that child protection does not fare very high on their personal priority list and that of the GBC as a whole.
As a consequence to this, the proposed amendments to the CPO Manual were not presented at the last GBC Meetings for approval, as per the original agreement, and their implementation is currently postponed indefinitely. Their lack of participation leaves me wondering why these two devotees accepted to take on the task in the first place.
In these two articles ("Ratification of the Revised CPO Manual" and What is the Real Purpose of the CPO?"), I describe the frustrations and disappointments I encountered working on the revision of the CPO Manual and in attempting to obtain some semblance of appropriate justice from the CPO on a specific case.
In my opinion the GBC exercises an unduly strong, unhealthy, and biased influence over the CPO. So while officially Tamohara prabhu has resigned as the Director of the CPO, we find both him and Anuttama prabhu, two GBC members, appointed to supposedly oversee the revision of the CPO Manual. In my understanding, the nutshell of the problem is that the primary purpose the GBC sees in the CPO (and the main reason for its creation) is not, and never was, the protection of Srila Prabhupada's children.
My experience tells me that the GBC differentiates between what they consider to be the best interests of the institution, and its ruling class, and the best interests of its rank and file members (including the children). The primary purpose of the CPO was and is the protection of what the GBC regard to be the best interest of the institution and its elite. In my experience, when what the GBC regards as being the best interest of the institution conflicts with the appropriate protection and best interests of one or more children, whenever the GBC can get away with it, the interests of the children are consistently neglected.
It is unfortunate that the GBC does not seem to have the foresight to understand that the best interests of the children and the best long-term interests of ISKCON are one and the same, that they are inseparable; and that without its children ISKCON has no real future. This emergency based and short-sighted approach to management is counterproductive, for it only allows a very limited perspective; it is directly responsible for the abuse of countless children and adults within ISKCON.
The very structure of the present CPO supports my concerns. Over the years the GBC have strongly resisted any and all attempts to create an accountable, independent and authoritative CPO body. They appear to be unconcerned with the fact that a CPO body that is subordinate to the GBC is ineffective, lacks authority and credibility.
The CPO office is in Alachua while the CPO director, Champakalata prabhu, lives is in South Africa where she works two jobs, because the GBC recently decided that the annual CPO budget would be better spent elsewhere. This means that she can only dedicate a limited amount of her time to her CPO work; which in and of itself is a very demanding, full time occupation.
Champakalata prabhu lacks influence and authority. I am of the opinion that this is intentional and that it was a determining factor in her selection. This makes me wonder, who are the individuals responsible for her appointment, and leaves me questioning their motives.
If a situation arises where a new bhakta, or a devotee who does not hold a senior management position molests some children, she can and will be very effective. However, if the perpetrator is a senior and influential individual, or somebody who enjoys the protection of the elite, there is little she can and will do.
Here is a recent example that perfectly illustrates this point; a devotee from Mauritius named Nathabara moved to the devotee community in North Carolina, after being expelled from the Alachua temple over sexual misconducts of some sort. When I was growing up in Villa Vrindavana, I clearly remember Nathabara coming to stay for a while in Italy, with his wife and daughter. Already back then he was notorious for taking advantage of women, disregarding his and their marital status.
Prior to moving to North Carolina, on more than one occasion this man had also sexually molested an 8 year old girl in Mauritius. When his victim (by then grown up) came to know that Nathabar was living in North Carolina, she filed a detailed report of the shocking incident with the CPO.
A copy of this report was given to Bir Krishna Maharaj, the local GBC; Krishna Priya dasi, the local Temple President at the time; Goloka dasi, the local CPO representative at the time; and to Nathabara and his wife. Bir Krishna Maharaj ordered, I quote: "Let's keep this to ourselves."
For 13 years, nobody else was informed that the local GBC and temple authorities had knowingly exposed the children in the community to the attacks of a known paedophile, by giving Nathabara shelter and unrestricted access to the kids. These facts only came to light in recent times, when it was discovered that Nathabara had sexually abused a 2 year old girl in the community in North Carolina.
When the father of the victim and other devotees from the community confronted Bir Krishna Maharaj, he claimed ignorance, stating that he had no recollection of the above mentioned report about Nathabara's history of abuse in Mauritius.
The parents of the victim then filed an official complaint with Champakalata Prabhu, the current CPO Director. Champakalata proved unprofessional and completely unsupportive to the parents, she shared their private correspondence with Bir Krishna Maharaj, and refused to keep them updated on the progress of the case, claiming that doing so would compromise Bir Krishna Maharaj's position. After evaluating the evidence, Champakalata concluded that, given the circumstances, Bir Krishna Maharaj had done everything he could have.
The conclusion of this case is that this year, at the annual Mayapur GBC Meeting, Champakalata was reprimanded and Bir Krishna Maharaj was given censure; which means that he was forced to apologize to the parents and to the community. It was felt that his apology lacked in substance and authenticity, coming more from a necessity to fulfil an obligation rather than a genuine sense of remorse.
Many like to dismiss their personal responsibility in regard to child protection by hiding behind the illusion that child abuse is a problem of the past. When they think of child abuse, they like to relegate it to the Dallas Gurukula of the 1970's, or the Gurukulas in Lake Huntington, Vrindavana and Mayapur in 1980's. The truth, as this case and many others shows, is that child abuse is still very much a dark reality within ISKCON. Today!
Looking at this specific case, who is more responsible? Nathabara, a man who is clearly in need of professional help; Bir Krishna Maharaj, who knowingly and recklessly ensured that the children in his community were exposed to the attacks of a known sexual predator; Champakalata, who as the Director of the Child Protection Office, decided to afford her protection to Maharaj instead of the victim; or the GBC that in taking these matters so lightly are, yet again, setting the precedent of an ISKCON that is soft, and turns a blind eye on child abuse. This sends out a welcome message to paedophiles in and out of ISKCON to come and abuse our children, it shows that a perpetrator has a good chance of getting away, or if there will be any consequences, they are not likely to be serious.
Personally, I feel that the very least the GBC and Champakalata prabhu ought to do at this point is to offer their sincere, public apologies for their unjustifiable performance. Not only to the parents of this recent victim, but to all the victims that have suffered, and to those that are still suffering due to the gross institutional negligence and lack of concern; and make a commitment before the devotee community that such unacceptable superficiality and serious transgressions in regards to child protection will never again be tolerated or repeated.
What is perhaps the biggest part of the problem is that Bir Krishna Maharaj is not an isolated case... far from it. The list of ISKCON leaders who have directly or indirectly protected, covered for or simply turned a blind eye on child abuse (without even going into other forms of abuse of power) is long, and includes some of the most respected and prestigious names amongst the ISKCON elite.
The reasons that have prompted such criminal behaviour are as numerous as they are varied, they range from convenience (he is too high profile and it would damage the image of ISKCON, or he is doing so much service) to salaries (I might lose my paycheque), to covering for friends (we joined together in 1969 and he helped me in the past), to cowardice, to fear of getting bad press, to blackmail, to callous insensitivity (it's not my service prabhu), etc...
So Bir Krishna Maharaj and Bhaktividya Purna Swami are in good company. The current CPO just won't do, because it simply does not have the authority, but more importantly the desire, to adequately address these situations. If there is to be any hope to obtain some appropriate justice, it will be necessary to climb higher up the food-chain.
Bhaktividya Purna Maharaj's 2001 CPO report states:
"Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaja won't serve in any capacity that is directly connected with children until January 1, 2002. After that time he may serve in a non-managerial and non-administrative capacity connected with children if the ISKCON Education Ministry agrees that he may do so. Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaja may not at any time assume a managerial or administrative role in ISKCON, and especially not in connection with children..."
I am curious to know what is the role of the Ministry for Educational Development (MED) in the decision making processes of the CPO and the implementation of its resolutions? I looked up the above mentioned MED, hoping for some answers, and found that it is composed of Sesa Prabhu, Laxmimoni Prabhu, Saunaka Rishi Prabhu (from Ireland, who currently lives in Oxford, UK), Radhika Raman Prabhu and Yadunandana Swami. Taking into account that mother Laxmimoni is another individual associated with a long history of child abuse allegations, I am doubtful that she will be the best person to approach for help with this matter.
Again, the fact that one of the senior ministers for Education Development is an individual known to have abused children is just another confirmation, if one was needed, on ISKCON's stance and lack of concern when it comes to child protection. If this wasn't so close to home, in a dark way, I might even find this sadly humorous.
Given that Sesa Prabhu is a GBC, as well as the Minister for Education and the Minister of Justice, hopefully he will be able to offer some real answers. I wish to ask him to please help me understand why ISKCON finds it perfectly acceptable that a man with a history of child abuse the likes of Bhaktividya Purna Swami is still running (via-proxy, if you like) two schools in Mayapur. And why Laxmimoni Prabhu is deemed fit to be a member of the Ministry for Education in ISKCON and the Dean of the Bhaktivedanta College in Radhadesh?
I will be most appreciative if he can take the time to properly clarify whether at any point after the expiry of the restrictions the CPO imposed on Bhaktividya Purna Swami, the Education Ministry did sanction Maharaj's current involvement in the Mayapur Gurukulas? If his involvement is sanctioned, I wish to ask if Sesa Prabhu could kindly share with the devotee community the names of the individuals involved in this decision and their justifications supporting it? And finally, if Maharaj was not authorized by the Education Ministry, then I am curious to know why he is allowed to interact with children, in breach of the CPO sanction?
Another reason why I am reluctant to attempt to pursue Bhaktividya Purna Swami with the CPO is because, as I have already mentioned in the past, I regard Maharaj's situation as a mere symptom of a bigger problem that deeply permeates the hierarchical structure of ISKCON, down to its very core. I strongly suspect that the number of incidents that are inappropriately handled by GBC and the CPO are significantly greater than the few that somehow slip through and become public knowledge. The ones we come to know about are probably just the tip of the iceberg, and it is ugly.
My personal experience tells me that if I was in a position to apply sufficient pressure (financial, political, press, etc.) the CPO and the GBC would end up doing the "right" thing. I am confident that they would even do something as difficult and unpleasant (for some) as removing Bhaktividya Purna Swami, Laxmimoni and/or impose adequate sanctions on Bir Krishna Maharaj and Champakalata.
Even if I could do so much, it would not solve the problem, because these are but symptoms of a greater problem, and addressing symptoms never cured a disease. The task of achieving a lasting and holistic solution is far more difficult. It is likely that it will require a radical change to the values and ethos of ISKCON as a whole; of its leadership, but also its "general" members.
I believe that the personal changes required of each and every one of us would be of such magnitude that for most, these changes would be too painful to entertain. For this reason, in an attempt to avoid our personal responsibility, at one time or another many of us have made the individual and/or collective choice to hide behind a vast range of excuses. Our silence will certainly hinder our spiritual progress. In a way it makes us accomplices of the perpetrators, and we will no doubt share the burden of the karma resulting from their sinful activities.
Of course avoidance of negative consequences should not be the primary reason to inspire us to change, but rather we should change because taking a definitive stance for the protection of our children and the weak is righteous and indispensable for any society that wishes to make spiritual progress. I do not know what the required changes are, but I am confident that if collectively, we set our mind to finding a suitable dialogue, this will necessarily lead to a workable solution.
The following is a quote by The Most Revd and RT Hon Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, Head of the Church of England, taken from the back cover of a book titled "Time for Action" – ‘Sexual abuse, the Churches and a new dawn for survivors', published by "Churches Together in Britain and Ireland".
"Few if any issues in recent years have so stained and compromised the credibility of various Church institutions and hierarchies as the record of ignorance and evasion over questions to do with the abuse of children and adults by Christian professionals, especially clergy. Honesty about this is painful, but essential for the Church's health and the Church's mission. This report is sometimes devastating reading, but it is timely, necessary and – if we are prepared to hear and act on some unwelcome truths – ultimately hopeful".
The above words are frighteningly applicable to the current circumstances in ISKCON. We have faced the same challenges and are making the same mistakes in perpetuating, denying, neglecting and failing to address child abuse within our society.
In my attempts to raise awareness on this topic, I have time and again, due to my personal shortcomings, acted and spoken in counterproductive ways. I pray the reader to overlook my inadequacies and not use them as an excuse to avoid taking the necessary actions to make amends for the past and to prevent our children from being abused in the future.
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 2:50 PM, sanaka rsi wrote:
Hare Krsna Tamohara and Anuttama Prabhu,
Please accept my obeisances, All Glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Given that you have not responded to my last three letters, at this point I feel the best option left for me is to address you in a public forum.
Early in 2010 the GBC, through Champakalata Mataji (the current CPO Director), requested me to partake in the revision of the CPO Manual along with Prana Prabhu from New Zealand and Champakalata Mataji herself. Given that the CPO Manual had not been revised since its inception, a revision was overdue. As it turned out, due to pressing engagements, these two devotees were not able to contribute a significant amount of time to the project, and I ended up doing most of the revision work.
I submitted the revised CPO Manual to the GBC secretary on the 15th of December 2010, it was due to be ratified at this years' GBC meetings in Gaura Purnima 2010. Unfortunately the GBC had more pressing matters to tend to, and the ratification of the Manual was postponed indefinitely.
Though I can imagine that you are probably not accustomed to requests for clarity and accountability, and clearly you did not appreciate my attempts to obtain the same from yourselves, still, I regard your "hiding" behind silence as childish, and unbecoming the service you occupy, and the importance of the matter at hand. Given that you have been selected to oversee the ratification of the CPO Manual, and that the work is not finished, your silence is unacceptable, it reminds me of the temper tantrums of children when they say "If you don't play by my rules, I will not talk to you anymore, I'll pick up my toys and go home".
In my interactions with Tamohara Prabhu over the years, he has lied to me on a number of occasions, I have outlined this in my article published in 2009; in the article I also detailed his attempts to remove the victim's right to a rebuttal from the CPO Manual.
Given that I raised these issues with several GBC members, I was surprised when I discovered that he had been appointed to oversee the ratification of the revised CPO Manual. But perhaps I should not have...
I find Tamohara's lies, Anuttama's perhaps deliberately unclear replies, and their subsequent silence, as a indicator that they may be attempting to avoid the responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
Sadly we seem to have turned into a society that is more concerned with appearances than substance. So in appearance it looks like the GBC cares, but in fact the CPO is likely to remain at the bottom of their priority pile, at least until there is a new law suit or a new scandal of some sort. The GBC have made a half-hearted attempt to make a show of being concerned with the future of ISKCON's children, but you need not search for long to discover that the lion's share of what used to be the CPO's annual budget has been redirected to "more important" projects and that the GBC is not willing to give the protection and care of the children the necessary priority.
The choice of Tamohara Prabhu as one of the two GBC members appointed to oversee the ratification of the CPO Manual, after I informed several GBC members of his misconduct, coupled with the carelessness Tamohara and Anuttama Prabhu have been affording to the ratification process itself, is another sad indicator of the lack of importance the GBC body places on the protection of the children in ISKCON, on the lack of vision the GBC has for the future of ISKCON.
It is baffling for me to see how time and again the GBC just doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that if we do not care, protect, nurture, guide and inspire the children of ISKCON, the very survival of ISKCON comes under great peril.
It seems like the GBC always has something more important, urgent and pressing to tend to, some other "really important" temple or project to direct funds to. It appears that the GBC as a body is oblivious to the fact that if the children are neglected, we are not going to have a future generation to inherit all these bricks. I am afraid that one day, when it will be too late, the GBC may discover that all those "very important" matters they have been so busy tending to, are useless, because ISKCON is no more.
I expect Tamohara Prabhu will make renewed attempts to achieve his sinister objective of removing the victims' right to a rebuttal from the CPO Manual. Even if he will not succeed, I am concerned that by the time the CPO Manual is ratified and approved, it will have been altered and compromised to such a concerning degree, that I will not want to be associated with it. I therefore request that you do not include my name in the ratified document that will eventually be made public.
I continue to pray that one day, in the near future, the GBC body, will understand the vital role today's children will play in tomorrow's ISKCON, and afford them the necessary care, protection, resources and adequate priority in their busy schedules.
Yours in the service of the Vaisnavas
Sanaka rsi das
P.S. Below I have included some relevant correspondence for the benefit of those that are not familiar with the topic.
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 3:08 PM, sanaka rsi wrote:
Dear tamohara and Anuttama Prabhus,
I sent you the letter below over a week ago, as I have not heard back, I am resending it just in case it was not delivered. I will appreciate if either of you can respond.
Thank you
Sanaka
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: sanaka rsi
Date: Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: Ratification of the revised CPO Manual
To: Champakalata dasi
Cc: "Praghosa (das) SDG (IRL)", AD, tamohara
Dear Anuttama and Tamohara Prabhus,
Please accept my respectful obeisances, All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
In the days gone, I was thinking about the CPO Manual and I estimated that to date I have dedicated somewhere between 500 to 600 hours to its revision. It is a project that I regard to be of the greatest importance, this is why I have been so dedicated and persistent.
I have only recently realized that in the revision of the CPO Manual I did not to address the eventuality of an individual who does not comply with CPO sanction.
If you do not have any objections, given that we are only just starting the ratification of the document, I would like to request the permission to add a paragraph or two to cover this possibility.
I wish to request the permission to explain and discuss any topics or points, I have included in the revision, which you may find unclear or unacceptable in their current form.
I would like to look into the possibility of clarifying or rewording any such points so as to find a satisfactory alternative. I am concerned that important aspects may otherwise be removed from the manual due to possible shortcomings in presentation.
Thank you
Yours in the service of the Vaisnavas,
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: sanaka rsi
Date: Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: Ratification of the revised CPO Manual
To: "Praghosa (das) SDG (IRL)"
Cc: AD , Champakalata dasi, tamohara
Dear Praghosa Prabhu,
I am very appreciative of your willingness to assist in getting the revised CPO Manual ratified asap. I support this wholeheartedly and am happy to assist in any way that will be deemed appropriate. I would be delighted, if somehow we ensure that the document is ready and presented for ratification at the October GBC meetings.
What I find disheartening is that to date I have not heard Anuttama Prabhu or Tamohara Prabhu make any such commitment, all their replies have been rather vague, devoid of any time frames. To this end I will renew the question I asked in my last email.
What can and needs to be done to ensure that the ratification of the CPO Manual is concluded without further delay and with the necessary care and attention?
Also, I don't want to come across as a pain, but I don't fully share your perspective when you state that the GBC is doing everything in their power under the circumstances to assist and empower the CPO...and where you wrote..."I also have no doubt that both Anuttama and Tamohara prabhus do not have the time they wish they did to give to this issue".
Of course in writing this I do not have the benefit of knowing any details of what you refer to as "the massive time constraints the GBC works under".
Still I will share my understanding from my limited perspective.
Most healthy families rightly invest a substantial amount of their resources in their children (it is an investment in the future). On the other hand, I regard ISKCON's investment in this department to be dangerously inadequate.
The GBC have much on their plate, they are managing a complex and a relatively big international society, their time is naturally limited. If I understood you correctly, from what you wrote I got the impression that you either believe, or would like me to believe that, the manner in which the GBC dispose of their precious time is out of their control.
This is where I disagree with you. I actually think that this view is dis-empowering as it suggests that the GBC can't do anything about the situation. On the contrary, I believe that how they allot their time is very much their choice.
My opinion is that the GBC has chosen not to afford sufficient priority, time and resources into the CPO and the future of ISKCON in general. I see this to be very much a choice, and a regrettable one at that.
I believe that acknowledging this will be instrumental in assisting with the completion of this project and in giving the CPO the necessary support and resources.
I pray you can forgive any offenses and inadequacies that may be in my presentation,
Yours in the service of the Vaisanvas,
Hare Krsna
Sanaka
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Praghosa (das) SDG (IRL)
Date: Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Ratification of the revised CPO Manual
To: AD <@ pamho…>, sanaka rsi
Cc: Champakalata dasi, tamohara
Hare Krsna,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
I of course try to live in the real world and hope that one day that reality (world), will result in me residing in Goloka Vrndavana.
In the meantime, while trying to live realistically I am aware that while the perception maybe that the GBC is not giving due attention and time to the CPO review, the reality is that they are doing their best under the circumstances of the massive time constraints that they are under.
I also have no doubt that both Anuttama and Tamohara prabhus do not have the time they wish they did to give to this issue. So... understanding of that is a very important factor.
That said I want to assist in whatever way I can in getting this revised CPO manual ratified asap.
To that end I am not aware of anything in the revised manual that prevents ratification at the next GBC meeting in October. Due to a dehibilitating migraine, I was not present when this was discussed at the recent AGM, hence I am not wholly aware of the issues that prevented ratification, although I understand they were of a legal nature.
It would be MOST useful if those concerns could be clearly delinated via this exchange and then we can all seek to have them satisfied. Thus clearing the path to ratification in October.
Your servant, Praghosa dasa
Pls visit www.dandavats.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: sanaka rsi
Date: Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: Ratification of the revised CPO Manual
To: AD @ pamho…
Cc: tamohara , "Praghosa (das) SDG (IRL)", Champakalata dasi
Dear Anuttama and Tamohara Prabhus,
Please accept my respectful obeisances, All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
I am confused; and I am afraid, as much as I will try, I will struggle to word what I need to say in a pleasant way.
In reading the correspondence we have exchanged over the last few days; its contents strike me as incongruent and a bit sloppy. I am afraid that either:
1. Both of you may be too busy to take the time to come up with thoughtful responses,
2. And/or give the ratification of the revised CPO Manual adequate attention,
3. Or that neither of you is well aquainted with the topic of discussion,
or perhaps all of the above.
Tamohara Prabhu wrote that the revised document was submitted late and that the deputies only had a couple of days to look over the 60 page document, and that for this reason it was not ratified at the last GBC meetings in February.
I submitted the revised CPO manual on the 1st of December, so I am not sure why Tamohara Prabhu believes that it was submitted late.
In the letter dated 18/04/2011 Anuttama Prabhu wrote that "...about 4 years ago. Significant changes were made in procedures at that time to fix some "kinks" in the system, including the appeal process". In the 20th of April letter Anuttama Prabhu changes the 4 years to a "few years".
As far as I am aware Tamohara Prabhu becoming the Director of the CPO (and more recently Champakalata Mataji) have been the only major changes that has been made to the CPO since its inception. No changes whatsoever have been made to its policies and procedures, the current CPO Manual is the same that was compiled at the very beginning. Tamohara Prabhu did not become the CPO Director 4 years ago, and he certainly did not "fix" the appeals process.
Then further down in the same letter of the 18/04/2011 Anuttama Prabhu writes:
"This year the GBC expressed a desire to assure, in the next round of assessment, the participation of those who created the office and those who made adjustments last time around to assure we benefit from that history and practical experience of what worked well in the past, what didn't, etc. Also, those involved this time should understand that Tamohara prabhu was the CPO Director for about 5 years, and he played an instrumental role in the CPO's history of effectiveness, including bringing Champa mataji on board."
I appreciate that Tamohara Prabhu has a wealth of experience to offer, still I don't understand the logic that has brought the GBC to invite Tamohara Prabhu (Who made an active effort to remove the victims' right to a rebuttal) and not Dhira Govinda Prabhu who made a substantial contribution to establish the office in the first place, served as the Director for several years and undoubtedly can also offer a wealth of suggestions from his years of experience.
I want to emphasize that though I believe that Dhira Govinda Prabhu can offer a valuble contribution, I am not particularly attached to his participation. What I do not understand is the inconsistency of inviting Tamohara Prabhu and not Dhira Govinda Prabhu.
In the last letter Anuttama Prabhu writes that he has no idea regarding the forecasted time frame that will be required to complete the ratification of the revised CPO Manual.
Considering that both of you are GBC members, and that you happen to be THE GBC members who have been appointed to oversee the ratification of the CPO Manual, I am at a loss. I am left with five important questions hanging in the air.
1. If you do not know who does?
2. How can I have some reliable, congruent and adequate information?
3. Is there somebody else I should be writing to?
4. How much of the information you have given me is attendible?
5. What can be done to ensure that the ratification of the CPO Manual is concluded without further delay and with the necessary care and attention?
I am concerned that the GBC has placed the ratification of the revised CPO Manual on the back-burner. It seems to me that the GBC is not affording the necessary time, attention and resources to the CPO in general, I believe this is an oversight ISKCON can not afford to make.
Hopeful, looking forward to some clarifications,
I remain,
Yours in the service of the Vaisnavas
Sanaka rsi das
P.S. I have included Praghosa Prabhu and Champakalata Mataji as recepients of this letter.
