Recollections of Abuse by Students of Gauridas
BY: SUN STAFF
Jan 22, UK (SUN) — Dear Devotees, Please accept our humble obeisances; All Glories to Srila Prabhupada.
I am writing on behalf of a group of former students of Gauridas, the current temple
president of the Bhaktivedanta Manor. Gauridas was our ashram teacher in the Vrindavan Gurukul in the years between 1989 and 2001, in which time he was directly or indirectly responsible for several incidents of physical and emotional abuse against all members of this group.
We are currently compiling recollections of abuse we suffered personally as well as abuse we witnessed into a comprehensive list so as to make this process as specific as possible. We would like to register our disappointed that despite Gauridas's past he is allowed to hold a high profile position in ISKCON. We further find it disturbing that in light of the multimillion dollar lawsuit that has recently crippled ISKCON temples across the world, our leaders still seem unwilling to understand that the long term costs of having a child abuser in a position of power can be far greater than the inconvenience of finding a suitable replacement.
We believe it is not in ISKCON's or our best interest to have Gauridas in a position of authority, as it then condones his actions and undermines the reputation of Srila Prabhupada's movement. It can only serve to distress kulis, parents and the devotee community at large.
In correspondences with Tamohara Prabhu of the CPO, he said:
"I have been thinking about your letter, as you raise important concerns. While I completely understand your desire to have this case (Gauridas's) reopened, it may prove to be difficult. I am willing to consider this, but I also don't want to artificially raise your hopes about the process. I have tried to look at our Policy and Procedures, particularly as it concerns what is called "double jeopardy." (Bringing a case against someone twice for the same crime.)"
Gauridas's case was reviewed by the "ISKCON International Office of Education" (referred to hereafter as IOE) in 1995. There were, however, several aspects of the investigation which we feel raise serious questions as to the validity of the IOE ruling.
A) Gauridas's case was taken into consideration prior to the formation of the ISKCON CPO, by the GBC Executive Committee and the IOE which was at the time headed by Murlivadaka das. It later emerged that Murlivadaka das was himself a sexual and physical child abuser. He has since left active involvement in the movement. Thus his position as head of the IOE and an impartial adjudicator in cases involving child abuse is in question, undermining the validity of this ruling in Gauridas's specific case.
B) The investigators were Braja Bihari das, Kavicandra Swami, Panca Gauda das and Jaya Sila das. In their report, these devotees unanimously recommended a suspension of all corporal punishment in the Vrindavana Gurukula till the upcoming Mayapur meetings. However, the first member of this team then privately petitioned Murlivadaka das, as evident from the correspondence in Appendix 1, and actively worked to protect Gauridas and ensure he could continue to administer corporal punishment. This stance on the part Braja Bihari das should have been of great concern; yet it is not all together surprising. He was part of the Gurukula management that valued Gauridas's unhindered involvement as well as a personal friend. Due to this probable conflict of interest we feel that he undermined the already diluted recommendations of the entire team. Furthermore, as he was never in a position where we felt, as students under Gauridas, able to take [him] into confidence without further repercussions, his involvement must be regarded as tainting the unreserved testimony of the children he interviewed.
It is also important to note that the teachers were never officially interviewed in the course of the investigation. Braja Bihari interviewed them "informally" and supposedly passed their viewpoints on to the other members of the investigation team. (Please refer to APPENDIX 1)
C) The second member of this panel, Kavicandra Swami, in a later letter (please refer to APPENDIX 2) , expressed his concerns and doubt as to not only the thoroughness of the inquiry and the shape the final report took, but also the system used to investigate Gauridas. He admits that the full investigation was not as thorough as it should have been; in our opinion, for two major reasons.
1) "We didn't interview "most of the alumni". We interviewed a few. We can say that most who were interviewed did not believe it. Also from "interviews" (interrogations) we might not get the straight answers."
What we find particularly puzzling is the fact that the very child whose beating sparked this investigation was never interviewed by the team as would have happened immediately in an impartial investigation.
2) "We added Jaya Sila Prabhu as a member of the CPT. We concluded that the (CPT) report was done in haste by two Matajis who were too busy with secretarial work. These Matajis express full faith in Gauri, so they didn't really check everything very thoroughly. We, Panca Gauda, Jaya Sila and myself, felt that there should be more members who are not on the school staff. That will be discussed later as we have to find someone who is willing and qualified."
Considering the above letter was written after the investigation report was submitted to the GBC, the CPT was to that point flawed, in the mind of Kavichandra Swami. As we agree with this assessment, we believe that the system in place, which was used to scrutinize Gauridas, including his final investigation, was incomplete and/or biased. Another hole, by the admissions of Kavichandra Swami, against the argument that Gauridas was already investigated thoroughly is that the agreed investigation report was edited substantially. This was not done with the knowledge or consensus of all members of the team whose names was nevertheless attached to it and thus cannot reasonably represent their work.
D) In 1995 there were about 90 students in the Gurukula of which, from our quick research, at least a third had been beaten to a greater or lesser degree by Gauridas. The IOE investigation team however only came up with about 10 testimonies of abuse. The report further stated that Gauridas had used the stick to discipline the children, "approximately 6 times in 5 years of teaching". This is a gross inaccuracy as our group consists of a greater number than this. Most of us, with memories of being directly punished on several occasions, including but not limited to the use of the stick made reference to in the report, as well as knowledge of several other instances of abuse.
Considering that the system at the time (firstly Child Protection Team, secondly the IOE and lastly the team entrusted with the investigation) were biased and substantially flawed, we feel that the possibility of a thorough and fair investigation was negated. We therefore request that the 1995 investigation and subsequent ruling be declared void. It is our contention that Gauridas's position and relationship with the members of the investigation, as well as the lack of impartiality and thoroughness on multiple levels, never actually put him in jeopardy of being found guilty; as such Double Jeopardy should not apply here.
To date Gauridas has not been made accountable for his actions, therefore our request is a simple and fair one - that Gauridas's case be reviewed by an impartial team from the CPO in a thorough and just way.
Hare Krsna
Awaiting your prompt reply,
We remain
Your servants,
Sanaka Rsi das and other former students of Gauridas.
P.S. This letter is supported by 15 former students of Gauridas, our testimonies will be sent to Tamohara Prabhu of the child protection office shortly.
APPENDIX 1
This e-mail was sent by Braja Bihari to Murlivadaka, here Braja Bihari requests that the ban on CP imposed on the Vrindavana Gurukula and specifically Gauridas be lifted.
From: Braja Bihari dasa < 102631.206@compuserve.com >
To: MurlivadakaPrabhu < afn09663@freenet.ufl.edu >
Cc:DHANURDHARASWAMI < dhanurdhara.swami@iskcon.com ,
Bhurijana Prabhu < bhurijana.acbsp@iskcon.com >
Subject: Vrindavana SOS
Dear Murli Vadaka Prabhu,
PAMHO AGTSP
Thank you for your timely reply. I will send in a separate letter (in a few minutes) the response from the teachers.
Gauri Prabhu for quite sometime now has accepted the point of acting independently. That is not an issue. He is very careful in all aspects of the Gurukula rules. His mood is very appropriate, cooperative, and yes, even humble.
Please understand clearly the 2 concern (needs) of the school: 1. CP [corporal punishment] reinstated. and 2. Gauri is allow to administer CP. Gauri will use CP only in the presence of the ashram teacher, and will not use it on the older boys (his ashram) at all.
This is what we want. It's reasonable.
Please at your earliest convenience; let me know your feelings on other aspects of my last letter.
Your servant,
Braja Bihari dasa
From: Brian Bloch 102631.206@compuserve.com
To: DHANURDHARASWAMI dhanurdhara.swami@iskcon.com
Cc: MURLIVADAKAPRABHU afn09663@frenet.ufl.edu,
Bhrijana Prabhu bhurijana.acbsp@iskcon.com
Subject: Gauri Prabuh and CP
Dear Dhanurdhara Swami,
PAMHO AGTSP
Thank you a millions times over for your letter! It was a great relief you hear from you. I apologize a million times as well for not sending you a report, etc. I would have sent it weeks ago, but the computer it is on is now not working. When I get the new part, which is suppose to come from US today or tomorrow I will send it to you.
The day I sent you my proposed "restrictions on CP in the Gurukula, Gauri Prabhu came to me and INDEPENDENTLY of those suggestions and offered VOLUNTARILY the following points:
All CP will be reported to the Steering Committee monthly.
He will not use CP within his ashram. He will only use it when other ashram teachers bring their children for chastisement and only in the ashram teacher's presence and only after the proper escalation of consequences as outlined in the school charter is followed.
Gauri Prabhu said to me he feels he should no longer use CP with the older boys (his ashram). I consider this offer extremely reasonable. I want to offer this as a final solution to recommendation #2 (no CP till Mayapur). I think the GBC men should see this as a very reasonable proposal, and a very healthy (especially from their point of view) outcome of their investigation.
By the way, as an aside, the teacher's being upset with not being interviewed for the investigation has another angle on it. They praised us during the investigation for being so sensitive by not upsetting the school as we investigated. I was, however, interviewing them informally, and then expressing their viewpoint to the others. It was clear what their views were.
I will start pushing Gopal Krsna Maharaj about you visa situation and keep you posted. I am confident-even Bhadri Prabhu wants you to return, what to speak of all the teachers!
Your servant,
Braja Bihari dasa
To: Murli afn09663@freenet.ufl.edu
Cc: DDS dhanurdhara.swami@iskcon.com ,
Gurudeva < bhurijana.acbsp@iskcon.com
Subject: Gauri Prabhu
Dear Murli Vadaka Prabhu,
PAMHO AGTSP
I had a very nice meeting with Gauri Prabhu yesterday. Though he is as you said strong willed, he is thought, sensitive and considerate. He suggests that he be given again sanction to us CP within the following guidelines:
1.He will report all CP to the Steering Committee.
2.He feels no longer a need to use CP with his students (the older boys). He proposes to use CP only as a final buidup of transgression against school policy? (as outlined in the school charter), and only in the presence of their ashram teacher.
I consider this very reasonable. What do you think? How do you think the GBC Ex.Co. will take it. If we can get this OK'ed, than the whole Investigation, as far as the school is concerned, is over, and we can proceed to other topics ( i.e. Com conference, a mission statement, etc). They are hesitant to proceed with these things until the investigation is complete.
I will be sending the official reply from the teachers that you requested soon. I know you are busy, but please let me know what you think about my last letter, and the above points. I'm waiting to here from you before posting these suggestions to Bhadri PRabu and Co. Is there still some time left before your "joint statement" with the GBC. I recall that you were suppose to hear from the teachers and alumni before a final statement was made.
Going through you last letter:
One more thing on the CPT. I feel there either has to be a teacher on the CPT or someone whom ALL the teachers have implicit trust in, otherwise many problems can arise.
I again thought about the "pressured" atmosphere thing. The older boys are given quite a bit of freedom and responsibility. Certain we don't allow anarchy, but I don't see any basis for this claim. By the way. Gauri has had many talks with the letter. They cleared things up quite a bit.
Kd still struggles with his health, but he is following the courses again.
Your servant Braja Bihari dasa
APPENDIX 2
This letter was written by Kavicandra Maharaj after the official investigation report on Gauri was published. Maharaj refers to it through the letter.
From: Kavicandra Swami 71351.510@compuserve.com
To: Badrinarayandas badrinarayan.acbsp@iskcon.com ,
Cc: BhurijanPrabhu bhurijana.acbsp@iskcon.com ,
BrajaBheari braja.bihari.bjd@com.bbt.se,
MurliVadakaDas afn09663@freenet.ufl.edu
NaveenKrsna naveen.krsna.acbsp@iskcon.com
Subject: VRINDAVANA report
Things left out of report on Gauri:
He also thinks that in order for showing the stick be effective, he must use it sometimes.
6. Gauri should be removed as a teacher.
We didn't interview "most of the alumni". We interviewed a few. We can say that most who were interviewed did not believe it. Also from "interviews" (interrogations) we might not get the straight answers.
There was a question about the school policy on punishment and whether it was followed. We agreed on a statement which I don't find here.
It was as follows:
That the board of education decided, after pressure from Vrindavana, that the principal could administer corporal punishment. We don't know how well this was communicated to Dhanurdhara Swami by the BOE (Board of Education). The policy states, the principal or his appointed representative. He appointed Gauri. We specifically wanted to avoid having an ashram teacher in that position, for many reasons. Also, in the policy, which otherwise was not so bad, that is a due process for "serious offences" (corporal punishment?) It appears that Gauri completely ignored that. He even claims that he was empowered, by the GBC, to be judge, jury and everything.
You also left out the following:
9. Please study the CPT report carefully and if you feel it necessary, offer some comments and/or recommendations as to its strong and weak points, and those of the Child Abuse Protection procedures at the school in general. Does the absence of questions such as these [7 and 8] raise further questions about the CPT report, the member's competency [or lack of a broad view], and the procedure it self?
We added Jaya Sila Prabhu as a member of the CPT. We concluded that the report was done in haste by two Matajis who were "too busy with secretarial work".
These Matajis express full faith in Gauri, so they didn't really check everything very thoroughtly.
We, Panca Gauda, Jaya Sila and myself, felt that there should be more members who are not on the school staff. That will be discussed later as we have to find someone who is willing and qualified.
Hoping this meets you in the best of helth
Your servant,
Kavichandra Swami
PS Did any one get the letter I wrote to Gauri das, which was sent to all of you? Plese let me know.
