"Murder!", She Wrote...
BY: JANMASTAMI DAS
Aug 26, 2010 — WEST VIRGINIA, USA (SUN) — Bizarre response of the week award went to the ubiquitous female sanyassin from New Vrindaban, Malati Swami dasi for this entry:
Response to Krishna Chandra
by Malati dasi
Posted August 24, 2010
"In a statement by Krishna Chandra Click Here, 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."
In her apparent attempt to vindicate the GBC from the sins of the VEB, she inadvertently reveals any number of implied premises and conclusions. Reading the law was obviously not a first career choice. Still, we are told these things:
1. The illustrious GBC, led by the lionhearted spokesperson for the Executive Committee, Hrday Caitanya, have engaged Malati Swami dasi to speak on their behalf, by issuing this statement for them, oh great leaders that they are.
2. The GBC, through their spokeswoman, have admitted that they knew the VEB policy decision that had been used, that is the threat of reprisals against Aindra was in place to pressure him not to release his book, which they deemed financially "threatening".
3. They further admit that they too subscribe to using the VEB methods of dealing with intellectual dissidents by the frank admission, "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". Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other, so turning the matter over to the VEB, WHEN YOU ALREADY KNOW THEIR DECISION, is tantamount to hiding behind anagram semantics, by "doing the deed" themselves, just not having to admit that they arranged it. What to speak of the interlocking directorate of members of both bodies.
4. Logic is not the strong suit of those that propose these two statements as equivalent:
"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."
and:
"The GBC deferred the matter to local management, deeming the matter a local issue and had no further participation."
5. By having their spokeswoman Malati Swami dasi misrepresent their position as she has done by her necessarily contradictory statements ("...is deemed to be necessary, we'll respond to it later."; "deeming the matter a local issue and had no further participation"), the GBC Executive Committee, those so desperately seeking a head ("The GBC has concluded that to best serve ISKCON, it needs to strengthen its executive strategies by establishing an Executive Director, who will serve the GBC by ensuring that GBC members fulfill the fundamental assignments Srila Prabhupada gave them,") have created a need to respond yet again to what could have been addressed better first hand, rather than through a "spokeswoman". Just as one uses lawyers to avoid incriminating themselves, and not unlike the politicians who are always so busy they need a spokesperson, the impersonal approach is not very emblematic of the type of leadership the Executive Committee needs (see GBC employment announcements).
6. There is complete agreement that both the GBC EC and the VEB were aware and concerned about the release of certain information that was reported to be in Aindra's book.
7. There is complete agreement that Gopal Krsna, who is a GBC, exercised some of his authority to stop the information that a "dissident" was saying and to think that this was the end of the matter would be to deny the admission that both the GBC EC and VEB were aware and monitoring and, in Gopal's case for sure, "limiting" Andra's right to speak the truth.
8. "The GBC were not in any way involved" other than that:
a. They presented a statement through Hrday Caitanya;
b. They had their member Gopal Krsna physically restrain Aindra from speaking in the temple;
c. "The GBC-EC expressed to the VEB ... opinion ... of the book; and
d. "Soon after, during the VEB meetings, Aindra prabhu was requested (by the VEB) not publish his book, otherwise there would be some restrictions put on him.
We thank Malati for all this information, and remind the GBC EC, when using liars to cover your tracks, it's always better to use "the good ones". You get what you pay for there.
