Truth or Politics?

[Guest guest]

It is easier to read this on the website because you can see who is quoting

more easily.

 

 

http://siddhanta.com/archives/culture/000211.html

 

 

Truth or Politics?

 

It's funny how homosexual rights and women's rights always seem to closely

follow each other. The latest news on ISKCON's culture is that my godbrother

and devotee scholar Giridhari Prabhu has been busy circulating an online

petition to prevent the passing of a resolution, proposed by Basu Ghosh

Prabhu, that the Women In ISKCON resolutions from the year 2000 "be

suspended pending a review and revision to correct the shortcomings . . .

before submission to the GBC body for a vote to reinstate it in an amended

form."

 

A few points of difference between what the petition says and what Basu Gosh

Prabhu's resolution says:

 

[Giridhari:] The GBC resolutions of 2000 regarding women reestablish the

standards that Srila Prabhupada himself set for the women in his movement.

[basu Ghosh:] Whereas the Women In ISKCON resolution of 2000 (Section 500:

Holy places and spiritual communities) contains language that is ambiguous

and misleading, suggesting that the GBC and the senior leaders of ISKCON

constitute the party responsible for the care and protection of women in

ISKCON, in contradiction to Srila Prabhupada's many statements explaining

that the male members within individual families, namely father, husband and

grown up sons, are specifically charged with that responsibility,

 

 

 

Those circulating the petition seem to think the resolutions were crystal

clear, that they unambiguously articulate the standards of care, protection

and service Srila Prabhupada wanted for women in ISKCON. But what do the

resolutions themselves say about those standards?

 

WHEREAS, the Women's Ministry presentation on March 1st, 2000 to the GBC

Body brought a clearer understanding of the mistakes of the past and the

need to provide equal and full opportunity for devotional service for all

devotees in ISKCON, regardless of gender, and

(GBC. "Women In ISKCON" March 2000., Mayapura, India)

 

 

 

Paradhyeya Prabhu to date has provided the most cogent analysis of these

resolutions. His comments are also reproduced here:

 

In the first paragraph it states "...to provide equal and full

opportunity..." There is only a fine line between "equal opportunity" as we

find it in the mundane world and what is written here. In subcommittee the

phrase, "equal opportunity," was objected to by several members and it was

removed from the other Women's Ministry resolution dealing with SB classes

and temple room space; but it reemerged in this resolution which never had a

chance to go to subcommittee and be examined, having been created as a

response to the women's presentation at the end of the meetings. So it has

no business being here. You could simply say "full opportunity"; it has the

same meaning without the ambiguity. You may reply that the GBCs are smart

enough to tell the difference between material and spiritual "equal

opportunity" and avoid any misinterpretation in the future, but I doubt it

very much if you look at all the other bloopers in this resolution.

(Paradhyeya Dasa (ACBSP) May 2000. Email)

 

 

 

Looks like these resolutions are not so crystal clear after all. Paradhyeya

Prabhu happened to sit in with the subcommittee that actually vetted these

resolutions for the GBC. His concern regarding ambiguous language seems

legitimate enough, and he is miffed that the ambiguity was preferred to the

more specific language the subcommittee recommended. Reinserting the

ambiguity couldn't have been a mistake, someone had to make the effort to do

it. But anyway, since were pondering the crystal clear meaning of the

language here, we can be certain of one thing: context is implied, not

explicit. Ambiguous words rely on context for meaning. What is the context?

The Women In ISKCON presentations delivered by the Women's Ministry, of

course. (". . . the Women's Ministry presentation on March 1st, 2000 to the

GBC Body brought a clearer understanding. . .") Let's import some of that

context and see if we get some clearer understanding.

 

Here, Prabhupada first explains the traditional, home-centred role for women

in the varnasrama system, and then explains how a female leader can best

remain in power - through her development in bhakti-yoga. So, as

conservative as one may consider Prabhupada's stance regarding women in the

varnasrama system, one will find Prabhupada's stance equally liberal

regarding women in bhakti-yoga.

(Vishakha devi dasi. "Women in ISKCON: Prabhupada's Ladies and Soul

Concerns" March 2000)

 

 

 

It looks like the word equal (equally) is all about what most people inside

and outside of ISKCON thinks it means when you put it in the middle of

women's issues: empowerment, equal occupational opportunity, etc. In this

particular case, leadership and remaining in power is on the agenda. Just so

that we aren't missing anything let's check some more with the other ladies

on the Women's Ministry.

 

Our Vaisnava society suffers when women are excluded from its public life,

from decision-making, management and formation of policy.

(Rukmini devi dasi. "Women In ISKCON: Presentation." March 2000)

 

Does 'full encouragement' mean that women have a right to participate in

managerial decision-making or to preach according to their ability rather

than their gender role?

 

(Unknown. "Women In ISKCON: Presentation. Conclusion" March 2000)

 

 

 

Yep. Decision-making, management, and public life, and I guess board-room

meetings--the whole shebang--are all on the agenda. Standards Srila

Prabhupada set for ISKCON power-women, right?

 

After describing the material energy, bhumir apo analo vayuh, earth, water,

air, fire, this material.... This is also female, prakrti. Female means....

In India we have got little experience. The female is always controlled.

Female is never given the position of controller. Nowadays it is going on.

Just like Indira Gandhi, she has given the position of controller. This is

artificial. In the history of India, greater India, Mahabharata, you will

never find that a woman has been given a position of controller. No. It is

not possible.

(Srila Prabhupada. Lecture on Bhagavad-gita 1.21-22 July 18,1973)

 

 

 

Uh oh. It's artificial. And he's also talking about Indira Gandhi. It

doesn't look like Srila Prabhupada established this as a standard after all.

A bit of ISKCON history is cogent at this point: There were no female temple

presidents up to the time Srila Prabhupada departed, nor were there any

women serving as members of the GBC.

 

Once Prabhupada admitted to me that Yamuna was so qualified that had she

been a man he would have appointed her to be G.B.C. Those who are concerned

that women should receive equal rights should not be alarmed in that regard.

The Vedic culture provides equal opportunities for all devotees to advance

in Krsna consciousness.

(Tamal Krishna Goswami. "Servant of a Servant" Chapter 9)

 

 

 

So much for standards. It could be an agenda, but to give the benefit of the

doubt to the GBC, let us just say they didn't look before they leaped.

That's why Basu Ghosh Prabhu's proposal of suspension and revision makes

good sense. There is reason to believe that the resolutions on the books are

supported by biased research, so temporarily suspending them until they are

corrected is a good policy.

 

Moving on:

 

WHEREAS, it is our belief that many of the social issues that confront us

are exacerbated because the voice of our women, who are the mothers and

daughters of our Krsna conscious family, have been hushed and stifled due to

misinterpretation of our Vaisnava philosophy, and thus the human and

interpersonal needs of our devotees have been minimized,

(GBC)

 

 

 

Paradhyeya Prabhu already mentioned "other bloopers", so what are the

bloopers here?

 

The third paragraph goes "...our women, who are the mothers and daughters of

our Krishna conscious family..." Here there is a glaring absence of any

mention of "wives" in this wording. You know, wives who actually have

husbands, those unknown devotees who provide for their women and children by

paying the rent and other bills, who put food on the table and all other

necessities of life, including spiritual leadership and guidance, and, dare

I say it, give "protection" to the women in ISKCON. You may say I'm

nit-picking here, but this is the beginning of a theme in this resolution

which will plant the seeds of adharma in ISKCON.

(Paradhyeya)

 

 

 

We're talking about family here, right? So who makes up a family? There is a

mother, a daughter, and a TP or guru or GBC. Where are the husbands? Let's

look for them in the Women's Ministry presentations:

 

In late 1974, not long after I had left my householder asrama, Srila

Prabhupada pronounced it 'good that you have left your husband', and

encouraged me to become a 'sannyasini'.

 

(Yamuna devi dasi. "Women In ISKCON" March 2000)

 

With no standing in the devotional community, women, especially those

abandoned by their husbands, become degraded and cannot protect their

children.

 

(Rukmini devi dasi. "Women In ISKCON" March 2000)

 

Women, especially women without husbands, children, second-generation

devotees, and soon-to-be elderly persons, are treated as second- and

third-class citizens in our society.

 

(Ibid.)

 

One vivid and unforgettable impression I have received while in the service

of Women's Minister came from a note scrawled at the end of a confidential

survey which read, 'in dedication to ... Dasi, a dear friend who has been

killed at the hands of her husband'.

 

(Sudharma devi dasi. "Women In ISKCON" March 2000)

 

 

 

OK, now we know what happened to the husbands. Those icky, icky men who you

could trust only as far as you could throw them just aren't fit for family

life. That's why they aren't mentioned in the resolutions at all. For that

matter, they aren't really mentioned in any positive sense in the Women's

Ministry presentations.

 

Now a little inside info from the male side of ISKCON. Many ISKCON men seek

marriages with Indian women, or women who are ethnically Indian from other

parts of the world. The unadvertised reason for it is they want a steady

family life. Marrying an Indian lady is not such a problem; there are lots

and lots of Indians on the planet. For Western ladies getting a husband,

however, this can cause a slight shortage of devotee men who are interested

in marrying them. And that can be a problem. Men, at least the ones worth

marrying, for the most part don't go for this women-good-men-bad rhetoric.

No one is going to argue this point with you. But as a result of this many

of the good men quietly go somewhere else. Ladies, unless you want to go

begging from the government (ISKCON or otherwise), you are only creating

problems for yourselves.

 

Moving on:

 

501 [statement] 1. the members of the Governing Body Commission of the

International Society for Krishna Consciousness offer their humble apologies

to the women of Srila Prabhupada's society who, because of our own

shortcomings and those of the Society, have suffered due to a lack of

protection, support, facility and appreciation for their service, devotion

and vast contributions to the Society, and

(GBC)

 

 

 

Ditto all of the above for the phrase "human and interpersonal needs of our

devotees have been minimised." Some women were abused in ISKCON in certain

temples in the USA, it is true, but what is the meaning of fulfilling these

human interpersonal needs of women in the absence of husband, father, or

son, or the grhasta-asrama (the natural domicile of women), which never gets

a single mention in this document? Nobody in the meetings ever actually

asked the question what were the root causes of all this abuse, so nobody is

trying to find the answer. Instead we are accepting phony platitudes with

deliberately ambiguous language as a remedy.

(Paradhyeya)

 

 

 

Good question, where does that protection come from sans husbands? Sure,

there may be exceptions, but I don't think the GBC document is referring to

exceptional cases. You don't need sweeping reforms to deal with exceptions.

It appears that the protection and care are supposed to come from ISKCON,

the institution itself. The Temple President and the GBC are to function as

surrogate husbands. Problem is this doesn't work. It's as Prabhupada said

about women having to go begging from the government.

 

But Paradhyeya Prabhu's own take on this part of the resolution misses the

forest for the trees. This is prima facie evidence that ISKCON bears

institutional responsibility for some abuse. There are plenty of disgruntled

women out there, and all that any one of them has to do now is print out

this resolution, hire a lawyer and say, "I'm glad you apologized for not

recognizing my vast contributions to your society, so how about giving me

back my vast contribution?" And vast literally means vast, as in vast

amounts of cash. It is a wonder that no woman has yet taken ISKCON to court

over this. If they did, you might see another case like the gurukuli abuse

suit.

 

Our GBC leaders are wonderful people, really. But why do they keep putting

the institution they are supposed to protect at such grave risk? They did

the same thing by publishing such apologies on ISKCON Communications

Journal, and the gurukulis said, "Thanks for the apology, see you in court."

 

Message to GBC: starting with this year, hire a team of lawyers to vet your

proposals before you vote on them.

 

Moving on:

 

2.[ACTION] All GBC Body members and other leaders shall hold istagosthis in

each of their respective temples to establish the priority of providing

equal facilities, full encouragement and genuine care and protection for the

women members of ISKCON. Also, separate meetings should be held with the

leaders and women of each temple to address the women's needs and concerns,

and

(GBC)

 

------------

 

Resolution #2 Action Order. The equality referred to in paragraph one merely

as a "need" now becomes an Action Order: "...to establish the priority of

providing equal facilities..." The phrase "sufficient or ample facility"

would have been just as good, but instead everybody voted for equality.

Equality for women and everything that it implies is now established as a

core principle in ISKCON--actually not only a core principle but a

"priority," i.e. the topmost principle. "Equal" or "equality," whichever you

want, is a magical word with literally mystic potency (and "equality"

actually turns into "superiority," as every husband knows) when put into the

possession of a woman. This equality is the twin sister of independence, and

as we will see later on in this resolution the independence of women to lead

themselves and protect themselves becomes established as an irrevocable fact

by the GBC. However, Srila Prabhupada warned that independence for a woman

means prostitution. Therefore the language of this resolution conveys

meanings and inferences which are wholly contrary to His Divine Grace's

teachings. Who on the GBC is listening to Srila Prabhupada when faced with

"equal" (read "superior") and independent women?

 

(Paradhyeya)

 

 

 

Now, why is Paradhyeya Prabhu so freaked out about this? Is he just being

paranoid at the prospect of loosing his male, chauvinist head-of-family

status? No, he's genuinely concerned about two things. Establishing

something against Srila Prabhupada's instructions and institutionalizing

irreligious behavior.

 

We have already seen that the Women's Ministry in their presentations have

been highly selective in presenting references that supported their agenda.

Later on Paradhyeya Prabhu mentions how Zonal Acharyaism was widely accepted

within ISKCON mainly because the leadership supported it. Most devotees

weren't too concerned with what Srila Prabhupada said, and it seems this has

not changed much--yad yad acarati srestas. Otherwise, why would Giridhari

Prabhu and others be circulating a petition that prefers dealing with these

concerns politically rather than rationally? Democracy does have a dark,

oppressive side, after all.... In any case, it is not settled that the Women

In ISKCON resolutions faithfully and accurately represent Srila Prabhupada's

social vision.

 

Paradhyeya Prabhu's second concern is about independence. But when women are

already independent, why bemoan the situation? Just live with it and chant

Hare Krishna, right? That was the problem Srila Prabhupada faced up to his

last days here. Chanting Hare Krishna has to be done in tandem with a pious

and sinless life. Those in favor of accommodating Western society in ISKCON

point out that we need to preach according to time, place and circumstances.

They argue that times have changed, so to be relevant we have to change with

it. They are only half right, however. The society, the economy, the

language, the culture, etc., have all changed, but the strength of sexual

attraction between men and women has not.

 

Western society exults sense gratification. Vedic society tries to restrict

sense gratification. Of all the sense gratificatory activities, association

with women is the biggest stumbling block to spiritual life. Because

spiritual life and restricting sense gratification are so important to Vedic

civilization, all other social and occupational roles are formed around

these principles.

 

So these regulative principles are there. So what is, what is the big plan

behind these regulative principles? The big plan is: here is the attraction,

pumsah striya mithuni-bhavam-to cut down this attraction between male and

female. This is the big plan. Otherwise there is no need of the varnasrama.

(Srila Prabhupada. Lecture, Srimad-Bhagavatam 5.5.8, Vrindavan Oct 30, 1976)

 

 

 

And this concern is formally expressed in Basu Ghosh Prabhu's proposal:

 

Whereas the resolution uses language affirming the principle of gender

equality or gender blindness which, from a study of Srila Prabhupada's

writings and statements can be construed to support the principle of women's

independence, and

(Basu Ghosh)

 

 

 

Paradhyeya Prabhu, Basu Ghosh Prabhu and others really don't want to see

ISKCON institutionalize social constructs that make it difficult for its

members to avoid sinful activity. These are some of the concerns expressed

in Basu Ghosh Prabhu's proposal, and I have also mentioned the legal risk

these resolutions have unnecessarily exposed ISKCON to. The bottom line is

that the March 2000 Women In ISKCON resolutions were hastily drafted and

done without a) critically reviewing the claims and points of view expressed

by the Women's Ministry, b) not considering the legal implications of the

resolutions, and c) not thinking through the social and spiritual

ramifications of these resolutions.

 

>From the proposed resolutions:

 

The GBC will now have the opportunity to take more time to consider the huge

implications of writing laws that affect the personal lives of all ISKCON

devotees.

It must be remembered that following the Women's Presentation at the 2000

GBC meeting there was absolutely no discussion whatsoever about the causes

and origins of women's abuse in ISKCON and the proper means to prevent it

from reoccurring. The resolution in question was the only tangible outcome

and was accepted blindly in a matter of minutes without proper examination.

 

(Basu Ghosh)

 

 

 

Oh, and at the beginning I mentioned how the push for women's rights and the

push for homosexual rights seem to go hand-in-hand, didn't I? I did. That's

also a reason for the proposed resolution.

 

2) b) All legal liability and obligations to women and to any group will be

controlled. This is particularly relevant to the growing question of

ISKCON's treatment of gays and lesbians who may seek to take advantage of

any apparent 'equal rights' laws in ISKCON's constitution.

(Basu Ghosh)