Who is being villified?

February 21, 2002

Hare Krishna, Babhru prabhu. Thank you for your comment.

I think it is a different dynamic at play here than the one you

describe. I am the one who should feel villified, because I dare

disagree with certain individuals in the way they approach the

phenomenon of child-abuse in ISKCON.

There are people like Madhusudani Radha who come in here trying to

hype everyone up to jump on the bandwagon of child abuse - the mood

she is trying to create is 'now we are really going to get the child

molesters'. This technique is similar to the one in modern society

where they instigate so many causes for people to rally around:

politics, social welfare and so on, especially causes that can really

incite people - causes like child abuse. They use the innate instinct

of people to gather around a common cause to control and manipulate

them. Right now in Australia there is media hype about child abuse in

the Anglican Church that happened 40 years ago. It has the whole

nation absorbed in rapt fascination. I suggest the same thing is going

on here.

We are asked in texts with the subject 'are you in or out' and 'Focus

on the kids' to join the seemingly noble efforts of stopping child

abuse in general and in particular an orphanage in India. We are

supposed to help write petitions etc. and are poked and prodded until

we react.

The whole thing started when Braja suggested we 'maintain some

perspective' - hardly an unreasonable suggestion. My own thoughts on

the matter are that nowhere in the tenets of ISKCON is it said that

one of the purposes is to stop child abuse. The purpose of ISKCON is

to spread love of Krishna. Love of Krishna is not shown by how much

one is dedicated to stop child abuse. It is shown in the way one

adheres to hearing and chanting etc. It is actually shown in the way

we perform our sadhana and how much faith we have in it.

Madhusudani Radha has degraded the discussion into whether or not you

approve of child abuse. If you don't want to get hyped up for her

cause - in this case child abuse because it is a hot topic - and

suggest, as I have been trying to all along, that we have to see child

abuse in a broader perspective, she yells foul. She deems that because

we don't want to join her righteous crusade against the monstrosity of

child abuse we are hard hearted and without compassion.

We are not, as devotees, required to become hysterical and think we

have solved anything by creating whipping boys and scape goats. That's

for the karmis. We are supposed to know better. Yet this is exactly

what is going on in this conference. Why do I have to to constantly

explain and defend myself, in a devotee conference, as if I am against

the proper protection of children? How can anyone here think that I am

against child protection? Who is so sick that he is against child

protection, or who is so sick that he doesn't care about what went on

in our guru-kulas? I resent strongly that I should have to explain

that I am not against child protection again and again just because I

have suggested a more philosophical approach.

What have I said to give anybody the idea that I don't care about

protecting the children? I have suggested that in caring for the

children, the focus should not be on them as victims of molestation

but as spirit souls.

Madhusudani Radha has claimed that it is 'monstrous' to speak to 'the

abused' in that way, to speak to them of philosophy, to discuss karma

and Krishna's mercy. Yet what is the alternative? To constantly refer

to them as hurt victims - not to address them as spirit souls? How

will it benefit an abused person to only address the superficial

causes of his abuse? How will that not just reinforce their identity

as the body they now inhabit?

Why should the focus be on dealing with someone as an 'abused child',

instead of as an individual, who is trapped in a material body and

mind? It is completely against our philosophy, to judge someone and

speak to someone as though they are their body. What is it that you

are defending here?

Extrapolating from a person's input the one element that will

discredit them is a very cheap tactic, yet this seems to be the mood.

Turning one's objection to a subject matter becoming emotional into an

objection against the prevention of child abuse is fanatical, at best,

but the real objection is discarded and one's input is denigrated to a

'monstrous' approach. Support of such denigration is sentimental and

ill-informed. No response was forthcoming at Madhusudani Radha's texts

about Braja. So I think your response is perhaps a little skewed.

I said to Raghu, that I refused to join their crusade on account of

that I didn't see the point, frankly, to focus on an orphanage in

South India when in fact a child is being molested every second on

this planet. I think that is a legitimate objection which is in

accordance with Srila Prabhupada's teachings. Srila Prabhupada clearly

spoke out strongly against temporary, material welfare work. But when

I refuse to hecome part of the hype and hysteria that is being whipped

up by these individuals I become villified as a cruel and insensitive

person.

Mahanidhi takes one little single thing I said to Raghu in irritation

after he told me, 'Don't speak about the abuse that is going every

second. Better you say nothing and go away', out of everything I have

said, he takes the most harsh and around that he tries to construct

the case that I am actively going out of my way to stop the

well-meaning devotees who are trying their best to stop child abuse.

How foolish does he want appear?

And who is Raghu to tell me to go away just because I refuse to join

his crusade and dare suggest that I think their concern is narrow

minded? I actually find it incredibly narrow minded to see child abuse

as merely something that can be stopped by letter writing and

petitions. I find that approach a blatant disregard for Srila

Prabhupada's teachings. I don't denounce that designated devotees work

full time in child protection programs. These are already in place in

ISKCON. It is already being taken care of. I take the right to not

become involved in some hysterical campaign, that I cannot see as

anything else but some 'devotees' personal, self-righteous desire for

name, fame and distinction.

Once Madhusudani Radha asked me to start a conference on COM for

homosexual devotees. I refused, not because I think there should be no

forum for homosexual devotees, but because I don't see it as my task

to instigate discussions on homosexuality, exactly the same way as I

don't think it is my job to go after an orphanage in India.

I don't mind that some devotees get together and write petitions to

stop specific child abuse, but why should I be villified when I refuse

to join the campaign on the grounds that I find it a distraction from

Srila Prabhupada's teachings? I resent that, and I am not going to

back down, no matter how many sentimentalists join the villification.

Whilst I can appreciate and understand your suggestion to take one's

'personal problems' to a private forum and deal with them there, it is

actually no solution when in private letters these same people are

threatening to expose me as a child abuser myself. Being open and

making this public is the only way to stop such ridiculous threats.

One person wrote to me and stated that I was a womaniser and a drug

addict, and as a result I had abandoned my wife and children, who are

supposedly, at this very moment, being clothed and fed by caring

members of a community, who wander around 'half dressed and hungry'

because their father ran off with another woman and their mother is

busy trying to support herself. When I spoke to my ex-wife yesterday,

Labangalatika devi dasi, she laughed at such a preposterous

suggestion, and said she was not alarmed by someone's low class and

low minded determination to denigrate her simply in their attempt to

win an argument and prove themselves right in the eyes of a few fools.

In closing, let it be quite clear that I do not reject your desire for

a more level content on this conference. I do, however, reject the

sole responsibility for what you call 'offensiveness', as does my

wife. Speaking out against the popular, emotional, sentimental - and

politically correct - views will always be the least attractive

course, but be that as it may, it is a necessary thing. Neither of us

are perfect in our presentation, and there is a tendency to be harsh

on my part, so if you have been offended by this I apologize. But I

will not apologize for trying to uphold what I think is the only

correct way of viewing child abuse, according to Srila Prabhupada's

teachings. I refuse to be intimidated by this modern notion that is

prevalent on some forums that Krishna conscious philosophy is a cruel

approach and will only disturb those 'poor victims' even further, and

that one who takes that path is 'heartless' and 'monstrous' in his

approach to child abuse.

Your servant

Jahnu das

February 23, 2002

In a message dated 2/21/02 8:39:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, Jahnu (AT) pamho (DOT) net

writes:

<< Speaking out against the popular, emotional, sentimental - and