Excess land - can it be true

[Guest guest]

Dear Syamasundara Prabhu,

 

Please accept my humble obeisances. All gloies to Srila Prabhupada!

 

-

COM: Syamasundara (das) (Bhaktivedanta Manor - UK)

Excess land - can it be true

 

 

> [Text 2802151 from COM]

>

> Dear Balabhadra Prabhu

> It is remarkeable reading to see that a number of devotees have expressed

> frustratioon at not being able to farm land, and on the other side we hear

> there is excess land.

>

> Firstly is it true that there are tracts of spare land within our ISKCON

> communities and if so where exactly are they.

 

Here at New Vrndavana there was approximately 2000 acers (Madhava Gosh knows

more exactly). Much of this land is being sold to devotees. We have

agricultural areas that are only to be sold to those devotees who have some

experience, desire to work the land. The land is inexpensive due to the

local market, but even so there are devotees whao can't afford to purchase.

 

As far as other locations, I do not have any solid facts. When I was at Gita

Nagari (10 years ago) there was land for sale to the devotees. I could not

afford it. I thnk there is still land there for sale? A little while ago, I

vaguely remember land deals being offerred at Murari as a way to get

devotees to live there. I think it was Niscala dasi who spoke of tracts of

land not being used. She is located in Australia. It would be great to get

the facts from contributions of various devotees in various locations.

>

> Could there not be a proposal by this conference in a similar way as the

> minimum standards were set up, to make policies, to make this land (if

inded

> there is such land) available to agriculturists.

 

I agree wiuth your statements: <this area of getting willing devotees on the

ground making livings is at the heart of reforming our cow protection and

agricultural projects.>

But it is not so simple. This is something I have been pushing since 10

years ago.

 

Several obstacles I came up against.

1) A clause in Srila Prabhupada's will that ISKCON land can not be

incumbered.This means that someone can not lease the land and then build a

house. However, ISKCON could build a house and lease the land.

2) Fear that the devotees will not abide to a contract of conduct and then

the ISKCON authorities will suffer the brunt of trying to enforce the

contract. This is greatly directed towards the children of the agricultural

devotee. Every householder wants some security for his/her children,

therefore they want their children to inherit their contract, not be kicked

off the property their parents worked so hard to develop. But, what if the

children don't want to be devotees not to mention work the land?

3) It is always expected that the agricultural devotee should have the same

standard of sadhana as the brahmana. It is often not the case. Most

agricultural devotees, if they are

actually working the land, are working the land all the daylight hours. In

the evening they are exteremely tired and in the early morning hours they

are doing chores. Regardless of how you cut it, it doesn't allow a schedule

where your day begins at 9 oclock in the moring and ends before 7 as it does

with most devotees who attend the temple programs. This I found to be a

conflict and I hope I haven't opened a can of worms by mentioning it. But

this different level of participation in the temple programs was used as one

reason to not give land to devotees who wanted to work it.

 

 

> Such land would have to be farmed according to strict ISKCON standards.

Some

> of those standards could be (acknowleding the minimum cow satndards):

> -All farm land worked by oxen

> -No machinery used that can be reasonably done by oxen

> -All land farmed organicaly

> -No herbicides nor pesticedes

> -10%(perhaps) of products/profits given to temple as land rent

 

Sounds like a good beginning.

>

> A family could go onto the land relatively easily with a policy like this.

> No need to buy the land. Housing or caravaning of course would be the

> responsibility of the farmer. Perhaps even the communities could give a

home

> for ox farmers as an incentive to get them onto the land and work the

oxen.

 

Housing is no simple problem. Usually a devotee whao can not afford his own

land cannot afford to build or buy housing. And then there is the clause in

Srila Parahupada's will.

>

> A good policy for the use of farmland with easy access would be a great

step

> forward for oxpower.

 

Totally agree.

>

> Would it be possible to have another proposal ready for the GBC by Gaura

> Purnima 2000?

 

They way we did the standards was that Madhava Gosh wrote the origianl one

pager. It was entered into the cow conference and we all worked on it.

Chayadevi kept records. We can do the same. Why don't you write something up

and submit it to the conference and we will all work on it and we will see

what we can all do together by Gaura Pounima 2000. That ia if everyone else

thinks this is a good idea also?

>

Your servant,

Balabhadra das

[Guest guest]

Dear Balabhadra Prabhu

Please accept my humble obesisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

Thankyou for presenting clearly the obstacles towards land access. Perhaps

we may need to be brave, perhaps we may need to propose something

controversial in order to make land more accesable to those without

independant financial assets.

 

It is relevant and probable that the children of a significant number of the

devotees will not follow the ISKCON standards of sadhana as that of their

parents. Perhaps then the land should be tied not simply by sadhana

requirements but by land use standards.

 

If a person gives up the main spiritual practices but is prepared to work

the land according to strict vaisnava agricultural principles using oxen

then this person should still be able to hold on to the use of ISKCON land.

If the land is not used fully or if the land is not worked by using oxen, or

not farmed according to organic and animal friendly priciples then the land

use could be revoked. The use of land could be tied legaly.

 

If a certain pocket of land had a home as well it would be a very attractive

proposal to any agriculturalist.

 

A farmer he works the land according to defined standards. He/She works the

land using oxen. He/She maintains 1 or 2 teams of oxen. They are supplied

with a home and as much land as they can work. Whatever produce there is

10-25% is given to the temple (or whatever) as a payment. If the farmers

children take over the land on his/her demise and are willing to carry on

the agricultural standards even though their own spritual standards may not

be of the highest, still they should be allowed to work the land and live in

the house. I think a policy that has these concepts will be very attractive

to a significant number of agriculturalists.

A policy like this will give value to the oxen and assist in their

practical use. If the farmer type of devotees cannot get on the land because

of strict policies then let us suggest a loosening of those policies in

order to attract and excite the farmers to take up ox-powered agriculture

with enthusiasm.

 

What value to the cows is selling land to land holders who do not wnat to

work the land.

 

food for thought

 

ys

Syamasundara dasa

Bhaktivedanta Manor

[Guest guest]

Balabhadra Prabhu was pointing out that there is fear from the management

that land leesed to the devotees may be used by the non-devotee or perhaps

not quite so much of a devotee children of the devotee family.

 

The management are selling land. This land then becomes out of the control

of the management. the children of the devotee families can do wht they want

with the land.

 

In effect the fear of land being used by not so strict person is as much

likely to happen by selling land as by leesing land.

 

The oxen need persons to work them, and withourt land how will it be

possible. So why don't the land owners leese the land to person who are

willing to farm the land according to cow protection principles. Yes some of

the next generation may not be as strict as their parents, but if the land

is being used in a way that forwards the principles and supports the cow

protection projects then there should be security of tenancy. As long as the

land is farmed in a certain way (to be defined clearly by this conference

and supported by the GBC) the land can be farmed by the devotees or their

children or perhaps others even.

 

The essential point is we make policies that make livelihoods dependant on

the ox, either self sufficiently or monetary based.

 

A policy of leesing land based on land use and cow protection, rather than

sadhana requirements, would bring about the most long term security for the

oxen. A need for working oxen automatically makes cow protection practical

and more financialy accessable.

 

ys

syamasundara dasa

Bhaktivedanta Manor