Florida CSA dairy farm - A second look at Goshallas

[Guest guest]

billy bob buckwheat wrote:

 

> My GOD, Hare Krsna D., You have it down exactly how it is...........

> like a science.. You have the exact picture... and explain it paitiently

> well..

> Thank you........................................

>

> YS, Derek-

>

> ps, I wasn't getting paid at Gita Nagari, I just wanted more help...Real

> help. and a little personal facility.. You have all the right statments, I

> guess thats why you wrote the book.......

 

Actually, Derek prabhu, I wrote basically the same article (presented below)

that I presented here 8 years ago for the April 1994 issue of Hare Krsna Rural

Life. The problem is not bad cowherds, it's a poorly thought-out system.

Those

who know me well know that it is a source of constant heart-break to me to see

wonderful idealistic cowherds come in year-after year -- only to leave because

their needs for training, spiritual association, and family security have not

been met.

 

Re-reading my old article, I note that it refers to the Florida farm. That's

interesting. It's hard to put together the right program without a trained

ksatriya, but I have to say that of the devotees I've met, I think Pancaratna

Prabhu does have many qualities of a compassionate ksatriya -- so perhaps he

will be able to make necessary adjustments to have a successful program, if he

is able to learn from our mistakes of the past.

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

 

 

A Second Look at Gosalas Hare Krsna Rural Life - April 1994

 

by Hare Krsna dasi

 

 

Of all the mistakes we've made in our struggle to build self-sufficient Krsna

conscious communities, two stand out beyond the rest: our failure to establish

farm families securely on their own land, and our institution of the

centralized

gosala. These two mistakes are followed closely by our failure to give

devotees

adequate training and facility to maintain themselves by doing their devotional

service in the context of self-sufficiency (see Chaya and Balabhadra's article

in this issue). In fact, all these problems are related, but our focus in this

article will be the pitfalls associated with the institution of a centralized

gosala.

 

If ever there was an institution which was just like nectar drink in the

beginning and just like bitter poison in the end, the centralized gosala is it.

For the community that has made this arrangement, the beginning years are

characterized by abundant milk products to offer the Deity, to serve as

prasadam

to guests, and possibly to sell -- maybe there are even oxen working.

 

But, ten years down the road, we see in that same community a large herd of

mostly unproductive animals (few, if any of the oxen are working), run-down

facilities, and just a few or even one overworked devotee madly struggling to

provide funding, food and minimum care for the communally owned animals. Often

as not, we see a community divided into cowherds vs. "others." Clearly, when

Krsna recommends krsi-go-raksya (Bhagavad-gita 18.44) this not what He means.

What's wrong?

 

No One's Responsibility

The first problem is that when animals are communally owned, they are

ultimately no one's responsibility. Thus, as Jagadish Maharaja (ISKCON's

monitor for self-sufficient communities) and others have noted, often a

situation evolves in which one person supervising the program breeds a lot of

animals and in a few years decides to switch to another service. He is

replaced

by another devotee who keeps breeding more animals, perhaps even beyond what

can

be supported by the land. Under his management, the gosala program begins

buying feed from outside.

 

Whereas in the early days of the program, oxen were producing both food crops

and feed crops, as time passes the work load has increased so much that there

is

little time to farm with the oxen -- just use a tractor and get it done somehow

becomes the mentality. The overworked manager becomes "fried" and quits. The

typical scenario is that he has less and less time to chant his rounds or

attend

the temple program, thus he begins to lose his enthusiasm. Right at the time

when he needs added support and appreciation from his Godbrothers and the

community, he gets added criticism for not keeping up his devotional practice.

 

The Falldown of the Herdsman

This begins a vicious cycle driving him further and further from association

with the devotees. The culmination comes when he finds sympathy and support

from a beautiful young woman (Maya's time-proven method for finishing the kill

in these cases). This leads to complete falldown and he is driven from the

temple with hoots of outrage.

 

What happens to his wife and children? What happens to the community? What

happens to him? What happens to the cows?

 

For the humans, there are a variety of different possible tragedies and

heartbreaks. For the cows, there is a disruption in care until the next person

is found who can be talked into managing the gosala program. Sometimes the new

manager knows how to take care of cows, sometimes he doesn't. In either case,

he's never coming into a good situation. The whole program has degenerated as

the previous manager was slowly dragged into Maya. If the new manager is

inexperienced or a lazy, a whole new disaster ensues.

 

Recent History of Gosalas

We tend to assume that the centralized communal gosala is an ancient Indian

institution, but in fact no such institution is mentioned in Krsna Book or in

Krsna's pastimes in the Srimad Bhagavatam. Rather it appears that such an

institution has become increasingly popular in India with the rise of

industrialization and urbanization.

 

In the twentieth century, Gandhi became a major proponent of centralized cow

care (along with centralized leather tanneries). In an essay titled,

"Individual or Collective?" written in 1942, Gandhi makes his case: "With the

increase in our population, land holdings of the average farmer are daily

decreasing. Moreover what the individual possesses is often fragmentary. For

such farmers to keep cattle in their homes is a suicidal policy; and yet this

is

their condition today."

 

He goes on to state, "Common grazing ground or land for exercising the animals

will be easily available under the co-operative system, whereas today generally

there is nothing of the kind for individual farmers. The expense on fodder

will

be comparatively far less under the collective system."

 

By the time Gandhi was speaking, the pinjrapol or "home for decrepit cattle"

was a common institution in Indian cities where retired animals were maintained

by charity.

 

ISKCON's Experience

Although Gandhi asserts that cows will be better taken care of under the

communal system, our experience on ISKCON farms does not support that theory.

First of all, the fact is no one is ultimately responsible for the animals.

Second, this often means a frequent change of management, disrupting the care

of

the cows.

Third, the fact that no one is responsible often leads to overbreeding of

cows,

beyond the carrying capacity of the land. That means that donor programs must

be organized to buy feed for the cows. Rather exemplifying self-sufficiency,

such a program undermines our preaching because it presents cow protection to

the public as some kind of unproductive perpetual begging program.

 

Fourth, the centralized gosala works against the stability of a farm family.

How can a father be involved in a gosala? There is no means of long-term

support or engagement for his family, and he loses the independence for

developing a project which is so healthy to a vaisya's feeling of making a

meaningful contribution to his community. The large-scale nature of the

project

often discourages the participation of wife and children.

 

Fifth, centralization means that a comparatively few members of the community

are involved in cow protection. In the scope of varnasrama, taking care of the

cows is an exceptionally purifying activity since cows are in the mode of

goodness. By the pious activity of taking care of cows, a vaisya naturally

makes spiritual progress, as Lord Caitanya explained to the astrologer. So

having only a small percentage of a community caring for cows should not be a

goal. Certainly Krsna's Vrndavana was the opposite of that: practically

everyone -- men, women and children -- was involved in caring for the cows.

 

Sixth, as Jagadish Maharaja elaborately explains in his report to the GBC,

presented elsewhere in this issue of HKRL, communal care tends to result in

increasingly less productive engagement of the animals. As time goes by with a

centralized gosala fewer cows are milked and fewer bulls are worked.

 

Seventh, one of the most serious, though subtle, problems of the centralized

gosala which is maintained by charity is that it distorts the integrity of a

community's economy. Whether only for retirement cows or all cows, there is a

tendency to breed more and more animals with the confidence that at least the

older ones will be taken care of by someone else. The true economic picture of

exactly what is going on becomes obscured by haze, while the actual economic

burden is shifted from the farmer to the larger community by a subsidized

gosala.

 

Eighth, in terms of cow care, centralization and impersonalism go

hand-in-hand. The larger and more centralized the herd, the less individual

attention and affection the cows get. Cows and bulls are naturally very

affectionate and sociable with humans and so they are especially loved by

Krsna. But under a centralized system they get less and less attention,

especially as they grow old and unproductive. It's not emotionally healthy for

the cow or cowherd to have to cut back on the relationship that develops

through

the animal's productive years. Where's the loyalty to a faithful servant? Thus,

we never read of any "retirement" gosalas in Krsna Book.

 

How Did Krsna Do It?

It's instructive to read Krsna's pastimes watching for the practical

application of cow care. It appears that animals were not owned communally but

instead by individual families. However, they were communally grazed by taking

them to a new pasture everyday -- Krsna's rotational grazing program. The

following passages indicate that cows were owned by individual families:

 

One day all the boys, including Krsna and Balarama, each boy taking his own

group of calves, brought the calves to a reservoir of water, desiring to allow

them to drink.

S.B. 10.11.46

 

Then Krsna and the boys, keeping their respective groups of calves before them,

proceeded from Vrajabhumi to the forest.

S.B. 10.12.1

O Maharaja Pariksit, Krsna, who had divided Himself as different calves and

also

as different cowherd boys, entered different cow sheds as the calves and then

different homes as different boys.

S.B. 10.13.21

 

Krsna had many, many friends, of whom Sridama, Sudama and Subala were

prominent.

Thus Krsna Himself became Sridama, Sudama and Subala and entered their

respective houses with their respective calves.

S.B. 10.13.21 Purport

 

Thereafter, all the cows entered their different sheds and began mooing loudly,

calling for their respective calves.

S.B. 10.13.24

 

Cow Protection Starts with Vaisya Protection

To create a better arrangement for cow protection, we have to clearly

understand the specifics of Prabhupada's instructions on the matter.

Surprisingly enough, a self-sufficient system of cow protection does not come

from raising money for cow protection. Think of two other groups protected in

traditional Vedic society.

 

Children aren't protected by a "children's protection fund." They are

protected by their mothers and fathers. Women aren't protected by a "women's

protection fund." They are protected by their husbands. But the husband can

only protect them if he has a job to earn a living for them. Thus, society

begins to protect women and children by providing suitable employment for men.

Lacking that, there is little protection.

 

Similarly, cows are best protected by facilitating farmers to do their

service. "The ksatriyas would take charge of protecting the people in general,

and under the protection of the ksatriyas, the vaisyas would protect the cows,

produce food grains and distribute them." (Srimad Bhagavatam 4.17.9 purport)

 

Rejecting the communal model of farming, some communities are now encouraging

devotees to buy their own land. This can be a valuable transitional step

towards the Vedic model, but we have to remember what the ultimate Vedic model

is: vaisyas don't buy land, the ksatriya gives it to them "for cultivation,

not

for ownership" as Prabhupada explains in his letter to Balavanta (28 April 74).

 

There may be examples I don't know about, but as far as I can see in ISKCON,

whenever a devotee goes through the several years of hard work it takes to buy

land, cows are rarely included in the final plan. Of all the devotee couples I

know, only Balabhadra and Mother Chaya have actually worked oxen on land they

were personally paying for. I think their determination is quite exceptional.

After working to buy land, it appears that the average devotee doesn't have any

energy left to practice the full range of cow protection -- which includes

working the oxen.

 

This is why it is so important that the administrative class be nicely

developed with proper training and encouragement in a friendly bhakti-karya

relationship with brahmanas (see S.B. 3.21.56 and 3.22.4-5 purports). Then they

can provide adequate protection to vaisyas by providing them facility to

develop

in their devotional service of agriculture and cow protection.

 

Obviously, this calls for an administrator who is quite mature in devotional

service and who gets his pleasure more from cultivating a productive Krsna

conscious community rather than from criticizing and whimsically imposing his

authority on others. Lacking a leader who completely possesses all the

qualities described in the Bhagavad-gita (18.43) including determination,

resourcefulness and generosity, probably the private ownership scheme is the

best interim policy available.

 

But, where there is such a qualified ksatriya who has a firm relationship with

a qualified brahmana, for him to attempt to get land for his community of

devotees is proper. For a broadminded and compassionate devotee administrator

to get land by charity for this purpose is also proper. I can give the example

of Akhandadi prabhu the president of the Bhaktivedanta Manor. In an interview

with Suresvara prabhu of the GBC Farm Research Committee, he revealed that he

is

working hard to get land for a rural community because he feels pain for his

grhasta members. Their peaceful spiritual progress is being challenged by

inadequate facilities to do meaningful devotional service to provide their

livelihood. To relieve this situation, he is working hard to secure charitable

donations to pay for land for a rural community.

 

Instead of requesting charity to support cows, he is essentially requesting

charity to enable cowherds (and other community members) to become established

in a community. Thus the cows will be automatically protected. Instead of

growing into a perpetual donation plan, such a program is laudable because its

aim is self-sufficiency, "Right now, we are asking you for such-and-such

donation, but this is simply start-up capital. Once we are situated on our

land, we won't require anything more of you. In fact, we can take care of you

if the artificial economy collapses." It is an example of a ksatriya's

resourcefulness, that by whatever means is required, he will obtain necessary

land so that his subjects have ample opportunity to engage in meaningful

occupational duties in Krsna consciousness.

 

It's worth noting that the total carrying capacity of the land still has to be

considered, whether cows are cared for in a communal gosala or by individual

families. Individual families cannot breed unlimitedly any more than a

communal

gosala can. To this end, perhaps a fixed number of breeding permits could be

distributed to different families each year so that the total community herd

develops evenly and fairly over time. Or some other arrangement can be worked

out.

 

In any case, the best cow protection will come when we protect, train and

facilitate our vaisyas, rather than trying to protect cows through direct

funding. Serve Krsna by serving His devotees, serve Krsna's cows by serving

their servants. But, in the meantime, what do we do about the centralized

gosalas we already have?

 

Helping Gosalas Make the Transition

Obviously, the gosalas we have now can't be simply abandoned. We owe a great

debt to them. Through our mistakes and successes in the gosalas, we've

received

most of our practical training in cow protection. There is no doubt they have

helped devotees make spiritual advancement, and they have been valuable bases

for preaching Krsna consciousness. Most of my best friends and the devotees I

admire most in Krsna consciousness have worked hard to sustain our gosalas in

one capacity or another.

 

Nevertheless, several of these same devotees have encouraged me to write this

article. Overwhelmingly, devotees who work in these programs are not attached

to maintaining the specific institution of a centralized gosala, they are

attached to trying to take care of Krsna's cows as nicely as possible. And to

do that, they often see family care of cows as a preferable option, but they

wonder how to make that transition.

 

As far as I can see, the best model for shifting from centralized gosala to

individual family care of cows is the arrangement developed by Mother Kamra at

Save the Cow at New Ramana Reti in Florida. Under that program, as much as

possible, individual families in the community were encouraged to take care of

animals on their own land -- with Save the Cow providing help with initial

costs

such as good fencing.

 

That program is being continued under the direction of Govardhana prabhu, and

he has a very positive attitude about its success. "This is a very nice

program

for giving families the benefit of being directly involved in cow protection.

Often it's easiest for them to take care of retired cows or oxen. I always

like

to give at least two animals to each family that wants to participate. Cows

are

very sociable and are happiest if they have another cow to keep them company in

the pasture."

 

Both the cows and the devotees can benefit from an arrangement like this, as

you can see in the nice article by Mother Jagadisvari in this issue. On one

hand, we have a great moral responsibility to maintain the animals in our

centralized gosalas. On the other hand, families with a willing community

spirit can help make the shift to private cow ownership smooth and beneficial.

As we shift to a system that is more like the one practiced by Krsna Himself,

the natural benefits of cow protection will become increasingly manifest.