History of cow abuse:proposals

[Guest guest]

It was with terrible sadness that we read HKD's report on cow abuse; it

was all

heartbreaking but especially the calves being left out to freeze to death.

All for milk. It

makes me sick. Some of "us" must be the ,most cruel, hypocritical people

onthe

planet. Even the beef farmers are disgusted with us. As one beef farmer

toldthe

devotees at New Govardhana after their umpteenth cow had died in disgraceful

neglect

from starvation and disease, he said "I may kill my cows but at least I look

after them

while they're alive" Gopinatha Acarya knows the details of this tragedy, he

was upthere at the time if you want another sickening report.Prabhu, I can

think

of only one

solution. I considered the last part of your report, how you stood up for

the GBC and

they failed you.I have said this before and I say it again: PLEASE! push the

responsibility into the hands of the local devotees. How to do so is

summarized in 7

proposals for consideration at Mayapur GBC meetings. We are currently

disempowered regarding cow-care, either through lack of knowledge of its

importance, or not feeling it to be our responsibility, or as in my case,

not beingallowed to do it. These proposals if passed, will give us at least

the

official power to doit, and the knowledge of its importance.

PROPOSALS: 1. That each ISKCON farm be

responsible to educate all its members as to the importance of cow

protection to Krsna

Consciousness and the serious consequences to spiritual dev't of

neglecting/abusing the

mother and father. The quotes amply given in SP's books, compiled into a

book (titlede.g. 'Krsna is Gopal: Philosophy and standards of Cow Protection

in

ISKCON'), should

be supplied to ISKCON farms for its members, with funding provided for this

purpose.

2. That each ISKCON farm call for volunteers to form a body for cow-care,

no prior training necessary, for the purpose of counting the herd regularly

and beresponsible to study the standards, and for reporting disappearances

or

failures toimplement standards. This body will, of necessity, be separate

from

management,especially on farms where there is allegedly neglect by

management.

3. Where a farm is

not implementing standards or where cows have disappeared, then

themanagement

can either be responsible to locate missing cows or implement standards, or

delegatethat responsibility to someone else. If both of these fail to happen

as

observed by the

volunteer body, then the responsibility to do so rests with the body itself.

4.That noone should use his position of authority to stop the activities of

the

volunteer body to

implement necessary cow-care where it is lacking, as required by the

standards, unlesshe be willing and ready to implement that cow-care himself.

5. On all farms, even those

with excellent records, still a volunteer body be formed so that an overall

picture is

attained, and future possible neglect avoided. Naturally, with responsible,

trusted

managers the observation need not be as frequent but no less than once in 2

months isrecommended.

6. Where volunteers are lacking, such as in small communities, the

volunteer body may be only one person. If, however, none come forward and

there is

still evidence for neglect, then the GBC member is personally responsible to

look intothe situation and preach to the local devotees as to the serious

consequences of cow

abuse and neglect, and personally request them to form a volunteer body for

the sake

of giving proper protection to them and avoiding neglect.(I know this is

nota

guarantee, but it comes pretty close. Many of these GBC's are gurus. If they

back uptheir requests with sastra, who can refuse?)

7. That where a volunteer body is requiring

assistance for cow-care, such as costs of vet. assistance, medicine,

shelters etc., that

these be made available from Adopt-a-cow funds, milk sales, or other income

generated by cow protection where at all possible, or if not, money raised

by such

similar means.Similarly, whenever there is breeding, beyond that needed for

self-sufficiency, then money from the milk sales should go into a Trust

account for

more purchase of land for feeding offspring, or for looking after them.

Who will do it if

we, the local devotees don't? Even on the best of farms, the management

hasto be

checked on by a volunteer body of concerned cow-carers. They are like the

brahmanas

who ensure the welfare of the cows... Where ksatriyas fail in their duties

to uphold

cow protection, due to profit-mindedness (passion) or

laziness(ignorance),the

brahmanas whose duty is maintenance (goodness) must assert their authorityas

in

proposal 3. This is completely vedic- VAD. Regarding the family farm

ideawith

families dependent on their cows and oxen, it is of course by far the best

solution for

the long term, but it will take massive change in our rural infrastructure,

which will

take years to work on if it works at all, or just gets wound up in tape

(red). In which

case, and in the meantime anyway families can go ahead with the farm

idea,they

should be encouraged to do so, that is the REAL meaning of cow protection.

But I am

thinking how to help the suffering, neglected cows in our communal

herds.These

proposals are for them and for the immediate future. I have thought and

thought, and I

cannot see any other immediate solution. Even if the GBC's write up their

quarterly

reports, -due to pressure it will be likely that they twist the truth by

accepting the

version of the farm manager that its all OK. Thats what our GBC did here,

though hedidn't write a report. Why? Because he was not a volunteer, he was

pressured.My

personal experience is that by taking part in cow-seva on a daily basis, one

develops a

natural LOVE for them. That is what will happen to volunteers- GUARANTEED*.

That LOVE will ensure no neglect will continue.However, love aside, it is

the GBC'sRESPONSIBILITY as given by Srila Prabhupada, TO ENSURE SPIRITUAL

STANDARDS ARE MAINTAINED IN THEIR ZONES. These include the standards

of cow protection. So in the absence of volunteers to ensure such standards,

that iswhen GBC responsibility should come in - to raise the standard.This

is

getting to the

heart of the problem or am I wrong? You can't legislate love, it

isVOLUNTARY,You

can, however, through correct legislation, create a situation of

enlightenment, from

which voluntary service to the cows results and from that love

develops.Hoping theseideas will prove to be helpful, ys, niscala

*you may say that the managers who

neglected the cows were doing cow seva, why they didn't develop love? But

management means, generally, profit-making. It is in the mode of passion,

and if thereis any love, it is conditional. Thus when the animal is no

longer

economically useful,

there is often neglect. By getting volunteers from outside the management,

only for the

purpose of cow-seva, like in a brahminical role, you avoid this problem.

you may also

say that the volunteers are also pressured somewhat by their GBC guru. Still

it isvoluntary and only for the purpose of seva, not profit. It will become

purified in time,

as a girl who serves her husband-to-be, only because she is told to, still

naturallydevelops love for him.

 

____

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com