Guest guest Posted January 23, 2001 Report Share Posted January 23, 2001 Dear Hare Krsna dasi, PAMHO. AGTSP. > So, in general, it seems like it would be best throughout this article > if you refer to the Ministry of Cow Protection and Agriculture, rather > than to ISCOWP. The Ministry of Cow Protection and Agriculture has an > official relationship with the ISKCON's GBC -- whereas ISCOWP does not. > So, it seems important to maintain the distiction and not bring in any > confusing references. > > Chaya and Balabhadra, have I stated this correctly. Is there anything > you would want to add to this? Thank you. Simply didn't catch it. > I notice that neither Chakra nor VNN has posted the original notice from the Ministry of Agriculture, even though they were sent a copy. Is is possible that authorities in various spheres want to remain in denial about the grave situation of cow protection in the Hare Krsna movement?> Raktambara das has put the original message on the x conference which goes to all COM users-about 2000 persons. I'll send to Chakra and VNN again, but you may be right. Your servant, Chayadevi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2001 Report Share Posted January 23, 2001 "Lyall Ward (IC Resource Centre, UK)" wrote: > Dear Devotees > > Please accept my humble obeisances > All glories to Srila Prabhupada > > I decided to not to run the article just yet as it seemed a bit > unbablanced. Maybe I'm asking the wrong crowd, but if anyone has > anything to say as to why reports are not being made or if there > is any defense against claims of mistreatment I would be happy to > hear from you. > > I have asked the GBCs and TPs for New Gokula, Mayapur and > Vrindavana for their comments as well. > > The article will be going up by the end of the week. > > Please find the 'unbalanced' versio below. > > Your servant > Bhakta Lyall Bhakta Lyall Prabhu, Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. It's good to see you take the initiative to put this article together. The fact that the GBC has neglected to fulfill the duties ISKCON law assigns it has very serious implications since so many of them also act as spiritual masters or sannyasis. In many cases, by their failure to hold regular meetings with the cowherds and to file reports with the Ministry of Agriculture, as required of them by ISKCON law, they are putting the lives and safety of Krsna's cows at risk. Is there any way in which this would not diminish their spiritual potency? I believe this is a very serious question to consider. And, I think that it is a question which most do not want to consider. I notice that neither Chakra nor VNN has posted the original notice from the Ministry of Agriculture, even though they were sent a copy. Is is possible that authorities in various spheres want to remain in denial about the grave situation of cow protection in the Hare Krsna movement? On a technical note, if you do publish this letter, it seems to me that it would be best to delete any mention of ISCOWP (International Society for Cow Protection -- also it's never spelled ISKCOWP) or if you do mention it at all, you should note that it is a distinct entity from the Ministry of Cow Protection and Agriculture. The Ministry of Cow Protection and Agriculture is an ISKCON Ministry run by Balabhadra Prabhu, with assistance from his wife Chaya Devi. As a separate endeavor, as their own private offering to Srila Prabhupada, Chaya and Balabhadra also maintain their own cow protection organization called "ISCOWP." The funds that support ISCOWP are not provided by ISKCON, and in the event of any lawsuit, it needs to remain clear that ISCOWP funds do not in any way belong to ISKCON. On one hand, ISCOWP maintains ISKCON's Minimum Cow Protections Standards (which they had the chief hand in helping to formulate) on the ISCOWP website -- but that is as more of a public service, since even non-devotees can benefit from the guidelines in these standards. So, in general, it seems like it would be best throughout this article if you refer to the Ministry of Cow Protection and Agriculture, rather than to ISCOWP. The Ministry of Cow Protection and Agriculture has an official relationship with the ISKCON's GBC -- whereas ISCOWP does not. So, it seems important to maintain the distiction and not bring in any confusing references. Chaya and Balabhadra, have I stated this correctly. Is there anything you would want to add to this? your servant, Hare Krsna dasi > > > GBC failing to ensure cow protection resolutions fulfilled > By Lyall Ward > 22 January 2001 > > Cow abuse. To most in the west it might sound like a joke and > even within ISKCON many might be tempted to ignore the problem in > the face of issues such as child-abuse and the treatment of > women. However Srila Prabhupada often pointed to a direct link > between cow slaughter and the problems facing modern society. In > theory, ISKCON's governing body, the GBC, treats this issue > seriously, having put in place a set of minimum cow protection > standards in 1999. In practice it seems, according to the ISKCON > Ministry for Cow Protection and Agriculture (ISKCOWP), that the > GBC are not fulfilling their responsibility to ensure these > standards are maintained. > > At the 1999 GBC meetings resolution 507 was passed outlining > standards for cow protection within ISKCON, based on the > principle that cows are domestic animals depending fully on > humans for their protection. (Visit ISKCOWP's website to learn > more about these standards) Essential to the maintenance of these > standards is the responsibility of each GBC to either visit > personally or to delegate a representative to visit each centre > or project that has cows in its care and ensure standards are > upheld and that regular reports are forwarded to ISKCOWP. > According to ISKCOWP's Balabhadra Dasa, the GBC has been > 'overwhelmingly negligent' on this score. According to his > figures, by now two hundred reports should have been received > from approximately fifty farms. Only 28 have been received with > only one farm, Gita Nagari, fully complying. > > As is the case with most ISKCON ministries, ISKCOWP is unfunded > and is kept afloat by the commitment of its members, and in this > case, promised assistance from the GBC. > > With no funds and no GBC support ISKCOWP is finding it impossible > to validate or deny claims of maltreatment of cows on ISKCON > farms. Some of the more worrying complaints to ISKCOWP include: > > Vrndavana, India: Claims of over-breeding focused on milk > production. This leads to too many cows squeezed on to too little > land. Allegations that cows outnumber bulls by more than > two-to-one, has lead to suspicions that some of Vrindavana's > bulls are being sold for slaughter. (Bulls are often seen as > useless when there is an emphasis on milk-production and > insufficient use of bulls as workers.) The Ministry has received > no cow protection reports from the responsible GBCs. > > Mayapur, India: Similar concerns of overcrowding (it is claimed > that the animals are squeezed into one-twentieth the land needed) > and fears of slaughter (following reports that cows here > outnumber bulls by six-to-one). Only one report has been received > from Mayapur. Particular fear has been expressed on the fate of > the cows since the floods in October. > > New Gokula, Australia: ISKCOWP has received allegations of > flagrant neglect of animal's health and even violent treatment of > animals. The local GBCs have submitted no cow protection reports. > > It may be that these themes of maltreatment are being repeated > throughout ISKCON without ISKCOWP knowing about them let alone > being able to do anything to prevent them. Particular fears have > arisen as animal welfare groups such as PETA (People for the > Ethical Treatment of Animals) taking a strong stand on the > mistreatment of cows in India (see www.cowsarecool.com). ISKCON > appears unable to take the high moral ground on this issue, it > may even be culpable. > > In July 2000, ISKCOWP renewed its pleas that this issue be taken > seriously in numerous public and private letters. The response > according to Balabahdra Dasa has been 'negligible'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.