ISKCON Kazakhstan's Real Position

[Guest guest]

>From HH BB Govinda Maharaja:

 

It has come to my attention that there are some folks out there in cyber

world who are questioning ISKCON’s legal position in the currect Kazakh

Crisis. Below is a document which was prepared as a response to allegations

which the Kazakh Government presented in a release during the demonstration

at the Kazakh Embassy in New Delhi.

 

It is concise and accurate.

 

______________________________

 

CONTRA-ARGUMENTS TO STATEMENTS OF KAZAKH GOVERNMENT REGARDING LEGAL GROUNDS

FOR BULLDOZING KRISHNA COMMUNITY AT KARASAI DISTRICT

 

Kazakhstan Government states: “As a matter of fact, ISKCON as a religious

association doesn’t own the land.”

 

ISKCON: Originally the land of 47.7 hectares was purchased by members of

ISKCON in 1999 in the Karasai district of Almaty, 40 km from the Almaty

city. As laws changed members of ISKCON were able to privatize the land in

the spring of 2004. ISKCON as organization purchased the land later in 2004.

According to the Supreme Court of Republic of Kazakhstan, ruling

No.3a-61/2-05 June 30, 2005, ISKCON has a right of land use. It is confirmed

by the ruling of the RK Supreme Court that ISKCON is a bona fide land user

and purchaser of the land plots at issue. This ruling has never been

cancelled. According to the law of Kazakhstan it is still in force and

cannot be overruled by lower courts’ decisions. Significantly, the Supreme

Court ruled that the land in question “is given to the Religious

Organization Society for Krishna Consciousness” with the right of full

private ownership arising upon registration of the land. However, the local

government froze all transactions on the property such that proper

registration could not take place.

 

Kazakhstan Government states: ”The right for land use was acquired by

members of ISKCON illegally in 1999 by arbitrarily changing its functional

purpose in violation of the Farming Law of Kazakhstan.”

 

ISKCON: First, there is no Farming Law in the legislative system of

Kazakhstan. In the court practice of the RK questions regulating violations

of the legislation in the sphere of land use are considered by the court

exclusively on the basis of the Land Code of RK dated June 20, 2003, and the

Code of Administrative Infractions of January 20, 2001.

 

Second, members of ISKCON were conducting all the transactions with the land

strictly according to the Legislation of Kazakhstan, with full approval of

the government authorities.

 

Third, the issue of a forgery committed at the time of entering into the

contract of sale-puchase in 1999 was not confirmed by the legal bodies of

the RK. There was no ruling of the criminal court in regard to the persons

that made this contract (because such actions are subject to criminal

prosecution and punishment). Not only the fact of forgery was not

established, but it had never been proved that these were the members of the

community who commited it, let alone the community. In this case according

to presumption of innocence no one can accuse ISKCON in breaking the Law.

 

Fourth, the government’s attempts to find discrepancies, forgeries, or

improper filing in the actions of the previous owners of the land are

irrelevant here; the Krishna followers were bona fide purchasers of the

land, who bought and privatized the land in good faith.

 

Kazakhstan Government states: “ISKCON utilized it (land) purely for

religious functions”.

 

ISKCON: The land is used for agricultural purposes. Members of ISKCON grow

vegetables, wheat, barley, and alfalfa, cultivate a large apple orchard, and

take care of a herd of 32 cows. ISKCON members practice their religious

functions at the office of the Society, where ISKCON is legally registered

and has maintained a legal address since 2002. According to Religious Law,

Article 12, religious organizations are allowed to conduct their religious

worship and ceremonies at their offices.

 

Kazakhstan Government states: “Without due process and permission of the

Department of Architecture and Construction Control and without any approval

of fire, sanitary, ecological safety government authorities, ISKCON members

made structural changes on the land.”

 

ISKCON: Architectural, fire, sanitary, ecological, and safety violations

cannot be grounds for confiscation of property and liquidation of a

religious organization. The Land Code of RK stipulates that plots of land

may be confiscated if they are used contrary to their functional purpose,

however claims to confiscate land may only be run after the measures of

administrative punishment were taken according to section 253 of the Code of

Administrative Infractions (a fine or a warning), and the owner was notified

in writing about the necessity of the elimination of the RK legislation’s

violations. Such notification should be made at least three months before

filing a claim. The claim may (only) be filed if the owner does not correct

the infractions during the three month period.

 

There was not one administrative prescription or case brought against ISKCON

and its members. Rather the government started filing civil cases on

confiscation of the property of ISKCON and individual plots of ISKCON

members.

 

Kazakhstan Government states: ”In 2005 yet again without necessary

authorization, they started laying the foundation of a temple which has not

been built. The ISKCON members have not obeyed requirements of the land and

Town Development authorities and have not responded to the latter’s numerous

demands to follow the legal procedure and rectify the violations.”

 

ISKCON: There was an attempt to construct a temple on the property in 2004.

Following the advice of local government authorities to begin construction

immediately while applying for permission (so as not to waste time), members

began laying a foundation for the temple. However, as soon as construction

began the same government authorities brought an administrative case against

the community for having started illegal construction. ISKCON members were

shocked by the change, but complied with local authorities and demolished

the foundation. That was done as an act of goodwill by ISKCON without

numerous demands, as officials have claimed.

 

Officials dissemble that the court ruling on the land of 47.7 hectares is

not based on the law of Kazakhstan. The decision to consider the transaction

of 1999 null and void without any legal ground confiscates land plot from

previous owner to government ownership. It makes us think that officials

have already made a scheme to sell the land again to affiliated new buyer.

 

Kazakhstan Government states that there is also a court dispute regarding 63

houses, which belong to members of ISKCON and which are located close to

ISKCON land.

 

ISKCON: Kazakh officials dissemble that there are title documents issued for

the whole compound by Soviet regime authorities, which are accepted by

current authorities as successors of Soviet regime. (The State Act for the

plot of land with the total area of 12.2 ha [state Act AL No.696] and the

decision of the Executive Committee of the Kaskelen District Soviet of

People’s Deputies of the Almaty region No.17-687 dated September 7, 1988,

and the decision of the Kaskelen District Administration No.4-1033 of April

26, 1993).

 

Kazakhstan Government states: “Giving a long list of flagrant violations and

failture to rectify them, the local authorities refused to process the

ISKCON’s request for privatization of horticultural plots”

 

ISKCON: Kazakh officials dissemble that local authorities selectively

stopped privatization of houses and land plots to members of ISKCON and

requested written confirmation about their confession. The “long list of

fragrant violations” has never existed. Officials have never admit the fact

that they have never officially rejected applications for privatization of

ISKCON members; moreover they filed claims to court instead of officially

reviewing the privatization requests.

 

Kazakhstan Government states: “Kazakh citizens again use these lands and

cottages not for assigned purpose of horticulture, but for religious rituals

and congregations”.

 

ISKCON: It seems that Kazakh officials have forgotten about the right to

pray and worship in private places: such rights are not restricted by the

Constitution of Kazakhstan.

 

Kazakhstan Government states: “iwhile fencing the area, ISKCON members

illegally occupied more than 10.0-hectare land”.

 

ISKCON: This accusation has no grounds and proves that local government

provides highly posted officials with completely wrong information.

 

The only accusation which could be considered to be true concerns repairing

(and in two cases reconstruction) of the houses, but the penalty for that is

only a fine for reconstruction or maximum demolition but never confiscation

of the land.

 

According to Sec. 238 of the Code of Administrative Infractions, alteration

or refit of dwellings only incurs a fine.

 

According to Sec. 237 of the Code of Administrative Infractions,

unauthorized construction without a license received in the established

order incurs a fine, either with demolition or without. The land plot isn’t

confiscated.

 

Kazakhstan Government states: “Local residents are disturbed by mass

congregations, loud religious music, and singing throughout the night.

According to the laws of the country, it is strictly prohibited to disturb

residential areas after 23:00”

 

ISKCON: All accusations regarding mass congregations, loud religious music,

and singing throughout the night are false; there were no police records to

support this. The same with the accusation of an “aggressive missionary

campaign to join the Society which is not to the liking of inhabitants of

the area.” Members of ISKCON live a simple life: they go to bed early and

wake up early for morning meditation; they don’t drink alcohol, they don’t

smoke, and they don’t take drugs. In reality local residents are very happy

to have Hare Krishnas as their neighbors because of the peace and

cleanliness they brought to the area.

 

Local authorities are spreading rumors in the area and say openly that their

purpose is banishment of ISKCON members and cancellation of registration of

Almaty region Society for Krishna Consciousness as a legal entity.

 

Kazakhstan Government states: “The Inter-Agency Commission considers this

dispute to be a civil case and not a religious one”

 

ISKCON:

.. 07/09/ 2006: The commission was established in the capital by Religious

Committee of Ministry of Justice to deal with the “land issues” of ISKCON in

Kazakhstan.

.. Commission originated from Department of Ministry; the Commission had no

power to change court rulings and the conflict in general.

.. Muslim and Russian Orthodox Church were invited by government to be

members of the Commission despite the objections of Human Rights observers

and ISKCON.

.. The chairman of the Commission refused ISKCON’s lawyers permission to

participate in the work of the Commission. Only after long and heated

discussions were the lawyers allowed to participate.

.. 01/10/2006: The Commission arrived at the ISKCON Community.

.. Among appointed members only the Chairman and General Prosecutor’s officer

were present.

.. The local Hakimat brought 4 Kazakh television channels and bussed in

unrelated villagers to scream in front of the cameras. The area of the

entire farm was surrounded by a police division. The chairman of the

Commission said this was done with his approval.

.. 02/10/2006: A concluding meeting of the Commission took place in Karasai

District Hakimat. The final statement of the chairman of the Commission

read: “There has been an investigation and there is no sign of religious

discrimination.”

.. There has never been a dialogue established between members of the

Commission and ISKCON.

.. Members of the Commission appointed in Astana were not present at the

sessions in Karasai District.

.. Consequently the final decision was made without members of the Commission

developing their case. It was done singlehandedly by the chairman of the

Commission and the plaintiffs, which was not fair at all.

.. The Commission didn’t take into consideration the opinion of the Human

Rights observers, who considered the case to be one of religious

discrimination.

.. Observing the work of the Commission from the time it was established, the

Human Rights observers considered the Commission itself to be an obvious

demonstration of the religious discrimination.