No
Censure for the GHQ?
from Hare Krsna dasi
There has been some question regarding my header of "NA GBC censures GHQ." Now,
Bir Krishna Maharaja states that the GBC did not censure the GHQ. So I looked up the
definition of "censure," to get a better understanding:
censure: 1. To criticize severely; blame; 2. To express official disapproval of.
The Dictionary said "See more at Criticize" where I found this, and I was trying
to think of what would have been a better word to use:
Criticize can mean merely merely to evaluate good and bad points without
necessarily finding fault. (But the GBC did find fault.)
Blame emphasizes the finding of fault and the fixing of responsibility. (As pointed
out by Bir Krishna Maharaja, the GBC did not fix the responsibility on any particular
persons.)
Reprehend implies sharp disapproval. (Perhaps this is the term I could have used.)
Censure refers to open and strong expression of criticism. (The GBC expression of
disapproval was certainly open, it was publicized on COM and Chakra, and it was strong.
Therefore "censure" does seem to be the appropriate term—but the definition
goes on to add:) often implies a formal reprimand. (So, even though the NA GBC
letter is an open and strong expression of criticism, and it is an official body
expressing its disapproval, it is still not a formal reprimand. It is an official
body making an informal statement of disapproval. So even though the term
"censure" is correct in the normal meaning of the word, it is important for Bir
Krishna Maharaja to make the distinction, in this case that, even though this is a letter
of strong disapproval coming from an official body, it is an informal expression of
disapproval. It is not, in that sense, a censure or a formal reprimand.)
Condemn denotes the pronouncement of harshly adverse judgement. (The letter doesn't
seem strong enough to warrent this term.)
Denounce implies public proclamation or repudiation. (Possibly this term would
apply.)
Thus, the NA GBC has expressed its sharp criticism of the activities of the GHQ.
However, Bir Krsna Maharaja takes pains to point out that even though the GBC does not fix
the responsibility on any specific individuals, still the disapproval is not directed at
all the members of the conference. He states that:
"There are many innocent members of that conference (GHQ) who have no fault."
Thus my question is: Why are some (unnamed) individuals being criticized, but not all the
individuals who were members of the GHQ conference? How can they be said to have "no
fault"?
The reason for my question is as follows:
1. The first quality of a learned man is that he sees every woman as mother. However, in
this conference, we find that the men see women who occupy leading positions in ISKCON,
not as their mothers, but as enemy soldiers and prostitutes. Is this not worthy of
censure?
2. According to Vaisnava standards, women should always be protected. But here we see men
conspiring to denigrate and demean devotee women, and no one is standing up to stop them.
In the Mahabharata we find that when the men in the assembly hall stood silently by while
Draupadi was being insulted, they were all condemned to die for their silence. But in the
GHQ conference we see all the men standing by while many Vaisnava women are being insulted
and schemes are being organized to publicize and expand the insults. Is this not worthy of
censure?
3. According to Vaisnava standards, everyone should be regarded as spirit soul, but we
find that the GHQ participants are meditating with great disgust on the material identity
of a group of devotees. Is this not worthy of censure?
4. According to Vaisnava standards, one should not tolerate the blasphemy of a devotee.
But in the GHQ conference, Vaisnava women such as Malati, Pranada, Dhyanakunda, Jyotir
Mayi, Visaka and others who have dedicated their lives to serving Srila Prabhupadare are
again and again referred to as "whores," "witches,"
"prostitutes," "feminazis," "atheists" and
"niggers" "without souls." And no one defeated the blasphemers with
strong arguments, or left the conference in a timely manner (except for Danavir Maharaja),
even though there were 4 other ISKCON sannyasis on the conference. Is this not worthy of
censure?
The GHQ conference members quite clearly expressed their plans to continue these
unwholesome activities on another forum, outside the control of the official ISKCON
communication network. Undoubtedly their blasphemous and hateful activities will continue
to expand there under the thin veil of "Vedic dharma." Without an official
censure from the GBC, more and more devotees will be lured into their unholy lair.
In the meantime, most women will not speak out against these hateful activities in ISKCON.
Instead, bewildered with the hateful attitudes they encounter and the lack of protection
from official ISKCON, they will quietly withdraw and look for a more compassionate
environment to practice their devotion to Krsna and Prabhupada than the "Vedics"
can provide. Unfortunately, that environment will be only too happily provided by the
Rtviks and the Rasa-peddlars. They will gain the women that we need to distribute books,
raise funds, maintain our gardens, do arotiks, clean temples, and provide enthusiastic
preaching to attract others to our movement. Can we afford this loss as a payment for our
failure to take a strong stand against those who participate in a hate group under the
guise of "Vedic dharma"?
Can ISKCON afford not to censure the GHQ?
Your servant,
Hare Krsna dasi
© CHAKRA 9-Dec-98