Home > Reader > Women: Masters or Mothers? — A book by HH Bhakti Vikasa Swami > Reactions to the Ban
His Grace Krishna-kirti Prabhu (BVKS)
Posted on June 18, 2016
One thing uncharacteristic about this message I want to point out in their response is its length. They felt compelled to respond at length to Maharaja's inquiry about why they did not consult him before they made their decision. It means they are basing their decision on correspondence whose audience was very limited, and it can be asked whether the rest of the GBC had viewed any of the correspondence from that group before taking their decision.
If their answer is "no", then that means they are basing their vote solely on Malati's testimony, because she was the only GBC member who participated in that online discussion [with senior ladies who protested WMM], without having given a fair chance to Maharaja to respond to allegations made by her. Bottom line then is the GBC did not bother to consult Maharaja after all.
If their answer is "yes", that they reviewed the correspondence between Maharaja and the women he invited to discuss the matter with him, then because no one who was a part of that conversation took BVKS’s permission to share his correspondence with the GBC, he has a strong right to demand to see what correspondence of his and of the other interlocutors that was shared with the GBC.
And even more important in the case that the GBC saw some of BVKS’s correspondence is the fact that BVKS would have had no idea at all what was shared with them. He does not know what has been selectively quoted (and hence misrepresented). So in order to test this BVKS should demand that they show all the correspondence of his and the others that was shared with the GBC. If they don't comply (expected answer), then he has a very good reason to believe that what was shown to the GBC was selective and biased to produce a certain outcome.
What seems to be at stake here in the minds of the GBC EC (and arguably the rest of the GBC) is they are concerned that their decision has the appearance of being just. It's a famous maxim in English law that "not only must justice be done but justice must also be seen to be done." (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Sussex_Justices,_ex_p_McCarthy for details of the case). If they are publicly perceived as having dealt with BVKS in an unjust way, then that will further tarnish their authority.
Of course, they may not be overly concerned about those in ISKCON who may object to their way of dealing with BVKS. They may think their decision will appear just simply by virtue of it being the outcome their main supporters wanted. ("Time place and circumstance, Prabhu!")
And if it indeed comes to this I don't see what else can be done to reason with them outside of power politics. In that case, all the options for dealing fairly with the GBC are limited and unpleasant.
Your servant, Krishna-kirti das