By Bhakti Vikasa Swami

In the GBC resolutions for 2016, #313, under the euphemistic heading “Harmonizing our Preaching Efforts,” instituted a worldwide ban on “Women: Masters or Mothers?” The resolution follows.

Resolution #313 – Harmonizing our Preaching Efforts

Whereas the GBC Body accepts that many different understandings of the teachings of Srila Prabhupada and sastra, and many different understandings of what constitutes effective preaching, exist amongst ISKCON devotees, and this, in general, is a healthy situation;

Whereas when one ISKCON devotee’s preaching efforts, however well-meaning, are seen to work at cross purposes with the preaching efforts of others, it is the responsibility of ISKCON’s leadership to step in and take regulative action that it considers will be most favorable for the fulfillment of the objectives of ISKCON;

Whereas when publications are sold or promoted on ISKCON premises it gives the impression that ISKCON as a whole is endorsing the contents of such publications;

Whereas the book, “Women: Masters or Mothers” by Bhakti Vikasa Swami, has been seen to cause misunderstanding of Srila Prabhupada’s instructions, alienation and polarization of many devotees, and it has the potential to create even more disruptions to many aspects of ISKCON’s preaching work in the future;

Whereas as stated by the author, the book “features many generalizations and personal views of mine;”

Whereas the book contains statements advocating practices that are illegal in the majority of countries in the world, notably polygamy, child marriage and child labor:

RESOLVED:

That the sale and/or distribution of the publication “Women: Masters or Mothers” by Bhakti Vikasa Swami, is not allowed on ISKCON premises, or at any ISKCON supported programs.

Therefore the following statement is also be published:

The opinions expressed by Bhakti Vikasa Swami in his book “Women: Masters or Mothers” are solely those of the author in his private capacity and do not necessarily reflect the views and practices of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), or its Founder-Acarya, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

[End of resolution]

———————————————————————————

I am duty-bound to respect the authority of the GBC, but nevertheless I feel that this ban and the manner of imposing it have been very unfair. Therefore, to present another side of the story – a side that the promulgators of this ban have consistently been unwilling to hear – I have below presented correspondence between the GBC EC (Executive Committee) and myself prior to the announcement of the ban. I plan to comment on this correspondence, on this site, in the next few days.

(Text PAMHO:28683990) ————————————–

(Text PAMHO:28713384) ————————————–

(Text 81175) ———————————————–

Actually it was an IIAC meeting.

This statement is not specific enough to be effective, because you have not  given details about which exact statements regarding polygamy, child marriage, and child labor that your good selves and others behind the ban are concerned about — nor why. I need a comprehensive (i.e., complete) list of page numbers, paragraphs, pictures, and sentences that are in question. Is this request unreasonable in any way?

In your initial letter to me concerning this issue, you invoked Srila Prabhupada’s desire for cooperation. I humbly submit that in a fully cooperative environment, I should not have to even request these details.

I need more information just to make the following decision:

I might be forgiven for opining that this statement seems to exhibit either ignorance of the definition of this word, or plain disingenuity. According to an edition of Collins, “ban” is defined thus:

1) () to prohibit, esp officially, from action, display, entrance, sale, etc.; forbid.

It is also a valid query why the EC hasn’t so doggedly pursued other ISKCON books that also are questionable. For instance, the GBC actually praised a book in which, among other controversial statements, the author wrote:

“there are hundreds of thousands of people who practice cannibalism right now. There are people in governments around the world who make human sacrifices and sometimes eat certain human organs as a way of obtaining power.” [From Spiritual Warrior I, by Bhakti Tirtha Swami]

Books that are directly offensive to Krsna and Rama, as well as a recent autobiography that recounts multiple illicit sexual relations and illegal drug use, have not been subjected to the strictures that the GBC wishes to impose (and some regional bodies have already imposed) on “Women: Masters or Mothers?” Why? (Exact quotations can be supplied upon request.)

I very much appreciate if you have actually read this far. I understand that you are all very busy and that this is only one of many issues that you have to deal with. But for me this is major; how things work out will affect my whole future relationship with the ISKCON that has largely defined my life over so many years.

Finally, one request. Please each of you individually inform me whether or not you have read “Women: Masters or Mothers?” cover to cover. To reply requires only one word, but it is important.

Thankyou for your patience.

Your servant in Srila Prabhupada’s service,

BVS

(Text PAMHO:28744273) ————————————–

Dear Bhakti Vikasa Maharaja,

Please accept our humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

We have taken note of your lengthy response. Currently it is beyond us to go further into a point by point discussion. It may serve you better to respond to the GBC Body once the immediate issue is addressed. This is because the EC has no authority to reverse a GBC Resolution, so the restriction on sales at temples will go into effect. And the resolution will be published unless you clearly agree to withdraw the book. You are of course welcome to appeal that decision.

As a point of information, we would like to add that there is no obligation on ISKCON to promote, stock or sell any books other than BBT publications. Of course we know that many other books are stocked and sold, but still there is no obligation on ISKCON to do so.

So for now, kindly address the original question of whether you are willing to withdraw the book, or not.

The release of the GBC Resolutions is pending your answer to this question, so a prompt response would be appreciated.

We trust this meets you well.

Hare Krishna.

(Text PAMHO:28764512) ————————————–

You seem anxious to rush me into a decision, but even if I were to accept your ultimatum, I cannot properly make such a decision without information such as that which I outlined in my previous letter. I request that you kindly consider that this matter is not as urgent as you apparently deem it, taking into account that the book has already been in circulation for over a year, the sky has not fallen in the meantime, that the GBC had plenty of time to coolly deal with this issue, and that it might be unwise to swiftly and without due consideration try to simply ram this through.

I humbly submit that it would be similarly unwise to attempt to forcibly quash discussion of these issues by, for instance, banning this book. Whether or not you pursue your present trajectory, discussion will continue. Below I offer a friendly suggestion whereby these discussions might be most productive, as an alternative to your present aggressive, intransigent stance, which offers little hope of any forthcoming fruitful exchange.

You have given me an ultimatum of two alternatives, both of which (in my estimation) are unfavorable to me. You state that you have no choice in this matter as you simply have to execute a resolution made by the GBC.

My suggestion: another possibility is for you inform to the GBC members that after some initial correspondence with me, it seems that the resolution was made without receiving a balanced assessment of the book and that proper procedure was not followed inasmuch as the author was not consulted. You could recommend that hence this resolution not be published or implemented at least until proper procedures have been followed and full consideration taken of all issues concerning it.

It might not be the letter of the law for the EC to thus petition the GBC body, but (hopefully) it should be within the spirit of the law.

Even while knowing that you are very unlikely to consider this suggestion and that quite likely you will not even read this letter, I feel obliged to make a last ditch attempt to try to avoid the unfortunate situation that is evolving.

Please pray that some day I may learn to deal with others in a manner befitting a Vaisnava.

Hare Krsna.

[End of correspondence; I received no further reply from the EC. On 30 May, 20 days after my last letter, the resolution was published –  even though just prior to that, the EC had written “The release of the GBC Resolutions is pending your answer to this question, so a prompt response would be appreciated.”]

The resolution was published with other resolutions as the lead article on
Dandavats.com and it remained the lead article for several days, in which
time some thousands of readers viewed it. But shortly thereafter some GBC
members recalled that this was actually never passed; it had been presented
as a proposal but ultimately the GBC passed only a truncated version.
Apparently the full version was posted as a resolution due to human error.
The final, truncated version is as follows:
“The opinions expressed by Bhakti Vikasa Swami in his book “Women: Masters
or Mothers” are solely those of the author in his private capacity and do
not necessarily reflect the views and practices of the International Society
for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), or its Founder-Acarya, His Divine Grace
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.”
This final version doesn’t really say much; it could be stated about any
number of other books published by ISKCON members.
However, it still gives the impression that the GBC considers me to be
unreliable in presenting Srila Prabhupada’s teachings.
Although the bulk of the proposal was removed, this was not informed to the
devotee public, nor did the GBC apologize for posting what could well be
described as a scurrility. Most of those who read the GBC resolutions would
still be under the impression that the “mistakenly” published resolution was
the actual version.