May 25th 2018

Open letter to the GBC Body regarding the CPO case of Laximoni devi dasi

Please accept my respectful obeisance, All Glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I am writing this letter for two reasons; to express my appreciation for the recent, and long overdue verdict the CPO issued for Laxmimoni devid dasi, and to voice my concerns.I wish to congratulate the GBC body for allowing the CPO the freedom to release a verdict that will no-doubt cause some backlash.Laxmimoni’s case is an important one, because it is likely to be the last one of an era that many in ISKCON prefer to deny it ever happened, or at best like to minimize/sanitize it, and for those who were children during those years, many wish it had never happened at all.From your perspective Laxmimoni's is a difficult case for many reasons; she is one of your own, and many of you regard her as a personal friend. She is more senior than many present day GBC members and she was on her way to becoming one of the first female gurus, with a loyal and vocal core group of supporters.You now find yourselves between the proverbial “rock and a hard place”. Some of you have known her since you joined, there is something deeply unsettling about seeing her go, you may be of the view that you need to do something to protect her, offer her security and support.If however, you decide to oppose the CPO’s decision and interfere with this case, then you will certainly reinforce the widespread concerns that the GBC is corrupt and that the CPO needs, now more than ever, to be entirely independent of the GBC.Interfering in her favor would lend credibility to the voices of your detractors that accuse the GBC body of nepotism, lacking in transparency, accountability and purity. In so doing you would reinforce the perception that the CPO is a mere puppet, intended to protect the institutional interests.You have always been happy to hang “low ranking” perpetrators, but with high profile cases, where the accused enjoyed the protection of friendships in high places, you have often chosen to interfere, and give in to the pressure of the influential allies of the accused. Sadly, you have chosen to compromise.None of these considerations should have any bearing in the execution of justice of course, but we all know that unfortunately this is seldom the case. In the past, it was precisely in cases like this one, that the GBC has broken the rules.To put is simply, you cannot be in favor of child protection, only when your friends aren't involved. That wouldn't be child protection.The CPO Manual, ratified by the GBC body, only allows an appeal of a CPO verdict, under very specific circumstances."The ARP (Appeal Review Panel) will first decide on the merit of an appeal. An appeal may be granted by the ARP only if:a. Procedures used in the original Review prevented a fair and impartial hearing, orb. There is new and compelling additional evidence".(The Appeals Process, 2018 CPO Manual, Ratified by the GBC Body.)And yet, only a couple of years back in the review of Sri Radhe’s case, she was granted an appeal, despite the fact that she did not meet the criteria for an appeal.I was told that due to her connection with Bhaktividyapurna Swami, some GBC members pressured Champakalata devi dasi, who was the director of the CPO at the time, to grant her an appeal despite the lack of merits, and she complied. 

This (illegal) appeal panel revoked some of the sanctions imposed by the CPO judges the first time around.Laxmimoni’s case is very similar in the sense that it is highly unlikely that she would meet the criteria for an appeal.In the interest of transparency and to safeguard the integrity of the CPO and the GBC body, if she is granted an appeal, the reasons for warranting this appeal ought to be made available to the devotee public.Laximoni’s case is actually very simple, but unfortunately for her victims, she has many powerful friends.From the very beginning, Brahmatirtha das (Bob Cohen, from Perfect Questions and Perfect Answers) began flexing his muscles to intimidate the victims and to try and influence the outcome of this case, but I suspect that now that the verdict is out, many more leaders will have joined his ranks.Today the GBC body stands at a crossroad, this is a defining moment; not only for you, but also for the entire society you lead.You may give well read purports in your classes, but what really count are the choices you make in tough times. What is the essence that you convey with your example in these difficult situations?You have two choices and both come at a price, you can choose to pay the price of convenience, at the cost of your integrity, or you can choose to pay the price that is required to do the right thing.If we look at similar high profile cases from the past where the GBC chose to interfere, like Lokanath Maharaj, Dhanurdhara Maharaj, Bhaktividyapurna Maharaj and Bhavananda, ISKCON paid a huge price, a price that cannot be easily quantified. These cases still haunt ISKCON today, and they will remain as a blemish in the history of ISKCON for generations to come.Does ISKCON really need another repetition of the Dhanurdhara Swami saga? Can the GBC afford another scandal for protecting yet another child abuser?Only a few days ago Archbishop Philip Wilson, the highest leader of the Catholic Church in Australia, was found guilty for covering up and protecting child abusers in the ‘70s…He may very well end up in prison when he is sentenced later this year.Time and again, history has shown us the devastating outcome when you chose convenience at the expense of ethics!Today, Laxmimoni's case can be a priceless opportunity for you to reform the public image of the GBC, thus uniting and reinforcing ISKCON, or it can be another chapter of the shameful and dark history of ISKCON Child Protection.The choice is yours.May Krsna guide your hearts to the decision that will serve the best interest of the Vaisnava community at large.Yours in the service of the VaisnavasSanaka rsi dasThis email was sent to the personal emails of the following devotees:ISKCON CPO, Praghosa prabhu (GBC), Sesa prabhu, Tamohara prabhu, Brahmatirtha prabhu, Anuttama prabhu, Bhakticaru Swami, Gopal Krsna Swami, Kaicandra Swami, Romapad Swami, Yadunandana Swami, Ramai Swami, Bhadrinarayana Swami, Bhaktarupa prabhu, Braja Bihari prabhu, Laxmimoni prabhu, Sivaram Swami, Malati prabhu and Bhaktivikash Swami.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 30th 2018

GBC RESPONSES REGARDING LAXMIMONI

Dear Badrinarayan Maharaj,Please accept my respectful obeisance, All Glories to Srila Prabhupada.As you have requested to be removed from this list, I will not trouble you with these (un?)important matters after this letter. You point out that mass emails are seldom very effective and invite me to attempt a different approach. You suggest following vaisnava etiquette, perhaps a heart to heart over the phone could be more valuable.Under normal circumstances I would agree. Few would resort to imposing mass communication and shaming tactics as a first option. Sadly, from my past experiences I have never seen such lovely “heart to heart” with ISKCON leaders deliver anything constructive or positive, especially when it comes to child protection. This, I assure you, despite any doubts you may have, is not due to a lack of willingness and numerous attempts on my part.Growing up in ISKCON gurukulas, I began noticing from early on, the inconsistencies between what was preached and how my teachers and the leaders of ISKCON lived their lives. We heard a lot about mercy, compassion and forgiveness, but couldn't find any traces of these qualities: they were nowhere to be found.As I grew older I realized that hypocrisy and corruption are rampant in this world and that sadly ISKCON is no exception.As I became more and more acquainted with the history of "child protection" in ISKCON, I was shocked with disbelief. Nothing could have prepared me for the degree of unscrupulous malfeasance and callous indifference I encountered among many (most?) leaders.I now believe that any decent human being that carried out an in-depth study of the history of child protection in ISKCON would struggle to view the leadership in good light when it comes to this matter.Brahmatirtha and several other GBCs have shown to be entirely unconcerned with the devastation that Laxmimoni has caused in the lives of so many girls, as if their lives are inconsequential and irrelevant.If Laxmimoni is to follow the standard CPO protocol, as anybody else would, I don’t believe she stands any chance of qualifying for an appeal, yet, truth be told, at present it is quite likely that she will be granted an appeal simply because a number of GBCs and senior devotees are (ab)using their position and influence to try and force the CPO into submission and grant her an appeal regardless.I ask you Maharaj, knowing what you know about ISKCON and the CPO, can you honestly tell me that you genuinely believe that having a "heart to heart" may produce positive results?For the last 10 years we have been having consistent and disturbing reports ranging the full spectrum of child abuse in the Vrindavana Gurukula. The apex of this sinister operation was probably when a child drowned in 2016, yet the GBC continues to look the other way and bless the new Gurukula project that is operated by the same incompetent and abusive management. Do you really believe that more of the same will somehow produce a different result??In Mayapur last year a young gurukula graduate died of an opium overdose. Following in the disturbing tradition of covering up anything that could make ISKCON look bad, the official and sanitized version of the incident is that the boy died of a heart attack. Because if our children die of overdose in Mayapur, ISKCON has a problem, but if they die of a heart attack, then there is no problem!!!Maharaj, frankly your polite request to be removed from this discussion is disheartening; it seems to say in the nicest possible manner (nobody can fault you vaisnava etiquette): "Don't bother me with these matters; I have more important things to do with my life. This is a personal disagreement between Sanaka and Brahmatirtha and it does not concern me, in fact it is a disturbance on my life and service".

I invite you to consider the possibility that, this may well be one of the most important and most neglected services.From my perspective we have a fire in the house and very few seem to even notice or care... How many more children will have to be sacrificed, before ISKCON as a society starts to give child protection the importance it deserves?You claim that these mass emails accomplish nothing, and yet, nothing else works...Thank you for taking the time to consider these issues.Yours in the service of the VaisnavasSanakaP.S. I will add an email I received from Tamohara prabhu wherein he seems to confirm my concerns about GBC interference in Laxmimoni's case and the reply I sent him. I am also including an email that was sent to me by your Godbrother Giribaradhari prabhu, where he comments on whether the sanctions imposed on Laxmimoni are fitting of her crimes.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------From Tamohara prabhuHare Krishna,On this issue, I agree with the general direction of your comments.I have been urging the GBC to NOT intervene in this case, and rather, support the CPO process, which is based on polices that are part of ISKCON law, enacted by the GBC itself. Processes of appeal, etc., are already built into the policies, and for the GBC to overstep and insert itself based on some members dissatisfaction with one case outcome would have many negative consequences, and could undermine many devotee's confidence in our support of child protection.your servant,Tamohara das - GBC, former CPO Director-------------------------------------------------------------------

Surely this calls for a celebration!  :) This has got to be the first time we agree on anything.In my view any attempts to interfere with the CPO proceedings in Laxmimoni's case would have several far reaching repercussions, some of which may be difficult to anticipate.Even if the GBC were truly not sufficiently enlightened to appreciate the value and necessity of prioritize child protection on its own merits, still they ought to consider it for themselves; just in the off chance that some of you will have to come back next life.I don't have it in me to wish being raised in the Vrindavana gurukula (in it's current state) upon anybody, not even the least appreciated GBC member...Just a thought I've had...I really hope the GBC can get it right this time.Witnessing the seeming short-sight of the GBC body with regards to child protection often leaves me in disbelief.ISKCON in many ways has experienced the same challenges of the Catholic Church; we are a miniature version with many of the same problems.After Ratzinger the Church realized that they had reached a point where the institution was spiritually, morally, culturally and socially bankrupt. If they wanted to survive they had to reinvent themselves. And they came up with Pope Francis.He is the perfect candidate to resurrect the Church from the ashes, he says and does all the right things.While I cannot measure his degree of sincerity and purity, it is evident that purely from a PR perspective he is simply brilliant, a stroke of genius! Such genious is either a God send or the work of the devil.  :)

Even if we assume that his anointment and policies are purely cold, calculated, strategic, tactical stunts, and that he is actually an atheist playing his part exclusively for the survival of the

exploitative institution; still, from this perspective alone, prioritizing child protection, makes good business sense.And yet, it is puzzling for me to see that ISKCON leaders just don't get it. Their reluctance to prioritize child protection is leading Prabhupada's institution to destruction.Sanaka rsi das---------------------------------------------------------------------------Does the punishment fit the crimes?Hare Krsna, Sanaka.In examining the restrictions against Her Grace Laxmimoni devi dasi, who is 70 this year, it seems to me that she is merely being asked to retire.She can visit any temple she likes but just can't stay over night. So what! She can stay nearby.She can stay as long as she likes in Vrindaban and in Mayapur. She can stay one night overnight in Delhi.If I read the restrictions correctly, she can choose two temples to reside in Canada and two in the USA.She can't give classes or lead kirtan or attend meetings. And she can't offer a garland to Srila Prabhupada.She is being asked to retire. She probably wants to retire anyway. She's seventy this year. It seems to me that the punishment definitely does not fit the crimes.No money to the victims. No payment for anything.They seem to be very lenient restrictions, in my opinion.Nope. To me, the punishment definitely does not fit the crimes.Anyway, why has it taken so long for these so called restrictions/sanctions regarding Her Grace Laxmimoni devi dasi to be brought up now. Weren't these crimes committed last century sometime? The wheels of so called justice sure do grind slowly in ISKCON.People who leave ISKCON generally don't keep tabs on what's going on in ISKCON. Maybe for a few months or a few years. Not half a century. I would imagine that most of the abused children have long since deleted Hare Krishna and ISKCON out of their consciousness.The nightmares and dreams that recur will certainly haunt these abused victims for years, if not lifetimes, in their sub consciousness. It is such a rare event for a lost soul to come in to contact with Lord Chaitanya's magnificent, munificent movement. So much energy and hard work and hours and hours are expended by those on harinam and book distribution to attract lost souls, and then when a child comes into contact with Srila Prabhupada's glorious ISKCON and then when that lost soul is subjected to the horrors and abuse and torture of one such as Laxmimoni, as explained by recent revelations, and that little child, that lost soul is tortured and abused, well, that person who turns that little child away from Srila Prabhupada, such as Laxmimoni that person who mentally and physically maims that little child, that little lost soul, and the demoniac person who turns that child away from the holy name of Krishna is called, "killer of the soul."ISO 3 - Vanisourcehttps://vanisource.org/wiki/ISO_3Hare Krsna.Giribaradhari das (ACBSP)

June 2nd 2018

WHY IS HRIDAYANANDA MAHARAJ DEFENDING LAXMIMONI?Hare Krsna Brahmatirtha Prabhu (Bob Cohen),

Thank you for taking the time to talk to me. You mentioned during our conversation that you took on the job of defending Laxmimoni because it was asked of you by a senior devotee, you also said that concerns had been raised with regards to the justice and procedural fairness of the CPO.I have established from three separate, and reliable sources, that Hridayananda Maharaj has been one of the GBC’s that have been attempting to influence the outcome of the CPO adjudication in favour of Laxmimoni. I encourage anyone interested to know more to contact Maharaj directly, his email is: hr@ivs.eduMy guess is that he is our "mysterious senior devotee" that requested you to take on the un-enviable job of defending her.Now that Laxmimoni has been found guilty, she can no longer benefit from the assumption of innocence. She is now guilty until proven otherwise. This means that anyone protecting her is deliberately protecting a child abuser.Though such an application of murky, "behind the scenes" politics, may be in line with the ISKCON Hridayananda Maharaj used to be accustomed to; one where the Zonal Acharyas got their way without accountability or transparency, no matter the (human) cost… I have to admit that I was disappointed to hear that Maharaj would choose to covertly misuse his position, influence and authority in the attempt to defend a child abuser.At a time when India is introducing the death penalty for paedophiles, Hridayananda Maharaj joins “The Wall of Shame” on the long list of ISKCON leaders that over the years have, in different ways, have (ab)used their authority to protect or side with known child abusers. Among them we find: Radhanath Maharaj, Jayadvaita Swami, Sesa das (GBC), Tamohara das (GBC), Anuttama das (GBC), Champakalata devi dasi (Former CPO Director), Malati devi dasi (GBC), Ramay Swami, Praghosa das (GBC), Sivaram Swami, Gopal Krishna Maharaj, Bhaktivikash Maharaj, Indradyumna Maharaj and Bhakticaru Swami. (This is not a complete list)Precisely because Hridayanadna Maharaj was one of the most prominent leaders of ISKCON during its darkest chapters of child abuse, it is imperative that he now does everything in his power to ensure that the victims that suffered, as children, are sheltered, protected and vindicated. As one of the most senior leaders in ISKCON today, it is his duty ensure that his actions are exemplary.Instead, he has enlisted your assistance to do the exact opposite… You have added insult and humiliation to the pain and injury of Laxmimoni’s victims. Even now, your continued efforts to exonerate Laxmimoni are tantamount to branding her victims - liars -.Hridayananda Maharaj would likely frown upon my choice of words, he would, no doubt, find them quite objectionable and offensive…He would probably prefer if the devotee community would view his interference in this case in a more benign light. He may want to package his actions under an innocuous disguise, something that would portray him as a champion of justice and fairness perhaps? This would be a better fit with all the work he has been doing to push a universal charter for human rights in ISKCON.Naturally if Maharaj was truly concerned with such noble ideals, and addressing the shortcomings of the CPO, I would have expected to have seen a lot more of his support and involvement with Child Protection, in the last 20 years.The fact that he takes such a keen interest in these so called “procedural shortcomings”, only now that his good friend Laxmimoni is on the line, suggests that his motives are not as noble as he may want us to believe. On the contrary, his actions have all the hallmarks of favouritism, at the expense of the victims.We suddenly have a newfound vocal champion of (his version) of fair process and justice for the CPO.I must ask of course:“Where is the fairness and justice when some of the most influential and powerful members of our society band together against the most vulnerable, just to protect one of their own (Laxmimoni)”?

“Where is the justice when the GBC appoint (and fire) the CPO Director, they have ratified (approved of) the CPO Manual several times in the last 10 years, they have been blissfully indifferent and dismissive of just about anyone who has raised concerns on the many shortcomings of the CPO and suggestions for improvements. They have starved the CPO of the necessary funding. They have also been consistently supportive of this ‘flawed’ judicial system used by the CPO to adjudicate low ranking offenders; they have been quite happy to throw them under the bus.But every time this very same CPO system needs to adjudicate one of their friends, with the same yard-stick…Then suddenly we witness leaders and GBCs coming out of the woodworks kicking and screaming to campaign for ‘justice and fairness’ for their friend…To the detriment of the victims”.I campaigned for a review of the CPO Manual in 2010, because at the time, the way it was worded favoured the perpetrators, Tamohara strongly opposed my efforts.I also objected to the fact that the GBC had paid a lawyer to ensure that the revised Manual would not expose them to lawsuits, but no money was spent to get the counsel of child protection professionals. Is anybody really surprised that there is room for improvement in the said CPO Manual?If the GBCs are genuinely concerned about some of the provisions they have ratified in the Manual, then, to respect fairness and impartiality, AFTER their friend is adjudicated, like everyone else and with the same procedures, we can get professionals in the field of child protection to assist with improving the Manual.Bhismadeva had to pay the consequences of his silence and inaction. What will be the consequences of supporting adharma?I suspect that Hridayananda Maharaj hasn't read any of the allegations against Laxmimoni. For reasons that escape me he wanted her exonerated the day she was accused, regardless of whether she was guilty or not, and regardless of how his intervention may affect her victims.For one moment try to meditate on how demeaning and embarrassing it is to be subjected to abuse, as an adult. Then imagine being abused as a defenceless child, by your teacher, overwhelmed by a complete sense of fear, shame and helplessness.Now try to visualize the humiliation a grown woman experiences when she comes out to share her most traumatic childhood wounds with strangers, in a society like ISKCON that has a poor track record of support for victims.For very good reasons, it is the minority of child abuse victims that find the courage, the willingness and the reasons to put themselves through such an ordeal. For every woman that has had the courage to come forward to testify against Laxmioni, you can safely assume that another 10 have chosen to remain silent.Discovering that the “spiritual leadership” of your society is stacked against you and is (ab)using their position to deny justice, in the name of “justice”, is tantamount to re-traumatizing the victims.These practices foster corruption and prevent justice, because they discourage future victims from reporting crimes. This low grade consciousness has created an ISKCON where the abuse, exploitation and denigration of its victims is a frequent occurrence. Where instead of protecting the weakest and most vulnerable of its members, they are actively oppressed and victimized. This is a far cry from any basic spiritual ideals.I kindly request that anyone who can confirm the names of any other GBC members who are abusing their position to interfere in the adjudication of Laxmioni’s case, to please contact me, privately or anonymously, so that their names can be made public.If they are so blind as to misuse the authority that Krsna has given them in His movement, to defend demoniac activities perpetrated against His children, then the very least we can do is to show their true colours to the devotee public.I look forward to the day when ISKCON will have reached the collective maturity to understand that, whatever short term benefits you may believe you can gain, by these deceitful and corrupt practices, are insignificant when compared to the long term costs, not only to the victims, but for ISKCON at large.

The abuse of power we are witnessing in this case has caused much distress to the victims, so much so, that some of them are now seriously considering the option of contacting the media. This is not a threat, I am simply presenting all the facts you need, to make an informed decision.We request all GBCs to stand down and stop interfering with the adjudication of Laxmioni’s case.My questions stands: “Why would someone with the learning, life experience and reputation of Hridayananda Maharaj choose to protect a child abuser”?Yours in the service of the VaisnavasSanaka Rsi das

June 2nd 2018

HRIDAYANANDA MAHARAJ’S REPLY

Dear Sanaka Rsi,You are entirely mistaken in thinking that I asked Brahmatirtha Prabhu to “defend” Laksmimani DD. My only concern was fair process, the same topic that I wrote about extensively in my paper on the GBC.I have no plan to exonerate LMDD. I have never claimed that she is innocent and I have never asked anyone to help show that she is innocent. I simply called for fair judicial process.Before publicly accusing others, I suggest that you exercise due diligence to get the facts straight. My position is, and has always been, that a fair trial should take place and I will accept the results.Hdg-----------------------------------------------------------------------Hare Krsna Hridayananda Maharaj,Please accept my obeisance. All Glories to Srila Prabhupada.I appreciate you taking the time to comment on my letter to Brahmatirtha prabhu(Bob Cohen). If you read over it again, you will notice that I presented facts and my assumptions, and I clearly differentiated the two.As it turns out, you have confirmed what I presented as fact, and you also clarified that some of my assumptions were accurate and others it seems, weren’t.I presented it as a fact that you have indeed been interfering with Laxmimoni’s case and you have confirmed this, albeit with different wording: “I simply called for fair judicial process…”I assumed that you would want to portray your interference under the guise of justice and fair process, and you have also confirmed this.I assumed that you were the “Senior devotee” that asked Brahmatirtha to act as Laxmimoni’s defence, and you have pointed out that this assumption is unfounded. Thank you for this clarification.This leaves me wondering how many more senior leaders are campaigning to protect Laxmimoni under the pretext of ensuring “fair judicial process”…You state that “My only concern was fair process…”. While I can’t read your heart, it is evident that the only party that stands to gain from your interference in this CPO adjudication is Laxmimoni and certainly not her victims…Is this coincidental? I hope so.

As far as I am aware, this is the first time you have ever raised concerns about CPO procedural fairness. If it is indeed true that you had no intention to exonerate Laxmimoni, and you were exclusively concerned with fairness; I will be very grateful if you could elaborate on what exactly are these egregious procedural shortcomings you are aware of/concerned about, that suddenly prompted you to set aside your precious time to trouble yourself with CPO matters.Would you kindly share with us exactly when you became concerned about the CPO’s procedural fairness? Was it from the beginning of the case, or did you decide to step in after the verdict was released?You see, if you got involved only after the guilty verdict, this would lend credibility to the concern that you have indeed stepped in with the intention to help Laxmimoni, on account of your disapproval of the verdict.I’d like to ask you a hypothetical question: “Do you think you would have also gotten involved to raise concerns about the judicial fairness of CPO proceedings if they had exonerated Laxmimoni”?It is also important to remember that Laxmimoni served as a CPO judge for many years. During this time, she adjudicated a number of important cases, Dhanurdara Swami being one of them. If fairness is truly important, I trust you would agree that she ought to be tried with the same rules she applied to others.Where is the justice in campaigning to change the rules, now that it’s her turn to occupy the stand of the accused, so that she can benefit from a more ‘fair trial’???As far as I can tell, Laxmimoni got what she deserved. If anything, considering the complexity of the abuse, ranging from sexual to physical and psychological, and that the abuse spanned over 29 years, in several schools, she actually got off very light.She could have admitted to her mistakes and abuse many years ago. Laxmimoni had the chance to apologize when I spoke to her in 2008, I actually encouraged her to seek out her victims and to do everything in her power to make genuine amends. During our conversation Laxmimoni broke down crying and admitted to having done “terrible things” to her students.She could have simply admitted her guilt when the case started. Instead, she denied and dismissed the allegations of her students.She could have demonstrated genuine remorse, but instead, she appealed for help. She worked the crowd for sympathy and support. She could have chosen to lead a humble life, away from the limelight, dedicated to serve and reach out to her victims and the community.There is a lot riding on this ruling; it needs to stand. If indeed there are legitimate grounds for an appeal, the current policies outlined in the CPO Manual must be respected.It is highly inappropriate for members of the GBC body, that have approved the CPO policies and shown no concerns over their fairness to date, to suddenly gang up to flex their muscles, and aggressively barge into Laxmimoni’s adjudication to search with a microscope for any silly oversights or tiny loopholes that they can then grasp onto, and blow out of proportion so that they can have things their way.The devotee community is your witness. If you do this, you will lose all credibility and respect.I would also like to comment of the following 3 statements by Brahmatirtha Prabhu (BT):(BT1) “When he (Hridayananda Maharaj) was an active GBC with a zone there were virtually no instances of child abuse in his area of responsibility since he sent his best men and women to work in gurukula which was not the always the ISKCON standard of the time”.This is utter nonsense! I appreciate Brahmatirtha Prabhu’s dedication to make you look good, but I encourage him to acquaint himself with the tragic history of the Latin American Gurukulas. The students in the Gurukulas in Mexico, Peru and Brazil were subjected to savage brutalities!

(BT2) “..I truly lament it took two years for this case to work its way through the system since that is traumatic for all”.Surely the GBC ought to take at least some responsibility for the current limitations of the CPO processes, after all it is the GBC that decided to starve the CPO of much needed funds, support and resources.(BT3)“Nevertheless your logic that if anyone is concerned about fair process then they are supporting a convicted pedophile would imply that any person convicted anytime of any crime should never be supported in an appeal. I disagree”.When Hillary Clinton was working as a court appointed attorney in the 70s she accepted the job of defending a paedophile.Given her circumstances, it would have been very hard for her to turn down this request, certainly a lot harder than it would have been for Brahmatirtha to turn down the request to defend Laxmioni.Without going into too many details, arguably this decision she made to take on the job and more specifically the zeal she applied to exonerate the offender contributed to her defeat in the 2016 elections.Whether he chooses to defend a person convicted of child abuse is entirely Brahmatirtha’s choice, I have no say in it. But my point remains that defending a child abuser carries consequences.Brahmatirtha is free to choose, but he is not free from the consequences of his choices.Maharaj, while I hope that your intentions are exclusively motivated by a genuine sense of justice, as you claim, I cannot help but take note of the similarities between the nature of your intervention and the many instances where in the past, ISKCON leaders have attempted to break the rules to protect their friends.I am including an email I received from Dhira Govinda Prabhu, (former CPO Director), wherein he describes the challenges he faced, while adjudicating similar high profile cases.Yours in service of the VaisnavasSanaka Rsi das---------------------------------------------------------------------------“Hare Krsna. Thanks for writing this and copying me on it.Related to what you present, I remember several cases of those who were in leadership positions or friends with those in leadership positions- after the CPO issued the official decision, several in leadership positions, who previously had expressed practically no interest in the procedures of the CPO, would cry out, in the name of fairness and justice, about the unfairness of the CPO and its procedures. Ostensibly it had nothing to do with their bias and favouritism to this particular friend whose case decision was recently issued; it was simply and purely a sincere concern for just procedures…”

Dhiragovinda das

June 3rd 2018

Dear Sanaka Rsi,

Jaya Prabhupada! Thank you for your letter. I will address your points. First, I will frame my critique with a general remark. Universal norms of justice require three

components to fairly adjudicate an accusation: an advocate for the prosecution; an advocate for the defense; an impartial judge.Clearly you have taken the role of the advocate for the prosecution, and your entire letter has the typical form and tone of a prosecutorial interrogation. It is necessary that the abused have a strong advocate, and in that sense you are doing an important service. However to ensure fair process, a judge must be both impartial and professionally trained in jurisprudence. Since you are neither, you are clearly not the judge in this matter, nor am I. I will now address your points. Your words immediately follow the numbers. 1. "I presented it as a fact that you have indeed been interfering with Laxmimoni’s case and you have confirmed this, albeit with different wording: “I simply called for fair judicial process…”

You accuse me of “interfering.” “To interfere” primarily indicates three actions, which I will analyze in order:

a. Interfere: take part or intervene in an activity without... necessity.If I am right, and the CPO did not provide fair process, than in fact it was necessary for me to speak out. If the CPO did follow fair process, as you claim, then my intervention was not necessary. Since you are neither neutral in this case, nor professionally trained in jurisprudence, you cannot be the judge of the CPO’s procedure, nor the final judge of whether my intervention was necessary or not.b. Interfere: prevent (a process or activity) from continuing or being carried out properly.Again, if an impartial, trained judge rules that the CPO did not follow fair process, then I am actually enabling a process to be carried out properly, the opposite of interference. It depends on the quality of the CPO process and that has not yet been ajudicated by an impartial, trained judge.c. Interfere: handle or adjust something without permission.There is no ISKCON or CPO law that requires me to get formal permission to give my view.

Further, in your statement above, you equate a call for "fair judicial process” with “interference.” The difference will be obvious to any impartial reader.

2. "I assumed that you would want to portray your interference under the guise of justice and fair process, and you have also confirmed this.”

Interestingly, even a prosecuting attorney would be forbidden to use such language as you employ in a court of law. A ‘guise’ is something that conceals the true nature of something. Here you claim extraordinary powers to discern the hidden motives of other people. You provide no evidence of my hidden motives, such as a letter I wrote, or a recording of a statement I made. With no objective evidence, your statement amounts to nothing more than name-calling, hardly the basis for a rational system of justice.  

3. "This leaves me wondering how many more senior leaders are campaigning to protect Laxmimoni under the pretext of ensuring “fair judicial process…"

Pretext? See my comments on #2. More gratuitous accusations.

4. "You state that 'My only concern was fair process…'. While I can’t read your heart, it is evident that the only party that stands to gain from your interference in this CPO adjudication is Laxmimoni and certainly not her victims…”

Incorrect. Prabhupada repeatedly called for constitutional governance within ISKCON. A proper system of justice is a cornerstone of a constitutional society. Indeed, a proper justice system is a key difference between civilized society and uncivilized society. Thus ISKCON stands to gain enormously by paying more attention to fair judicial procedure. You ignore my real purpose, which I clearly stated, and instead argue against your own twisted caricature of my position. You refuted your own imagination, not my real position. And if you can’t read my heart, why do you so often claim to read it with words like “guise” and “pretext."

5. "As far as I am aware, this is the first time you have ever raised concerns about CPO procedural fairness.”

Correct. Until now, I had full faith in the CPO and assumed that they were doing their job properly. Thus, I saw no need to concern myself with their decisions. 

6. "I will be very grateful if you could elaborate on what exactly are these egregious procedural shortcomings you are aware of/concerned about, that suddenly prompted you to set aside your precious time to trouble yourself with CPO matters.”

Since you are acting as an advocate for the prosecution, it is not to you that evidence of bad process is presented. It is presented to an impartial, professionally trained judge. I will say this: I have come to believe that the basic flaw of the CPO was to combine the two roles of advocate for the abused and judge of the accused. In respected systems of justice, an advocate for one side in a dispute cannot also be the judge. Again, an impartial, trained judge must assess the details of CPO process

7. “Would you kindly share with us exactly when you became concerned about the CPO’s procedural fairness? Was it from the beginning of the case, or did you decide to step in after the verdict was released? You see, if you got involved only after the guilty verdict, this would lend credibility to the concern that you have indeed stepped in with the intention to help Laxmimoni, on account of your disapproval of the verdict.”

Here you make two false assumptions. a) You assume that there are no reasons that might lead me to get involved when I did, but that lend no credibility whatsoever to your assumption of my motives. b) You assume that I got involved when I learned of the guilty verdict.  Here is what actually happened. I did not get involved at the beginning of the case for the reason stated above: I had full faith in the competence and fairness of the

CPO. And when I heard that LM had been found guilty, I still did not get involved, because I still assumed the CPO had reached a fair decision. In fact, I became involved only when I read serious claims of faulty process. I cannot finally judge the claims, but they were credible enough to at least demonstrate the need for judicial review.

8. "I’d like to ask you a hypothetical question: “Do you think you would have also gotten involved to raise concerns about the judicial fairness of CPO proceedings if they had exonerated Laxmimoni”?

If I had received credible claims that LM had been unfairly exonerated, yes I would absolutely have protested.

9.  "It is also important to remember that Laxmimoni served as a CPO judge for many years. During this time, she adjudicated a number of important cases, Dhanurdara Swami being one of them. If fairness is truly important, I trust you would agree that she ought to be tried with the same rules she applied to others. Where is the justice in campaigning to change the rules, now that it’s her turn to occupy the stand of the accused, so that she can benefit from a more ‘fair trial’???”

There are at least two problems in your question:a) You equate “rules” with following rules. It is possible (I have no idea if this is true) that as a judge, LM followed certain CPO rules, and those same rules were not followed in judging her. b) If LM followed what are now seen as imperfect rules in her capacity as a CPO judge, it does not follow that the same imperfect rules should be used in judging her. I am not aware of any serious justice system in the world that would knowingly try a judge by rules that have been found to be wrong, because during his or her tenure, the judge used those rules. Such an idea may satisfy a need for vengeance, but it does not correspond to any respected system of justice.

10. “I appreciate Brahmatirtha Prabhu’s dedication to make you look good, but I encourage him to acquaint himself with the tragic history of the Latin American Gurukulas. The students in the Gurukulas in Mexico, Peru and Brazil were subjected to savage brutalities!”

Since you are in favor of acquainting oneself with history, please note that I was not the GBC of the Gurukulas in Mexico and Peru. In Brazil, the one serious case of abuse that I know of from that period came to light after I left Brazil. We did many things right, and inevitably there were mistakes. But I was not aware of ‘savage brutalities’ during my time there.

Prabhupada said that ISKCON should be a constitutional society, and that religion with philosophy, i.e. reason and logic, is sentimentalism or fanaticism. In that spirit, I have tried to address your points.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 4th 2018

Hare Krsna Hridayananda Maharaj, 

All Glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Is it true that back in 1986 you took a stance for “justice” to defend Bhavananda?

I couldn’t help but notice the addition of lengthy, legal jargon in your more recent letter, something that was missing from your previous correspondence. You seem to have enlisted the assistance of an undergraduate lawyer who, as would be expected for someone in that business, seems poorly acquainted with personal honesty, but also with the role and procedures of the CPO. I encourage youto fire this one, and look for a better one. You have resorted to the tactic of using a smokescreen of long, strung out verbose rhetoric, to try and bewilder and distract the audience from your true motives.

By your ‘logic on fair procedure’ we would then need to review all the past CPO cases, because surely even you will agree that we can’t just make an exception for your friend! This ought to be especially applicable for Dhanurdhara Maharaj and the other cases adjudicated by Laxmimoni. As a child abuser herself, it is reasonable to assume that she was not in a position to act as an impartial judge.

You attempt to argue as if we were in a court of law, but you forget that we are not. You try to label me and put me in the box of the advocate, and then try to limit and manipulate what you think I can and cannot say and do, based on your labelling criterion, but that is not your call.You think (or hope perhaps) that by bamboozling your audience with enough, long-winded explanations, you can hide or obfuscate the truth.

I assure you that despite your repetitive rhetoric, few if any, objective bystander believes your claims that your interference, on behalf of your good friend, is prompted by a genuine and impartial love for justice.Your actions speak louder than your words, if you are truly interested in justice, I encourage you to take the side of the disenfranchised. No amount of clever arguments can hide the fact that you have chosen to side with the institutional perpetrator to the detriment of her victims. No matter how you spin it, you are protecting an unremorseful child abuser.

I encourage. No I challenge you to be radically honest and come clean. Yours and Brahmatirtha’s efforts to distract from the fact that your campaign for “selective justice” for one individual, who also conveniently happens to be your friend, are not working very well.I challenge you to put aside your ego and stop misusing whatever god given intelligence you have to hide behind plausible deniability.

We are not in court, remember? We don’t need evidence beyond reasonable doubt to understand your intentions. Your actions speak very loud, and they do not corroborate your defence claims.

You wrote:

“There is a group of internet vigilantes who disregard the fair procedures of civilized

societies. They make offensive accusations without even taking the trouble to check their facts. In that sense, they remind me of Trump”.

I am quite amused to see that you of all people should compare me to Trump! I can’t imagine that he would be flattered though…

Your intervention is dividing the devotee community and further traumatizing the victims. How have you contributed to bring harmony, healing and peace to ISKCON with your actions? Is this truly the legacy you want to leave behind?

Blinded by your ego and pompous titles, you are unable to see that you are publicly ridiculing yourself. You don’t seem to have noticed the embarrassment of your disciples and (former?) well-wishers.

You made the mistake of backing a child abuser, and now you have been exposed, as your ego does not allow you to come clean and acknowledge your mistake, you are desperately trying clenching at straws to back-paddle. But every letter youwrite, sinks you deeper and deeper in the swamp, you reconfirm your lack of compassion and empathy for the victims, conveniently disguised behind this thing you call “justice”, for your friend of course.

Do you even have a heart? If you have the courage, have an honest look at how the way you have conducted your so called campaign for “justice” has affected the victims of Laxmimoni’s prolonged injustices, you have trampled all over them. I am not talking about what spin your lawyer can put on this. I am talking about reaching out to the victims, calling them and opening up to listen to their pain, to ask them how your actions have impacted them.

Ironically you lament for my unsubstantiated claims and then you go on to accuse the CPO Director of partiality (towards the victims I assume), and you claim that “There is now massive evidence that the CPO violated numerous principles of fair process in the LM case”.

I thought you stated that you are not qualified to be the judge here???

Please explain to your lawyer that the CPO Director does not have a say on the verdict reached by the judges. You have called into question the professional integrity and sincerity of the CPO Director, but also of the 3 devotees that served as judges on this case. The best part is that despite your extravagant and offensive allegations, as you have not provided an iota of evidence to substantiate your claims, hence we cannot take you seriously.

As far as we know, and until proven otherwise, according to the policies and procedures in the CPO Manual, ratified by the GBC (You happen to be one of these very GBCs in case you have forgotten), Laxmioni’s case was handled appropriately. Your strawman’s argument that the proceedings did not meet the criteria of a secular court systems are irrelevant.

Being unsatisfied with the outcome, and unable to fault the CPO’s findings, your lawyer has attempted to make a false comparison between the CPO and the secular judicial system. Then you went on to pick imaginary flaws based on the fact that the CPO does not measure up to this notion of how you think it needs to be.If you truly believe that there are aspects of the CPO that need improvement, you as a GBC

member are and have been in a privileged position to campaign and vote for, amend and ratify, any changes you see fit.To try and change the rules, now that your close friend is being adjudicated, in the name of justice, so that she can get a preferential treatment, is disingenuous. To try and flog this off as a campaign for justice is simply misguided.

For many good reasons, the CPO is not intended to replace a secular judicial system, rather its role is complementary. It was never designed nor intended to stand up to the comparison you have made, in trying to justify your interference.

What was the wording you used?

“You refuted your own imagination…” I couldn’t have said it better myself!

You wrote:

“I will say this: I have come to believe that the basic flaw of the CPO was to combine the two roles of advocate for the abused and judge of the accused. In respected systems of justice, an advocate for one side in a dispute cannot also be the judge. Again, an impartial, trained judge must assess the details of CPO process”.

Please, do everyone a favour and stop embarrassing yourself, by commenting on something you clearly know very little about. Don’t trust whoever is feeding you this manure. Inform your legal counsel that the CPO is not the advocate of the victims! They must have dreamt this up last night. Also please remind your lawyer that the CPO is supposed to be independent of the GBC, precisely to avoid situations like this one, where you are trying to forcefully influence the adjudication of your friend Laxmimoni, to achieve an outcome that is more favourable and agreeable for her. 

You have stooped so low that you have become petty, you are embarrassing yourself but you can’t even see it, or if you are able to see it, perhaps your ego doesn’t allow you to back down. Either way, you are making a fool of yourself!This is surreal! Some of the arguments you make remind me of exchanges I had when I was in kinder garden, except that I am having them with a 70 year old Sannyasi, GBC, Guru, Harvard PHD professor etc etc…

You found a dictionary definition that provides a meaning that doesn’t support my use of the word “interfere” and went on a tangent with that, but guess what? The Webster Dictionary supports my use of the word “interfere”:

1: to interpose  in a way that hinders or impedes : come into collision or be in opposition2: to strike one foot against the opposite foot or ankle in walking or running —used especially of horses

3: to enter into or take a part in the concerns of others

It is clearly evident that you have most certainly been interfering with the CPO’s adjudication of Laxmimoni’s case…To help her.

You want to speak law?

Legally the punishments for the tortures Laxmimoni inflicted on her victims is jail time. But you haven’t argued against the injustice that the CPO only awarded her with a very light inconvenience for her crimes! No! You want to further diminish these sanctions!

In law, ignorance is not an acceptable excuse. You claim that only now you have discovered that the CPO has shortcomings, your ignorance does not exonerate you. Where was your involvement and passionate indignation for justice over the last 4 decades of child abuse? Would you like to discuss your personal responsibility, for all the children that have been abused in ISKCON during your years in leadership, because you ‘weren’t aware’?

Do you have any idea how many children have been trampled on by the flaws of the CPO? Oddly enough, as Dhira Govinda pointed out, this happened most frequently in cases just like this one, where leaders, just like you, suddenly experience a surge of self-righteous calling to fight for their abusive friend’s ‘justice’.

Where was your sense of justice for the past 50 years while hundreds of gurukula children were permanently scarred by the gurukula system masterminded by Laxmimoni and her husband?

 Do you really expect anyone to believe that you have experienced a sudden and miraculous concern for ‘true’ justice, only now that yours and Brahmatirtha’s friend has been found guilty?

I assure you that despite your overbearing word jugglery, you are not doing a good job at disguising your real motives, they are very self-evident for anyone who wants to see.

The saddest thing about justice, in the department of child protection in ISKCON, is that just about every tiny victory won by the victims was the result of a ‘David and Goliath’ contention, just like the one we are witnessing now, where leaders band together to deny justice to the victims…In the name of justice of course.

Try to imagine for one moment the unfortunate predicament of a young child that has been tragically abused by one of your friends and needs the protection of your version of ‘justice’…

Sanaka

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 8th 2018

RESPONSE TO THE GBCs' OFFICIAL STATEMENT REGARDING LAXMIMONI.

Respected Vaisnava community,Please accept our humble obeisance. All Glories to Srila Prabhupada.

We are very grateful to the GBC Executive committee for taking the time to release an official response to address the serious concerns raised by the devote community with regards to the interference of some ISKCON leaders in the adjudication of Laxmimoni's case.We acknowledge the difference between the GBC body and individual GBC members and ISKCON leaders, and even before the official announcement was released, we adjusted the title of our petition accordingly.That being said, one of our primary concerns: that a number of ISKCON leaders have been actively campaigning to reduce the sanctions imposed on their friend Laxmimoni, by the recent CPO decision, have not been adequately addressed in the GBC's official statement.We've just received reliable information that Malati and Pragosh prabhus - who are both senior ISKCON leaders AND members of the GBC - have also been quietly campaigning alongside Hridayananda Maharaj and Brahmatirtha prabhu, abusing their position of influence and power within ISKCON, to help their friend.In their official statement the GBC Body states:"For this purpose, we are in the process of forming a committee of experts to study our CPO procedures."Taking into account past experiences, we are deeply concerned with the decision making process that will lead to the selection of these experts.These experts must be professional individuals with at least two decades of experience working specifically in the field of child protection.Ideally we need a committee that will include at the very least the following individuals: a child protection lawyer, a social worker and a devote who has a broad understanding of ISKCON's child protection history and current needs and challenges.Consequently, we request that an appropriate representative of the Gurukula Alumni be part of the committee tasked with the selection of the team that will review the existing CPO procedures and policies.We further request the GBC Executive committee to direct all senior devotees who have been interfering with the CPO adjudication of Laxmimoni, to cease and desist immediately, and to allow the CPO to do its work unencumbered by the influence of any leaderships' cronyism.Such unsavory practices do not belong within the spiritual society envisioned by His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada.HOW CAN YOU HELP? PLEASE SIGN OUR PETITION!!That's how, collectively, we can communicate to the leadership of ISKCON our resolute intention to ensure the integrity, not only of child protection for ISKCON's future generations, but more specifically for the adult survivors of Laxmimoni's decades of abuses.P.S. If you have information of any additional GBC member that has been illegally campaigning to reduce the sanctions on Laxmimoni, please forward me their names.Thank you for your support.With gratitude.We pray for the opportunity to serve youOn behalf of Laxmimoni's victims,Sanaka rsi das

July 13th 2018

LAXMIMONI WILL NOT BE APPEALING THE CPO VERDICT... EXPLORING THE MYTH OF AN INDEPENDENT CPO

Dear devote community,I am happy to inform you that our campaign to discourage further interference of senior devotees in the adjudication of Laxmimoni devi dasi, has been an unexpected success. I can now confirm that Laxmimoni devi dasi will not appeal the verdict issued by the CPO.This is another huge victory and a significant milestone for the victims of child abuse in ISKCON. We were all witness to the shenanigans that took place when the CPO issued a guilty verdict for Laxmimoni devi dasi.Sadly, some very senior and influential members of ISKCON’s leadership, jumped at her defense for no good reasons. All of a sudden we saw some devotees that in their entire devotional career had never taken any interest in the procedures of the CPO or child protection in general, express a keen interest in the fairness of its procedural justice.The devotees that have inappropriately interceded with the CPO in the attempt to mitigate the sanctions imposed on Laxmimoni are; Hridayananda Maharaj, Malati prabhu, Brahmatirtha prabhu, Anuttama prabhu, Praghosa prabhu and Radha dasi.These devotees enjoy special privileges and influence within ISKCON on account of their seniority, position and status, it was an abuse of power on their part to attempt to pressure and sway the CPO into changing its proceedings in favor of their friend.Many senior and experienced CPO judges turned down this service on account of the friendships and professional acquaintance they had developed with Laxmimoni over the years working together on CPO cases. However one person did NOT.Besides Radha dasi’s personal friendship with Laxmimoni, they also served together on ISKCON’s Vaishnavi/Women Ministry. Radha dasi had the professional responsibility to make her friendship and acquaintance with Lamimoni known and recuse herself from any involvement with Laxmimoni’s adjudication. But instead she went ahead and accepted the service of Case Manager.As a Case Manager for Laxmimoni, her job was to collect the statements of the victims and present them to the CPO Director, without expressing personal opinions on the merits of these testimonies or otherwise try to influence the outcome of the case.She went as far as telling some of the victims that their testimonies were “inadmissible”. Which was clearly beyond her competence; for it is the job of the judges to establish and comment on the merits of any testimonies submitted.She also sent to Laxmimoni’s victims, the letters of character reference that some former students and colleagues wrote in support of Laxmimoni, marked as “witness statements”. This is not only unprofessional, and again showed her clear bias, but it also added insult to injury for Laxmimoni’s victims.Radha dasi is a Harvard lawyer, it is reasonable to assume that she is very aware of the difference between a character reference and a witness statement. It is difficult to give her the benefit of the doubt that she wasn’t aware of the implications of her actions.Her unprofessional and hostile behavior discouraged some of the victims from submitting their testimonies to the CPO. She may have thus influenced the outcome of the case so as to award a more lenient sentence to Laxmimoni.Given her prior friendship with Laxmimoni, when Radha dasi accepted to serve as Case Manager she breached the code of professional integrity expected of CPO officers. Her involvement and actions may have compromised the integrity of the adjudication.On account of her unprofessional conduct she ought to be banned from any further involvement with the CPO.The real problem is that some GBC members were left in utter disbelief by their inability to force the CPO Director to compromise the integrity of Laxmimoni’s adjudication to suit their whims and demands.

This concerned them greatly, so much so, that they have decided that a CPO director that will not bend the rules at their command must be replaced.I can confirm that the GBC has already decided that at the October meetings they will unceremoniously remove the current CPO Director and replace him with somebody with a more flexible moral compass and a “more accommodating” understanding of child protection.In their official statement the GBC Executive committee informed the devotee community that they will be revising the structure and policies of the CPO.“In response to concerns that some aspects of the CPO’s operation may have been faulty, the GBC Body is duty-bound to undertake a further analysis of the CPO structure. For this purpose, we are in the process of forming a committee of experts to study our CPO procedures”.Now, in theory all this sounds very good of course. The concerning part is the historical lack of transparency and integrity we have witnessed in many of the instances when the GBC has been involved in child protection.I am concerned that in the near future we may see a restructured CPO, with a more GBC friendly Policy and Procedure Manual and a figurehead CPO director that will march in tune with the GBCs’ drums. And naturally, we can expect a blaring memorandum on Dandavats and ISKCON News, that finally, we can all be at ease, knowing that the new CPO is “truly effective and independent". This seems to be the plan of the GBC…Let’s make sure this does not turn out into another embarrassing sham. It is imperative that the CPO comes out improved and strengthened by these proposed changes.We can only hope to achieve this if we ensure that none of the individuals that will select the members of the review committee, and the committee members themselves, have any history of tolerating, enabling or protecting child abuse. Believe it or not, this would rule out many GBC members!It is time that ISKCON invests some good money in child protection.At least some of the members of the committee must be professionals in the field of child protection, with no less than 10 years experience working in the sector. The committee needs to address effective ways to discourage the interference of senior and influential members of ISKCON in CPO adjudications. ISKCON is at a crucial turning point, we have the opportunity to transform our child protection policies so as to bring them to world class standards.This can only happen if the upcoming overhaul of the CPO is carried out with the utmost transparency, integrity and accountability.The credibility and effectiveness of both the CPO and the GBC are on the line here.Let’s make a wise decision.Yours in the service of VaisnavasSanaka