Posted September 9 2004


Praghosa Das (Chairman GBC) writes:
Dear Vyapaka prabhu,

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

>>So let us draw this exercise to a conclusion. I have two simple questions and they are:<<
In order to fulfill your request I will only answer your two questions below, as opposed to going through your whole reply to my last text point by point.
>>1. Does the GBC prefer that the investigation be held in a public forum or would you agree that it is in the best interest of Srila Prabhupada's movement to keep this in-house as much as possible?<<
I would say right now that the GBC are not particularly inclined toward any investigation, on the basis that they do not feel there is a need for one. That said, and as shown by the resolution that they passed this year, *if* it is shown that further investigation is required they would support that. Naturally if that were the case then better that such a process be undertaken in a way that is most beneficial to all concerned.
BIF writes:
"...as shown by the resolution that they passed this year"?
We have not seen any resolution.  Where is it?  What we do see, is that the validity of an investigation depends on GBC consensus and not on any professional opinion.  When we recognise that the GBC has a "jobs for the boys" appointment process, the suspects have surrounded themselves with sycophants who, in gratitude and self preservation, never gainsay their hierarchy of benefactors. 

2. BIF has requested that you participate on a committee to re-open the investigation funded by themselves and performed by an arms-length professional investigator with three members from their side and two from that of the GBC over-seeing the investigation. Are you willing to participate in such an exercise?<<

As already stated many times *if* it becomes clear that there are compelling grounds for re-opening such an investigation then the GBC would be happy to do so. If that comes to pass then the precise shape and details of that process could then be worked out.

> > Personally, considering your position as GBC Chairman, I will take your response as reflecting the will of the GBC. I would be greatly indebted if you could answer these two questions at your earliest opportunity.<<
I hope I have done so.

Your servant, Praghosa dasa.
Vyapaka Das writes to the GBC Chairman- Praghosa Das:
I think you are well aware of the process which is being proposed since I have explained it on a number of occasions in my emails. It is going ahead with or without you publishing your resolution. If the GBC wishes to
participate, then please contact either ********** or ******** Prabhus. If they are unable to help, they should be able to put you in touch with the right people.
It seems that the GBC is simply sticking their collective head in the sand. If those invovled in the investigation aren't pulling my leg, the time for getting invovled is diminishing quickly. From my angle of vision, it is the
>responsibility of the GBC to contact these devotees as they have been straightforward in making their concerns known to the GBC. But it seems that you are reluctant to respond and can only pass on alleged resolutions which are not being followed up on (it is now over two months since the alleged resolution was purported to be passed).
It should be clear that you are NOT being asked to re-open the investigation but to participate in an investigation which is on-going. The GBC is being requested to participate on a committee to over-see the investigation which will be underaken by professional investigators (either private or police). These intentions have been made to you many times in emails from me and I imagine others. If your resolution is indeed as you portray it, you have completely missed the point.

The official GBC conclusion (NTIP) regarding the poisoning comes across as misleading and inaccurate. This mindset is continued with the non-publication of an alleged resolution which no member of the GBC has
>acted upon. If this does eventually hit the newspapers, the GBC and ISKCON will look foolish indeed and many will deduce that there is a cover up being undertaken by the administrative authority for ISKCON. Your NTIP book was researched by a disciple of an alleged conspirator and financed by another alleged conspirator and is full of discrepancies as evidenced by a more recent investigation chronicled in JFY. If the continuing investigation proves that an attempt was made on Srila Prabhupada's life with poison by senior members of the GBC, how do you think the GBC will appear? I doubt if many will give you the benefit of the doubt. And nor should they.
 At last things are becoming clear with the non-action and non-communication with BIF by the GBC implicitly revealing that there is little inclination on their part to go forward with their own alleged resolution and on-going
investigation. I pray that in the future the GBC will not attempt to portray its commitment to the continuing investigation using this unpublished resolution. It will be interpreted as a desperate attempt at window-dressing. At least, that is my conclusion after engaging in this discussion with you, as the spokesperson for the GBC.

The information I have passed on has been done sincerely as was my attempt at communication via these many emails. Your participation has been insightful and appreciated. I see no purpose of continuing our
>communication re. this issue as it is appears to be simply an exercise in redundancy. For the sake of the Hare Krsna movement, I do pray that the investigation will prove negative re. the poisoning in order to spare the many sincere followers of Srila Prabhupada the embarassment that this will all cause. However, if it does prove the worst, the GBC will be regarded as participating in a cover-up. What a shameful day that will be. And it could so easily have been avoided.
Vyapaka dasa 
Praghosa das writes to Vyapaka das:
As stated many times, the GBC is of the clear view that there is nothing to investigate at this point in time. If others have evidence to the contrary then why can't they co-operate and stop cold shouldering the GBC by producing it?
BIF writes:
This is just more of the same static humdrum, axiomatic to ISKCON's tin-pot dictatorship and its dwindling army of ants.  If the GBC has a clear view then the problem must be neurological, because these last three decades have shown them to be gurus one day and exposed cheats-on-heat, the next.  Denial- is nothing more than another component on the GBC carousel of connivance.  In regards to the poison issue, we find that not only does the GBC have an impaired view of reality, but they have worked in their own dementia to distort the view of others.  First and foremost -  the GBC hid the "Conversations" for twenty years; stopped the ONLY investigation EVER attempted; denied, and continue to, the conclusions of forensic scientists; published a book of lies and deception, which cannot be viewed as anything other than criminal; refused offers to initiate a professional investigation FREE of cost, and refused offers to form a panel for overseeing the investigation to a conclusion.  So where does Praghosa das get this clear view nonsense?  We are, and have been dealing with, a straight-jacket sub-set fruit-loop-parampara since 1977.
He also says in the statement above- If others have evidence to the contrary.....  This is an unequivocal claim that the GBC "has evidence" supporting their refusal to accept Prabhupada's allegations of poisoning, and post forensic conclusions supporting that allegation.  Otherwise why is Praghosa asking for "evidence to the contrary"?  So where is the GBC evidence, or conclusions supporting the belief that there is "nothing to investigate at this point in time"?  Is it contained in the publication- NTIP, or are they in the process of writing a sequel?  Or are they simply enforcing license negotiated at their fly-by-night acarya club?
Regarding this "evidence to the contrary", referred to by Praghosa das: we, BIF, find the GBC unqualified to deal with ANY evidence.  Nor do we find them capable of negotiating with friend or foe.  This comes as no surprise since there are basically two types of devotees within the ISKCON infrastructure: basha (management: sponge), and bhik-mungine (beggar).  The beggars are the negotiators who bring in money off the street, and management uses license (contracted) as a right to sponge it off them.  So, if Praghosa das and his GBC club are truly interested in "evidence to the contrary", the 'alleged' resolution should be made public so that beggars can negotiate between themselves to reach a conclusion.  Sponges are far too arrogant to even acknowledge basic truths about themselves, what to speak of complex truths such as the poisoning of His Divine Grace.

Copyright 2003-2004 Bhaktivedanta Investigation Force