LETTERS TO THE VOID #4
Posted June 30 2004
Praghosa das, Chairman- Governing Body
Commission (GBC), writes:
>It seems to me that on the one hand you have the GBC who
are of the firm opinion that there is nothing to the poison issue and
that they have investigated this issue sufficiently.<
We are aware of the GBC's claim to
have "investigated this issue sufficiently". The
GBC stated: 618 [Statement] It is
resolveed that 1) There is no evidence at this time to support the
allegations of poisoning of Srila Prabhupada. This conclusion is
based on two independent reports commissioned by the GBC Body.
However, BIF researched the
GBC statement and found it to be inaccurate in that there never was a
single complete investigation undertaken, what to speak of two.
The only attempted investigation by a legal authority was
done by Balavanta das, aka. William Ogle (a lawyer). He
reported publicly that his work could not be completed due to a
cessation of funding by the GBC. Here it is:
Das (In his report to the GBC): "
He (Dr. Morris) was prepared to
perform these tests when he was contacted by a Mr. Hooper (a.k.a.
Deva Gaura Hari, author of the GBC book "Not That I am
indicated that he was also working on the investigation. Mr. Hooper
was not working with me and I do not know him or his role in your
investigation. Following this contact, Dr. Morris decided to assess a
substantial charge for his continuing efforts. I contacted you (Bir
Krsna. Former Chairman GBC) to
ask for the funds to complete the study, but they have not been
Praghosa das read our report (Judge For Yourself) he
would be better informed, and not simply re-hash GBC
>On the other hand you have some devotees who are still of
the opinion that not enough has been done to date to establish a
loophole free conclusion that would satisfy everyone.<
Why talk of a 'loophole
free conclusion' when no investigation has been completed in the
first place? Instead of spouting nonsense, why doesn't
the GBC show us the conclusions of a legitimate
inquiry i.e. sworn affidavits, polygraph tests, cross-examinations, completed
forensic analysis, etc., under the letterhead of a legally
designated agency? This is due process wherein there is no conflict of interests; law beyond
the rule of cult.
>I and (sic) not inclined to
be the driving force behind it and would suggest that you make a
formal proposal in this regard and then the GBC body can seriously
There is no inclination being shown
by the GBC, no matter how or what we propose. All we get are
these personal, useless opinions. The GBC, as a body, has not
corresponded with us directly or shown any honesty in accepting this
issue as legal/due process. There is no question of putting
forward a "formal proposal" when the GBC refuses to hear
anything except what pleases them. We have tried as best we can
to bring matters of impropriety to their attention.
They in turn pretend indifference, and in so doing, attemp to
negate the import of the plaint. Our choices have narrowed down to
secular involvement through methods that could be destructive to
corporate ISKCON. In spite of our repeated warnings, there
appears to be no acceptance by the GBC of the implications.
The position now is not whether the GBC will 'seriously consider'
our proposal, but whether they have seriously envisioned the
>If this were not to pass then the concerned devotees that
you have mentioned could still initiate their own investigation.<
Fiduciary obligation lies
with the GBC, not with individuals. It is
blatantly obvious to all concerned that the GBC shirking
responsibility in a most grievous manner. Should
individuals be forced to carry onus and expense because of GBC
negligence, the ISKCON leadership must consider litigation
to be a possibility in process.
>If that investigation were to unearth something new and
conclusive that would support the poison theory, then the GBC would
have little option but to re-open the whole issue again.<
No! Either the GBC performs the
obligatory desiderata, or not. It cannot be expected that others
do the hard yards while the god-almighty-GBC sits with its
hands in their pockets. BIF has offered the GBC a chance to work
conjointly, free of cost, in bringing this issue to a close.
To this point we have received no answer, and hereupon we seek no
collaboration with them.
Balavanta Das laboured many
thankless hours for free, when commissioned by the GBC, but when his
investigation revealed 2. 6 ppm arsenic in Srila Prabhupada's
hair relics, the GBC terminated his commission. However, when an
individual/group takes on the work because of the leadership's failure
to meet its obligations, administration must be made aware
of the expenses involved, and the possibilities of legal damages in
the aftermath. YS
� Copyright 2003-2004 Bhaktivedanta Investigation Force