Posted June 06 2004


Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 11:05 AM

Subject: reply to Krishnadas Kaviraja das (KKd)

KKd (Member of the Governing Body Commission (GBC) Executive Committee), writes:
> > How can the BIF claim that they have any more objectivity in this issue, when the tone and content of JFY is so one-sided.<<
Bhaktivedanta Investigation Force (BIF), writes: 
The tone of JFY (Judge for Yourself)  is that of devotees who have been cheated by false information and GBC propaganda.  The content of JFY, unlike the GBC publication- NTIP, is thoroughly referenced and honest.  We have maintained our integrity in spite of  the smoke and mirrors.  It sounds one sided because we are on Srila Prabhupada's side, the side which has been cheated by GBC negligence, misinformation, and twenty-six-years of conjuring by the suspects and their cronies within the corporation.
>>They could just as easily say that they will not work with anyone who was involved with the publication of JFY (which would lead to a complete impasse).<<
If by "They" you refer to Tirtharaja das and Ravindra Svarupa das, we don't really care what they say.  Our interest lies in what the GBC decides (in writing).  If they decide to reopen the investigation we can negotiate terms.  Should they refuse, we will simply accept it as Sri Krishna's direction to go ahead with our campaign.  However, and no matter what eventuates, this matter will not lead to a 'complete impasse'.  If the GBC understands that BIF has nothing to lose in the quest for truth and justice, they would have understood a great deal.
>>It is not possible for anyone to be completely objective and independent<<
At the expense of business and reputation, a professional investigative agency is bound by oath to be objective and independent.  Why must every criminal investigation in ISKCON be commissioned by the GBC, and run by personnel who are subject to the GBC's final decision, which, to date, has resulted in no prosecution?
>>This is my own view and has not resulted from a conversation with anyone from either side.<<
We are not dealing with how much the temple collected in donations, or who will give the Sunday feast lecture.  This is an alleged homicide, and a conspiracy that worked successfully in hiding it for two decades.  Our point of view, no matter which 'SIDE', is irrelevant and not worth a poop.  The only point of relevance is whether or not the GBC will cooperate in permitting an impartial and discreet investigation, or whether we must force the issue using whatever legal means necessary.
>>Perhaps both sides should let Vyapaka and myself (or anyone that both sides believe to be impartial) look at all the compiled evidence, submitted by both sides, then we/they can judge for everyone else.<<
Vyapaka Prabhu is a dear friend and godbrother, just as you are.  Nevertheless, you should not labour under a misapprehension.  The evidence will stay where it is until a professional, impartial, trained and accredited agency is appointed to handle it under oath of confidentiality.  JFY has already put so much evidence before the GBC, but it seems that there is total blindness to fact.  Tirtharaja das published a book of lies, we have shown this to be an unequivocal fact, yet he is sitting on your committee dictating terms of agreement, and now you debate our protestation.  
> > Would anyone accept such a decision?<<
Even if you were the Managing Director of the best known investigative agency on the planet, we could not accept your suggestion.  You are party to the 'conflict', as such, you are deemed to have a vested interest in the outcome, which raises the 'conflict of interest' clause.  Our suggestion to work cooperatively with the GBC was to establish a five-man-council (no more, since we are paying for it), who would help the investigators with the coordination of the investigation, and compilation of reports thereof.  To this end, we would suggest three 'independents' and two GBC reps.  If the GBC wish to pay for the investigation, then the numbers could be reversed.  Since there is no need for votes or resolutions, the numbers should not prove a threat to anyone, unless there is belief that an accredited agency can successfully manufacture evidence twenty-six years after the fact, with intent to overthrow the GBC, shut down ISKCON, or whatever.
> > Or would both sides remain completely rooted in their point of view?<< 
"Both sides?" In the last letter we were told, and I quote- "the GBC resolution that accepted NTIP did not,  in fact, close the investigation."  But now we have two sides?  If the GBC is open to an investigation then our only point of emphasis is that it should not be another internal GBC affair.  We support a discreet, internal investigation, to protect the civil rights and privacy of all concerned parties, but this should not be misinterpreted to mean the INquest is subject to GBC decisions and dictates. 
> > "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still."<< 
In correction and fact: A 'fool' convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
> > Is there really any point if everyone's minds are already made up?<<
And this question was prompted by our declaration that we would not work with those who had made up their minds.  Ironic, isn't it?  Before all else, the GBC must first apprise us, in writing, of their decision to reopen an investigation.  We have already indicated in our 'Demand to Redress' that we will wait until the conclusion of the Mayapura meetings for a reply.  Failing which, this window of opportunity will be closed and locked in process.  In any event, our attempts to place onus where it belongs should not be misread to mean that we are trying to garner GBC support for an investigation.  The investigation will go ahead, regardless. YS


Copyright 2003-2004 Bhaktivedanta Investigation Force