Hare Krishna, ISKCON Con,Cultist, Hoodlum Hangs

[Sid Harth]

http://www.indiatimes.com/03indu19.htm

ISKCON employee found dead in jail
CALCUTTA: An International Society for Krishna Consciousness
(ISKCON) employee, Sureswar Das, in judicial custody for
allegedly raping a widow, was on Thursday found dead in his cell
in Presidency Jail here.

Inspector general (prisons) Balkar Singh told PTI that Das alias
Sarkar, had "committed suicide" by hanging himself with a towel.

Das, the caretaker of an ISKCON unit in the metropolis, had
allegedly raped a widow on June 29 in his office premises.

His bail prayer was rejected by a division bench of the Calcutta
High Court on July 20.

Das had been arrested on June 29 on the complaint of the widow,
who had come from Orissa along with her son to receive a monthly
allowance granted by ISKCON since the death of her husband, also
an ISKCON employee.

The discovery of Das's body in the early hours of the day
created a flutter in the jail and the local police were informed.
(PTI)

http://chakra.org/mainpages/childabuse/

“The question in my mind is this: Where are some of those
perpetrators and have they no shame for what they have done?”

— ANANTA PURUSOTTAMA DAS
Serving ISKCON in the UK

Thoughts on the Gurukula Lawsuit
By Ananta Purusottama das
Hare Krsna. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Sadly though, we have not done enough to really glorify Srila
Prabhupada, I include myself without hesitation, I can't imagine
how Srila Prabhupada would feel right now over these recent
events.

I just read Jada Bharat’s article, although from last December,
the main point he made really hit me, that many of us have done
very little about the abuse which has affected these poor young
children, although I know some have been doing something. I
first heard about it a few years ago, but was I outraged, not
enough, I was certainly very disturbed, but I assumed the
leaders were obviously going to do something about it, plus I
did hear of certain cases being investigated, and expected some
tangible results to come from those investigations.

I woke up today and tried to remind myself that what I have
heard really happened, it was not a dream or something imagined,
and how shameful it is, who were those "people" who did these
things, and I still wonder why they were allowed to get away
with it for so long. I have three young children although I know
I can improve my role as a father in all aspects, and sometimes
I get a little irritated and shout at my kids, I can hardly
imagine beating them, or anything worse. Somebody told me how
their daughter was only five when she was beaten. I have a
beautiful young daughter called Kalindi, who some devotees know,
she is so small and frail, and I find it so upsetting that
somebody could do what they did to such a small child, such a
person is obviously so sick, and should be sent to the Himalayas
or worse, just like Asvatthama was after killing the young
children of the Pandavas.

The question in my mind is this: Where are some of those
perpetrators and have they no shame for what they have done?

I can just about conceive of somebody committing an awful act
once, but if they sincerely repent and make all efforts to beg
forgiveness from the victim, and really change, then they can
perhaps be forgiven.

I don't know who all the children are who have been abused, but
I feel very sorry for them, and I too wish I could have done
more, although many of us only found out a few years ago. I can
understand their strong actions at this time, as I know from
reliable sources that those children have tried the internal
process for three or four years now, and have become desperate,
so I see what they are doing as a last resort, and I can imagine
how they feel because they have been let down so badly by so
many. They should naturally expect proper protection, like any
child and that has not happened.

I have been reading some of Srila Prabhupada’s letters recently
about Gurukula and about discipline in particular, again and
again he stresses that NO force can be used, but only love, and
affection, and he even mentioned how it is easy to trick a child
into getting what you want them to do, never should any
punishment or stick be used, NEVER.

Srila Prabhupada’s father was so kind and gentle with him, and
Srila Prabhupada mentioned how his father never chastised him, I
wish I could be like that, I even feel bad about shouting at my
kids at times and think that perhaps I could have dealt with a
situation in a better way. So for those children who have any
doubt about Srila Prabhupada’s feeling towards children and how
they should be treated, please try and read some of those
letters I mentioned.

Finally, I want to reiterate how ashamed I feel for not having
tried in any small way to do something as soon as I heard of
such abuse going on, even if it was a long time ago, and how I
feel at times somewhat bewildered having heard all this. To me
it does take some strength to remain a part of ISKCON after
hearing so many difficulties are still around. The famous quote
which Srila Prabhupada often used, by some famous
writer, "England with all thy faults I love thee", using that in
the context of a devotee within ISKCON who sees so many
discrepancies, I now find much harder to say with full
conviction, but I hope in time I can learn from these recent
revelations and do all I can to make sure such a thing could
never happen again, even if not personally, but make sure the
systems set in place are working properly and that future
generations of children can look back and say what a nice
experience that had being brought up in ISKCON.

I forgot to mention that I know at least one of those children
(who is now grown up) having gone through that awful situation
personally, but nevertheless is still a devotee and has full
faith in Lord Krsna, what a wonderful saintly person they must
be. Imagine, Prahlada Maharaja was mistreated by a demon that
was expected, but to mistreated by a "devotee", must be the most
discouraging and bewildering thing to happened to anyone, what
to speak of a child, I think of those devotees in Russia during
the 1980's, how they suffered at the hands of those demons, who
knew no better, but the devotees who were put in charge and were
entrusted by Srila Prabhupada, quite often directly, how they
have shamed their Guru, the society and betrayed that trust to
those under their care. I hope they meet sufficient punishment
for their own purification.

Your servant

Ananta Purusottama das Chant the Holy name and your life will be
sublime!

© CHAKRA 4-July-2000

http://chakra.org/articles/2000/06/13/turley/index.htm

Krishna temples are independently incorporated. Most have
relatively small congregations and limited resources. The $400
million suit is “far, far beyond” the total financial assets of
Krishna temples named in the suit, according to Dasa.

Read the Turley Case Filing

Hare Krishnas Respond to Law Suit
By ISKCON Communications
MEDIA RELEASE, June 12, 2000:

CONTACT: Anuttama Dasa

PHONE: (301) 299-9707

Washington, D.C.—A lawsuit alleging that child abuse occurred in
the 1970's and 1980’s at several parochial schools and temples
affiliated with the International Society for Krishna
Consciousness (ISKCON), known as the Hare Krishna movement, was
filed on June 12, 2000, in the Federal District Court in Dallas,
Texas. The suit seeks $400 million dollars in damages.

"It is terrible that child abuse has infected public and private
schools, neighborhoods, churches, and families," said Anuttama
Dasa, Director of ISKCON Communications. "Sadly, some children
of the Hare Krishna society have also been victimized. If the
events alleged in this suit did occur, we regret that they did,
and we will make every effort to help address the needs of the
young people named in the suit," said Dasa.”

“At the same time, numerous allegations made in the suit by the
lawyer, Windle Turley of Dallas, are gross exaggerations and
outright falsehoods,” Dasa said.

The Vaishnava religious tradition to which Hare Krishna devotees
adhere is a monotheistic branch of the Hindu faith. Vaishnava
scriptures state that the protection and care of children is an
essential religious practice. According to Dasa, child abuse in
any form is "horrible violation" of Krishna principles.

Krishnas have made considerable efforts in recent years to
prevent abuse and, when necessary, to provide counseling and
financial assistance for past victims. In 1990, policies were
established requiring abuse‑prevention education for
Krishna
children and the immediate reporting of all suspected abuse to
government and legal authorities.

In 1996, the organization "Children of Krishna" was formed to
help Krishna youth with education, vocational training and
grants for college. In 1998, the ISKCON Office of Child
Protection was established with a professional staff to:

1) work with ISKCON temples, managers and educators to enhance
screening and child protection programs, provide financial
support and counseling for abuse victims, and investigate and
adjudicate allegations of past abuse, especially where local
legal systems are ineffective or lacking.

In addition, the traditional Indian-style boarding schools, or
gurukulas, that the Krishna established in North America in the
1970's were closed, or transformed into day schools. The only
exception is a small boarding school for high school age girls
in northern Florida. Day schools, Krishna leaders say, provide
greater scope for parental involvement and watchfulness over the
children.

Krishna temples are independently incorporated. Most have
relatively small congregations and limited resources. The $400
million suit is “far, far beyond” the total financial assets of
Krishna temples named in the suit, according to Dasa.

© CHAKRA 16-Jun-2000

http://ccrgroup.com/voice/burke_rochford.htm

Child Abuse in the Hare Krishna Movement: 1971-1986

E. Burke Rochford, Jr.
with Jennifer Heinlein
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Middlebury College

...All these boys must be taken care of very nicely. They are
the
future hope (Prabhupada letter, July, 1974, in Prabhupada
1992:795).

These kids were growing up and seriously leaving [ISKCON]. Not a
little bit leaving. Not leaving and being favorable, still
chanting and living outside. Nothing like that. They were
leaving. And suddenly it was like "What happened?" And then it
started to be revealed that the kids were molested. (Long-time
ISKCON teacher, interview 1990)1

Religion and child abuse, "'perfect together'...and mutually
attractive." So concludes Donald Capps in his 1992 presidential
address to members of the Society for the Scientific Study of
Religion. Mutually attractive in spite of the fact that religion
has often vigorously defended the rights of children, including
condemning child abuse and neglect (Capps 1992; Costin et al.
1996:47). Yet research on child abuse suggests that religious
beliefs can foster, encourage, and justify the abuse of children
(Capps 1992; Ellison and Sherkat 1993; Greven 1990; Jenkins
1996). Moreover, church structures may provide opportunities for
abusive clergy (Krebs 1998; Shupe 1995).

This paper deals with how children in a religious organization
were abused physically, psychologically, and sexually by people
responsible for their care and well-being. My purpose is to
describe the problem as it existed within the International
Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), more popularly known
as the Hare Krishna movement. This discussion of child abuse
within ISKCON is an historical one.2 I consider child abuse and
neglect within the context of ISKCON's boarding schools--or
ashram-based gurukulas--as they existed from 1971 until the mid-
1980s. I develop a sociologically informed framework to
understand how and why child abuse and neglect took place. Thus
my attempt is not concerned with identifying or explaining
the "causes" of child abuse by focusing on the abuser per se.
Rather attention is given to a variety of organizational factors
which fostered, and indeed created opportunities for child abuse
to occur within ISKCON's schools.

I argue that child abuse must be understood within the broader
context of ISKCON's development as a religious organization. The
expansion of marriage and family life has defined ISKCON's
transition from a communally-organized sectarian movement, to
one characterized by a loosely organized congregation of
financially independent householders and their children
(Rochford 1995a, 1995b, 1997). As the number of marriages and
children began to grow in the mid-1970s, householder life was
redefined by ISKCON's renunciate elite as a symbol of spiritual
weakness. As a stigmatized and politically marginal group,
householders were left powerless to assert their parental
authority over the lives of their children. Children were abused
in part because they were not valued by leaders, and even, very
often, by their own parents who accepted theological and other
justifications offered by the leadership for remaining
uninvolved in the lives of their children.

In recent years child abuse has played an influential role in
the ongoing politic surrounding the authority and legitimacy of
ISKCON's leadership. For many ISKCON members, and devotees
marginal to or outside of the organization, child abuse stands
as a powerful symbol of the failure of ISKCON's traditionalist,
communal, hierarchical (i.e., sectarian) form of social
organization. Child abuse has come to represent a fundamental
betrayal of trust, not only for abused children and their
parents but for the membership more generally. (Also, see
Rochford 1998 on leader misconduct and changing sources of
religious authority within ISKCON.)

It is important to make clear from the start that no one knows
how many of ISKCON's children were abused in the gurukula. It is
also the case that ISKCON's gurukulas did not uniformly
experience problems of child abuse. Finally, the virtual
collapse of these institutions in North America and worldwide in
favor of community day-schools, has all but eliminated the
context of abuse considered here.3

Before turning to the substantive issues raised above, I first
want to build a broader context for my discussion. One only has
to pick up the local newspaper to realize that child abuse
occurs all too frequently in the communities in which we live.
Moreover, while we might assume that religious life would remain
immune to the tragedy of child abuse, the facts suggest
otherwise. Various religious groups--conventional and
unconventional alike--have been shaken by allegations of child
abuse, especially sexual misconduct on the part of church
authorities (Jenkins 1996:50-52; Palmer 1997; Shupe 1995, 1998).

DEFINING THE PROBLEM OF CHILD ABUSE

Reported cases of child abuse and neglect have been on the rise
in the U.S. in recent years (Costin et al., 1996:136-7; Daro
1988).4 More than a million young people suffer abuse and
mistreatment annually (Daro 1988:13; U.S. Bureau of the Census
1997:218). The American Association for Protecting Children
found that 1.7 million children suffered neglect or abuse in
1984, an increase of 156% since 1976, the first year this agency
began collecting data on child abuse (Daro 1988:13).5 In 1995,
there were just under two million reported cases of child abuse
involving 2.95 million children in the United States. After
investigation by state child protective services, evidence
suggests that 1 million children were abused or neglected (U.S.
Bureau of the Census 1997:219). Because many cases of child
abuse go unreported the actual number of abused children may
well be substantially higher (Daro 1988:14-15).

Although overall rates remain high, the prevalence of various
types of child abuse and neglect appear to be changing. Physical
abuse has decreased while sexual abuse has expanded as a
proportion of the total percentage of reported cases of child
abuse (Costin et al. 1996:138). The latter trend may be changing
however as the percentage of substantiated cases of child sexual
abuse actually declined between 1990 and 1995 (U.S. Bureau of
the Census 1997:218). A majority of parents in the U.S. continue
to use physical punishment, however, and the percentage of
parents favoring corporal punishment declined only slightly
during the 1970s and 1980s (Straus and Gelles 1986; Straus
1994:23-24).6

While child abuse no doubt is present within any community in
the U.S., it can also be found within a variety of religious
groups and denominations--perhaps especially among those
adhering to a Judaic-Christian tradition. Both the Old and the
New Testaments recommend the use of physical punishment on the
part of parents to help tame the will of a child (Ellison and
Sherkat 1993; Greven 1991). Such intervention is mandated
because all persons are believed to be born sinful (i.e.,
displaying egocentrism and selfishness). Parents thus face the
responsibility of "shaping the will" of their children to ensure
they become right with God. Biblical passages giving
legitimation to physical punishment of children are many.
Among the most commonly cited are: "He that spareth the rod
hateth his son; but he that loveth him chaseneth him
betimes." "Withhold no correction from the child: for if thou
beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shall beat him
with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell" (Proverbs
13:24 and 23:13-14, respectively, quoted in Bottoms et al.
1995:87). Accordingly, parents who subscribe to a doctrine of
biblical literalism--such as conservative Protestants--are
especially prone to using physical punishment as a form of
discipline (Ellison and Sherkat 1993). Corporal punishment is
viewed both as a necessary and legitimate means to combat the
sinfulness of a child, while simultaneously re-enforcing
parental (i.e., patriarchal) authority.

Apart from encouraging and justifying corporal punishment,
religious ideas have also been used by parents and religious
institutions alike to "cause emotional pain" by tormenting
children through the excessive use of shame and fear (Capps
1992:7-9). The latter researcher concludes that "religious ideas
might be as abusive as physical punishment for children"
(1992:8).7

When the average person reflects on child abuse and religion
today he or she is likely to identify sexual misconduct by
religious officials, particularly on the part of Catholic
priests (Berry 1992; Jenkins 1996, 1998). This is largely
because sexual misconduct by Catholic priests has received
widespread media coverage in the U.S. and worldwide (For a
review, see Jenkins 1996:53-76, 1998). Yet child sexual abuse by
clergy is hardly limited to Catholicism (Isely and Isely 1990).
The most often quoted survey dealing with sexual problems among
Protestant clergy found that 10 percent were involved in sexual
misconduct of one sort or another, and that "about two to three
percent" were pedophiles (Rediger 1990:55, quoted in Jenkins
1996). This rate is equal to or perhaps even slightly higher
than for Catholic priests (Jenkins 1996:50).8

While the sexual abuse of children is troubling, it becomes
doubly so when religious figures are involved. Afterall clergy
are viewed in most religious traditions as God's ordained
representatives, this comprising the very basis of their
religious authority. In cases of clergy sexual abuse religious
authority is directly or indirectly used to exploit children,
and to cover it up. Clergy who sexually abuse children are often
able to escape disclosure, because their status as religious
figures shields them from accusations of abuse (Barry 1992;
Bottoms et al. 1995). Allegations made by a child concerning
clergy sexual misconduct are likely to be ignored, or dismissed
as fabrication by parents and other adults (see e.g., Barry
1992). Clergy sexual abuse of children, in significant respects,
parallels familial incest because it is "often characterized by
the same guilt, betrayal of trust, and shame..." (Bottoms et al.
1995:90; also see Blanchard 1991:239-240). It is thus hardly
surprising to find allegations of clergy sexual misconduct being
made by adults victimized as children.

As one might expect, sexual abuse by religious authorities is
especially damaging to victims. One study concluded that abuse
by religious authorities "is as psychologically damaging, and
perhaps more damaging, than even the violently physical abuses
of parents whose religious beliefs led them to view their
children as evil incarnate" (Bottoms et al. 1995:100). Children
molested by religious authorities often suffer from depression,
suicidal ideation, and affective disorders (Bottoms et al.
1995:99). Moreover, it is not uncommon for those sexually abused
by clergy to change religions, or more likely still, to
repudiate religion altogether (Bottoms et al. 1995:99). Such an
outcome appears even more likely when clergy sexual misconduct
is hidden or otherwise covered-up by the church hierarchy.9

CHILD ABUSE WITHIN ISKCON SCHOOLS

Unlike most instances of child abuse that occur in the home,
ISKCON's children were abused and neglected within the confines
of the movement's schools, by unrelated adults and older
children acting on a teacher's behalf. During these formative
years of ISKCON's development the movement's children were
educated in boarding schools, living more or less separate lives
from their parents. It was here that a portion of ISKCON's
children were physically, psychologically, and sexually
abused.10

Because Prabhupada saw the public school system in America as
indoctrinating "children in sense gratification and mental
speculation, he referred to the schools as 'slaughterhouses'"
(J. Goswami 1984:1). By contrast, the gurukula as he envisioned
it, was specifically meant to train students in spiritual life,
so that they could return to Godhead. Given that the fundamental
goal of the gurukula was to train students in sense control,
children were removed from their family as early as age four or
five years. Prabhupada believed little hope existed for a child
to learn self-control within the nuclear family because of
the "ropes of affection" between parent and child. Children thus
attended the gurukula on a year-round basis, with occasional
vacations to visit with parents. They resided in ashrams with
children of similar age and sex. Ashrams varied in the number of
children cared for. In 1979 there were 6-8 students living in
each of the boys ashrams in Los Angeles. Reports indicate that
in other gurukulas the number of students residing in an ashram
ranged as high as 20 or more. An adult teacher lived in the
ashram and took responsibility for supervising the children, and
tending to their day-to-day needs (Rochford 1997).

ISKCON's first formal gurukula was established in Dallas, Texas,
in 1971. The Dallas gurukula remained the only school of its
type within the movement, until 1976, when it was forced to
close by state authorities. At the time of its closing the
school had approximately 100 students, the majority of whom were
between the ages of four and eight. With the impending demise of
the Dallas school, gurukulas were established in Los Angeles and
at New Vrindaban in 1975. In 1976, the Bhaktivedanta Swami
International Gurukula began accepting adolescent boys as
students in Vrindavan, India.11 Between 1975 and 1978 a total of
11 ISKCON schools opened in the North America. Gurukulas also
started in France, Australia, South Africa, England, and Sweden,
in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Regional schools appeared in
Lake Huntington, New York, and central California (Bhaktivedanta
Village), in 1980 and 1981 respectively (dasa, M. 1998).

As the last two regionally based ashram-gurukulas closed in
North America by 1986, ISKCON schools became almost exclusively
day-schools. The only exception in North America today is the
Vaisnava Academy for Girls located in Alachua Florida, for high
school aged women. The school has both day-students and students
living full-time in the ashram.12 Worldwide only the Vrindavan
and Mayapur, India, schools remain ashram only gurukulas. A
sizable majority of ISKCON's children in North America presently
attend state-supported schools (Rochford 1997, forthcoming), a
trend found in a number of other countries as well.

Reports by second generation youth, parents, and educators alike
suggest that a portion of the children who attended the gurukula
suffered psychological, physical, and sexual abuse. Yet it
remains unclear just how many children were abused directly, or
otherwise witnessed their friends and classmates being abused.
The latter representing a form of psychological abuse in its own
right.

Lacking reliable quantitative findings, it becomes extremely
difficult to determine with any degree of precision what the
actual incidence of child abuse was within ISKCON's gurukulas.
Unfortunately, we are left to estimates of uncertain quality.
Over the years any number of estimates have been offered ranging
from 20% of all students who attended an ashram-gurukula
suffering some form of abuse, to as many as 75% of the boys
enrolled at the Vrindavan, India, gurukula having been sexually
molested during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Whatever the
actual incidence of child abuse, it remains clear that abuse
directly and indirectly influenced the lives of a sizable number
of children. Yet child abuse did not occur uniformly, either
across gurukulas, or, very often, even within the same school.
As one long-time teacher concluded, child abuse

...wasn't all pervasive. It wasn't in all gurukulas. It didn't
affect all children. But it was in enough schools and affected
enough children and it went on for enough time...(interview
1990).13

Abuse and neglect within the gurukula took a variety of forms.
The following statements from young adults and former gurukula
students indicate the kinds of abuse that occurred.

....I remember dark closets filled with flying dates (large 3
inch, flying cockroaches) and such, while beatings and "no
prasadam" for dinner became everyday affairs (devi dasi, K.
1990:1).

Seattle was hell because I was only 6 years old, my mom lived in
Hawaii, and I had always been a very shy mommy's girl. The
movement was in its earlier stages and the devotees were
fanatical--beyond fanatical. I mean, they would give us a bowl
of
hot milk at night, so I would, of course, pee in my bed. Then as
punishment they would spank me very hard and make me wear the
contaminated panties on my head. In general, at that time,
because I was so young, I was so spaced out and confused. I
would
cry...for my mom, but that wasn't allowed, so I would say I was
crying in devotional ecstasy. I really regret Seattle because I
had a dire need for my mother's warmth and reassurance at that
time in my life. (Second Generation Survey 1992)

The teacher use to say, "Oh, you don't know when you are going
to die. You could die in your sleep." And one day I was really
bad and one of my teachers said, "Who knows you might die
tonight. Krishna might be punishing you. He might be taking away
your life....And from that night on I use to pray every
night, "Krishna please don't kill me. I promise I will be a good
girl tomorrow. Please let me get fixed up enough so I can go
back to Godhead. Don't take me in my sleep." And for years I had
insomnia. I was too afraid to go back to sleep.
(Interview 1991)14

Two young men recount their days as students in the Vrindavan,
India, gurukula during the early 1980s.

X: I wasn't afraid of being sexually molested. I don't think I
was afraid of being mentally abused either. I was definitely
afraid of being physically abused....Sexual molestation, all of
us, man, we'd just take it, you know....That's what we all felt.
We didn't even consider it abuse back then.
XX: Yeah, that was just normal....The ironic thing about that,
though, is probably the mental thing [abuse] was probably the
longest lasting.
X: There was no way to escape that. (Group Interview 1993)

As word of child abuse within the gurukula came to the attention
of ISKCON authorities, some efforts were made to intervene. Yet
this very intervention sometimes resulted in new strategies of
coercive abuse. Most significant was enlisting older boys in the
Vrindavan gurukula to physically abuse younger students who were
deemed troublesome and unruly by teachers.

X: The other thing was that older boys acting in the capacity of
monitors were used to abuse the younger students. Some started
to
realize that 'Hey, teachers can't be beating kids.' They did it
in a new way. EBR: With the monitors.
X: Yeah. Which was the
older boys beating the younger boys, and I was one of the older
ones....and they [teachers] would call me in on occasion and I
would just have to knock the living shit [out of a younger
student]...I'd be sitting there going "Man, I love you. I don't
want to be doing this...." [I]t's like, what are you gonna do?
If I don't do it to you, they're gonna do it to me.
XX: That's
another kind of mental abuse. (Group Interview, 1993)

While a portion of ISKCON's children were themselves abused,
others experienced the terror of abuse as they watched their
friends and classmates being mistreated by teachers and others
responsible for their care.

If the teachers treated one of our friends bad then we all felt
bad. I remember there was one teacher that use to grab one of us
by the ears and bang us against the wall. And we all stood there
and watched and felt really bad....She [the teacher] was doing
it
to all of us. (Interview 1992)

Maybe what [name of ashram teacher] was doing to [name of
student]
was hurting others [students] more than him. For
[name of student] it was an everyday thing. I was standing right
next to [him] and I was crying. I was freaked out. I was afraid
I was gonna be next because I knew he was gettin' it for no
reason. If he could get it for no reason so could I. (Group
Interview 1993)

In the school in Vrindavan, India, abusive treatment became so
commonplace that students sought to routinize their mistreatment
as a protective strategy.

It was like boot camp, but it wasn't temporary. You became part
of a unit. Boot camp was a full-time thing for us. They're just
constantly knocking you down, knocking you down....lower, lower,
lower. There were points where, it was like, there was no more
lower. What are they gonna do? Beat me again? Go ahead.
(laughter). Big deal! (Group interview 1993)

But beyond the question of young people being abused by adults
working in the gurukula15 was the general environment of neglect
that existed. Without parents present, many felt abandoned, or
as one second generation youth remarked, "We were just
unwanted." Many of the young people interviewed described the
atmosphere in the gurukula as one lacking in love and
compassion. They felt invisible, abandoned, and unworthy of love
and affection from both their parents and adult caregivers.16

ACCOUNTING FOR CHILD ABUSE

In this section I explore a number of factors which combined to
create a context conducive to child abuse within the gurukula
during the 1970s and 1980s. The first of these is somewhat
different from the others because it defines the broader milieu
in which parents and children lived within ISKCON's communities.
Put simply, marriage and family life came to symbolize spiritual
failure, and children a sexual product of that failure.
Following this discussion, I then consider three specific
factors which fostered child abuse and neglect: (1) Sankirtan
and competing demands on parents; (2) Lack of institutional
support for the gurukula; and, (3) Exclusion of parents from the
gurukula and, thereby, from the everyday lives of their
children.17 I end this section by considering how some children
were able to escape abuse.

Attitudes Toward Marriage, Family Life, and Children

ISKCON scholar and leader Ravindra Svarupa dasa argues that
marriage and family life were viewed favorably during ISKCON's
early days. As he states, "When I joined ISKCON [1971] it was
assumed that everyone would become married, and indeed devotees
were urged to do so" (1994:9). But this view changed after
Prabhupada became increasingly discouraged by the marital
problems encountered by his disciples. In a 1972 letter he
wrote "I am so much disgusted with this troublesome business of
marriage, because nearly every day I receive some complaint from
husband or wife...so henceforth I am not sanctioning any more
marriages..." (Prabhupada 1992:866).18 As Prabhupada withdrew
from "the troublesome business of marriage," local Temple
Presidents and other ISKCON authorities (i.e., regional
secretaries, GBC representatives) assumed the responsibility for
arranging marriages and otherwise dealing with the problems and
needs of householders. The result was married life underwent a
fundamental transformation in meaning and value within ISKCON.
Marriage came to represent a sign of spiritual weakness, a
concession for those too weak to control their sexual desires.
Such a view applied differently to men and women however. The
ideal for a man was to maintain a life of renunciation, avoiding
marriage if at all possible. Spiritual and material fulfillment
for women by contrast were defined in terms of marriage and
family life (Rochford 1997). Given the prevalence of these
ideas, women became threats to a man's spiritual advancement.
The changed atmosphere surrounding marriage and family life
turned contentious by the mid-1970s as renunciate leaders
undertook a preaching campaign against householder life and
women. As Ravindra Svarupa dasa suggests, this brought about
growing conflict and factionalism within ISKCON.

Some of these sannyasis embarked on preaching campaigns against
householders and even more so against women, whose life in the
movement at this time became extremely trying. Feelings grew so
heated that in 1976, a clash between householder temple
presidents in North America and a powerful association of
peripatetic sannyasis and brahmacaries escalated into a conflict
so major that Srila Prabhupada called it a "fratricidal war"
(1994:9).

Despite the ongoing denigration of marriage and family life and
the corresponding loss of status accorded householders, most
devotees ultimately married. By 1980, there appears to have been
about an equal number of married and unmarried devotees residing
within ISKCON's North American communities. About one-quarter
had children (Rochford 1997). Conversely, a survey in 1991-92
(N=268) revealed that a sizable majority of ISKCON's North
American membership were married, or previously married. Only
15% had never been married. Family life also expanded with a
substantial majority (70%) of those surveyed in 1991-1992 having
one or more children.19 By the onset of the 1990s, ISKCON had
become a householder's movement in North America (Rochford
1997), and increasingly worldwide (Rochford 1995b).

Even with the rapid expansion of marriage and family life, anti-
householder attitudes changed little organizationally.20
Householder life remained a "dark-well" spiritually. Many
parents who accepted the leadership's ideas about marriage and
family sought to counteract their lowly status by placing their
commitment to ISKCON and Krishna Consciousness above their
family obligations. This presented a burden of considerable
proportions for both parents and their children. One second
generation woman suggests just how difficult this proved to be
for her own mother.

But sometimes I would look at her and I could see her being torn
apart inside. I could see how she yearned to be a mother once
again; sewing by the fire, cooking our dinners, and helping us
with our hard days at school, and at the same time trying her
hardest to please the Guru and the community by showing her
detachment to her family (my emphasis; devi dasi, K. 1990:14).

As householder life became disparaged children too were defined
and redefined in ways that undermined their status, and
ultimately the care they received within the gurukula. Up until
the early 1980s, children born within ISKCON were commonly
portrayed as being spiritually pure. After all, it was believed
that their souls had progressed spiritually to the point where
they had gained the good fortune of taking birth in a devotee
family. Yet this view changed by the mid-1980s as some leaders
complained that ISKCON's children were turning out to be little
more than "karmies" (i.e., non-religious outsiders), and,
therefore, gurukula had failed in its mission to produce
spiritually advanced children. Both of these frameworks, I want
to argue, became justifications used by the leadership to
dismiss the gurukula, the children, and their responsibility
toward both.21

As two long-time ISKCON teachers recount.

They [leadership] put a lot of energy into making new devotees
from outside the community. But you didn't have to put any
energy into making children into devotees, or so they
thought....And I think there was a lot of misconception about
how Prabhupada thought the children [were] conceived. They
thought that if the children were conceived properly then it was
a cinch. And that makes no sense at all. I compare it to going
through a store and buying good seeds and then you don't plant
them, you don't water them, you just throw them around....So
many things that we assumed, that we never sat down and
analyzed. We just took it for granted; That the children were
born into the movement, and particularly if they were conceived
properly of chanting five hours of Hare Krishna. Does that make
sense? It never made sense to me. I always assumed that we would
train the children, that we could never take their Krishna
Consciousness, or their character, or anything for granted.
(interview 1990)

And everyone just thought that you send them away to the
gurukula and when they came back they were going to be like
Pralad Maharaja [a spiritually-realized devotee of Krishna].
They were going to be chanting japa. They were going to be
shaved-up. They were going to be distributing books. They were
going to be nice little chaste wives, rolling chapatis.
(interview 1997)

Yet, by the mid-1980s, as the children were growing into
teenagers, understandings of the second generation and the
gurukula began to change. To the surprise of many leaders and
parents alike, the children raised in the gurukula were less
than pure spiritually. Few were committed to a life of
renunciation and full-time involvement in ISKCON (Rochford
forthcoming). As a result, some leaders openly challenged the
need for the gurukula altogether. Economic decline, as I discuss
below, made this view all the more attractive to some leaders.

But they [the leaders] did not go back and become introspective
and say "Well, we should have been taking care of these things.
Let's get it together now. We made a mistake, whether an honest
mistake or not. Let's now provide an excellent education for the
children. Let's rebuild the community's faith in ISKCON." They
didn't do that. They took (laugh) the opposite track. Instead of
saying "the kids are going to turn out good no matter what," now
they were saying "things are going to turn out bad no matter
what
you do." The leaders' position was, "No, we did everything
right. We did what Prabhupada said. We had ashrams. We had these
nice schools. These wonderful schools. And everything went bad
anyway. So why should we put alot of energy into it [the
gurukula]. We're just kidding ourselves. Right." (interview,
ISKCON teacher 1990)

But these two very different frameworks for constructing
ISKCON's children functionally served the same purpose. In the
first instance leaders saw no reason to invest resources in the
gurukula because it couldn't fail, given the elevated spiritual
status of the children. The second framework, precisely because
it emphasized failure, rather than success, likewise rejected
the need to maintain a viable system of education. As I argue in
the next section, however, the gurukula did serve a crucial
function for ISKCON, one that ultimately had little to do with
educating and socializing ISKCON's next generation.

Sankirtan and the Gurukula

Although ISKCON's sannyasi leadership believed that a loss in
standing would discourage marriage, as we have seen, the solid
majority of ISKCON's membership married, and most had children.
The growth of marriage and family represented a significant
threat to sankirtan, and thereby to ISKCON itself.22 Sankirtan
served ISKCON's mission in two respects. First it represented
the principle means by which the movement proselytized its
Krishna conscious beliefs. In fact Prabhupada continually
emphasized that book distribution represented the means to
spread Krishna Consciousness in America and worldwide. Secondly,
and of equal importance, sankirtan supported ISKCON's
communities financially. Without a work force of dedicated
sankirtan devotees, ISKCON's missionary goals and financial
stability were placed in jeopardy. The solution rested with the
gurukula because it relieved parents of the burdens of child
care, thus affording them the opportunity to work full-time
sankirtan. Put differently, the gurukula allowed ISKCON's
leaders to reclaim householders for sankirtan, a move that only
grew in importance as ISKCON's North American communities faced
deepening economic decline by the late 1970s (Rochford 1985,
1995c). As one parent described.

We got the children, the bothersome children--from the leader's
perspective--we got them out of the way by putting them in the
gurukula. Now the adults could do some work. Go out on
sankirtan. This was a very present issue, freeing up the
parents. (interview 1990)

To a leadership concerned primarily with distributing
Prabhupada's books and raising funds, the gurukula communalized
child care thus freeing parents to work on behalf of ISKCON and
its mission. Not surprisingly, many of the young people who
attended the gurukula during this period saw ISKCON's schools in
precisely these terms.

I did feel that my mom used the gurukula as a convenience for
not
keeping me around. My mother later told me her authorities
strongly encouraged her to put us there so we would not hinder
her
sankirtan service. (Second Generation Survey 1992)

Findings from my 1992-93 Second Generation Survey in North
America makes this point more forcefully. Nearly two-thirds
(63%) of those surveyed (N=87) agreed with the statement, "The
ashram gurukula primarily served the interests of parents and
ISKCON, rather than the spiritual and academic needs of
children." One quarter of those surveyed (26%) agreed strongly
with the statement.
Freeing parents for sankirtan was facilitated by enrolling
children in the gurukula as early as age three or four, although
the majority enrolled at age five. Some ISKCON communities
communalized children even earlier, establishing day-care
centers for infants and toddlers. One such community was
ISKCON's New Vrindaban community, in West Virginia.

Kirtanananda [New Vrindaban's guru and leader] was very
successful because he had a nursery from day one. For those kids
born at New Vrindaban, he took the kids and communalized them.
They got so much work out of the people in that community.
(interview 1990)

A second generation woman who grew up at New Vrindaban recalls:

[S]oon after Kapila was born...the Guru of the farm asked her
[mother] to go travel and preach in airports, she sadly
said "yes." Kapila was only three months old when she left him
to be brought up by some other lady who lived on the farm. For
months she cried at night wondering if he was okay and yet her
body could hardly stand any more emotional work after standing
nearly twelve hours that day,... collecting donations from
strangers (devi dasi, K. 1990:14)

An indication of the leadership's motivation in providing child
care at New Vrindaban is suggested by a saying used in the
community to refer to expectant mothers; "Dump the load and hit
the road." And to "hit the road" meant returning to full-time
sankirtan. While leaders in other ISKCON communities were
clearly more subtle, and humanistic in their approach, they were
no less anxious to return mothers to full-time sankirtan, or
other work on behalf of the community. For the fact was, women
were among the very best sankirtan workers in the movement.
Sankirtan represented the foundation of ISKCON's sectarian
world, and the movement's sannyasi elite took measures to assure
that it was protected against the presumed deleterious effects
associated with the expansion of marriage and family life. While
initially established to educate spiritually ISKCON's children,
the gurukula ultimately served the interests of ISKCON's
missionary activity, and the need to raise money in support of
the movement's communal way of life. One long-time teacher from
this era underscores the primary interest of ISKCON's sannyasi
leadership.

And you had to have a vision for the future to even understand
why you were doing this [the gurukula]. For the teachers this
might have been there but for the administration of ISKCON, what
it means is that you are paying for a day-care center. These
kids cause trouble wherever they are....You are talking about
sannyasis who are thinking like, "Get these kids out of here.
And look how much money I am having to pay to get these kids out
of here. And look at how many devotees have to be there [in the
gurukula] to get these kids out of the way." That was the whole
psyche surrounding how the school was put together. (interview
1997)

The importance placed on sankirtan by ISKCON's leadership meant
that the significance of the gurukula rested on its child care
function, rather than as an educational institution. Moreover,
as parents faced increasing pressures to engage in sankirtan
many had little ability to commit time to the needs of their
children. Children and family life threatened ISKCON's purpose
as a missionary movement, but each also threatened the financial
base upon which the authority of the leadership rested.

Lack of Institutional Support for Gurukula

Given the leadership's view of gurukula and its purposes, it
failed to provide the support necessary to maintain an
educational institution. Throughout its existence the gurukula
operated with insufficient staffing, funding, and oversight. I
want to suggest now that in failing to provide the resources and
management necessary to maintain the gurukula, it became an
institution defined by neglect, isolation, and marginalization.
Because of these qualities, the gurukula also became a context
in which ISKCON's children became subject to abuse.
From the gurukula's beginning days in Dallas it faced a shortage
of trained and qualified staff to serve as academic and ashram
teachers. In American culture we have a saying, "Those who can't
do otherwise, teach." ISKCON, during the 1970s and 1980s, had
its equivalent, "Those who can't do sankirtan, work in the
gurukula." As a gurukula teacher of some twenty years
commented, "The gurukula was the dumping ground as far as
getting staff went. When devotees couldn't do other things like
going on sankirtan they were sent to work in the gurukula." The
result was that outside of a limited number of professional
academic teachers, ISKCON's schools were staffed by devotees
untrained and generally ill-prepared to take on the demands of
working with children. Moreover, because there was little or no
status attached to working in the gurukula, many devotees had
little or no desire to be there. Success at sankirtan brought
individual recognition within the devotee community, working
with children, invisibility and a loss of status.23 As one
ISKCON parent commented.

I was concerned that the teachers were often selected based on
their inability to do sankirtan, rather than because they loved
children and education. As far as I could see, there were no
mandatory classes in childhood development for teachers or staff
either. How could anyone expect those in charge to know what was
normal or abnormal behaviors and how it should be dealt with?
(Anonymous a 1996)

As a former gurukula teacher and Headmaster makes clear, it was
assumed that any devotee who was steady in his or her spiritual
practice was qualified to work in the gurukula. Yet as he
further explains, few were able to stand up to the everyday
demands of working with children.

There were very few qualified or experienced teachers in the
early
Gurukula at Dallas....At that time in ISKCON in general there
was
a hubris about individual qualification. It was thought that a
devotee who was chanting his rounds was empowered to do anything
and that he did not need any special training. The task of
dealing with a hundred children or so from morning to night on a
tough schedule through mangal arati to bedtime was too much for
most of them. (Brzezinski 1997)

As the above remarks make clear, working in the gurukula was
stressful, especially for an untrained staff lacking sufficient
interest in children. This was all the more so in instances
where a single ashram teacher was responsible for the care of 20
or more children. These conditions contributed directly to acts
of child abuse by teachers. As one teacher from this era
observes, "There may have been some [teachers involved in
abusing children] who were actually diabolical. But in most
cases it was a lack of expertise, lack of training, lack of
assistance, lack of knowing who to go to." And, as the former
Headmaster of one school, described.

Therefore, we have someone like [name of ashram teacher] who is
put into a situation in which he does not belong. It is so
stressful. So therefore a kid gets out of line--what to speak of
his other transgressions--and he pushes him hard and the kid
falls on the floor and breaks his arm. And that's what happened.
(interview 1997)

But while finding people capable of working in the gurukula was
an ongoing problem, retaining them represented another. Many
second generation youth tell of having as many as 15, 20, or
more, ashram-teachers during their time in the gurukula. Eight
in ten (82%) of the second generation youth surveyed in 1991-92
agree that, "The major reason for the demise of the ashram-based
gurukulas was the lack of qualified teachers." The former
Headmaster quoted above suggests one reason why.

At one point they sent all the kids from [region of the country]
to our school in Lake Huntington. So now we have this big
regional school. Then at one point [guru from that region]
decides that he needs the ashram teacher [for the oldest boys]
to do some other service.... So I call him [guru] and
say, "Listen there is no one but me. I am the Headmaster. I'm
already doing this and that. Now I am going to have to do the
ashram. There is nobody here that can do it." He just
said, "Well you are just going to have to get somebody. Good-
bye." Pull the man out so now we have 16 older boys who don't
have a teacher. What to do? (interview 1997)

The effect of an ever changing complement of gurukula teachers
and staff meant that the children were unable to build and
sustain meaningful and perhaps loving relationships with their
adult caregivers. This very fact only increased the likelihood
that children might be neglected and/or abused.24
The question of "What to do?" only intensified as ISKCON in
North America faced growing economic decline. By 1982, the level
of ISKCON's book distribution in North America was less than
half its 1978 peak (Rochford 1985, 1995c). The corresponding
drop in sankirtan revenues had a devastating effect on ISKCON's
communities. It also had a dramatic impact on the gurukula,
which, even in the best of economic times, faced hardship. As
the Headmaster of one school made clear, "Even at the peak of
our movement's resources...the gurukula was getting barely
anything. Anything. And so as soon as there was less to go
around it barely got anything at all" (interview, 1997). Below
he describes the financial difficulties encountered by the Lake
Huntington gurukula just prior to its closing in 1986.

More difficult was our financial situation. And what happened.
When New York was broken up, Lake Huntington, Long Island, New
Jersey, and Manhattan each of these areas was assigned a certain
number of collectors,...sankirtan devotees. Four months after
the breakup I was shifted from Long Island to Lake Huntington
and I took over the project. Within a few months I became the
Headmaster. We had eight sankirtan devotees. We were struggling
but were making it. But the zone was collapsing [financially].
So the new GBC man... came in and took all the sankirtan
devotees and centralized it. The plan was to just give money to
the different temples in the zone. We lost our eight sankirtan
devotees and we were promised $8000. a month, which we got for
one month. They reduced and reduced the amount until we got
$2100 to pay the mortgage. When we asked what to do they said
take more students [thereby gaining more tuitions]. And that's
what we did. Until finally it dawned on us that we were killing
our teachers and cheating our students. We can't run a school
like this. That was the environment we were actually functioning
in.25 (interview 1997)

A final issue here has to do with the apparent lack of oversight
the gurukula received by ISKCON leaders. While it is true that
there was a Minister of Education whose responsibility was to
provide guidance and leadership for ISKCON's schools, it
appears, nonetheless, that the gurukula failed to gain the
attention and supervision required. And, without it, the
likelihood of child neglect and abuse grew. As one teacher
described, the leadership simply placed too little importance on
the gurukula.

I have come to the conclusion that they [the leadership] aren't
going to do anything; at all, not anything. They should have
done something 20 years ago, or 15 years ago. They had plenty of
opportunity. They had money. They had man-power. They had Srila
Prabhupada right there behind them. Why didn't they take it? I
can tell you why they didn't do it. They didn't think it was
important. Obviously. (interview, 1990)

One indication of the leaders' disinterest can be seen in the
way ISKCON's renunciate leaders responded when parents
complained about the mistreatment of children in the gurukula.
As a second generation youth recounts:

When I was 5 and 1/2 years old, I'd been in gurukula (Dallas)
since its insemination (about 3 years). My dad had some to
Dallas (against the wishes of his temple authority who only
cared about my dad's money-making ability on sankirtan) after
discovering bruises all over my body on a Rathayatra [festival]
visit. After much discussion with the school authority he found
that he could not get them to change the policy of daily
beatings. He removed me from the school. Very disillusioned he
nearly left ISKCON. On hearing that Prabhupad would be in L.A.,
we went there. When Prabhupad saw me he asked why I was not in
the gurukula. My father told him that he'd removed me because of
the daily beatings. Prabhupad told him that I belonged in
gurukula and that if my dad had a problem with the treatment he
should work to resolve it....[Prabhupad] did nothing to resolve
the situation. Instead of going himself or sending one of his
top people to resolve the problems he sent my dad who had never
had any power. Needless to say when my dad returned to Dallas
nobody listened to him. If a problem arose at some temple or
other, Prabhupad was more than willing to go or send someone
effective to handle the situation, but for the kids he sent my
dad who was effective at getting people to give him money.
(Anonymous b 1996)26

After Prabhupada's death, the response of the newly appointed
gurus was apparently much the same.

Kutila [woman gurukula teacher] was furious when she saw the
cuts and beating marks and she ran to tell Bhaktipada who coolly
said, "Don't complain, do something about it, if you think you
can do any better." (devi dasi, K. 1990:1).

Initially the leadership's disinterest in the gurukula stemmed
from an overriding concern with maintaining and indeed expanding
sankirtan. Yet with Prabhupada's death in November, 1977,
however, ISKCON faced years of succession problems that
preoccupied ISKCON as a whole. As ISKCON's newly appointed gurus
struggled to establish their own religious and political
authority, and attract disciples, householders and their
children lost further relevance organizationally (Rochford
1995a). This became all the more so in the early 1980s as book
distribution virtually collapsed in North America, and parents
were pushed outside of ISKCON's communities to find employment
in support of themselves and their families (see Rochford 1997).
(For a treatment of ISKCON's succession problems, see Rochford
1985: 221-255, 1998. On how acceptance or rejection of ISKCON
leaders' authority influences types and levels of ISKCON
involvement, see Rochford 1995a.)

Exclusion of Parents from the Gurukula

One potential safeguard against child abuse rested with parental
involvement and oversight of the gurukula. If children were
being abused and neglected there is reason to believe that
involved parents might well have become aware and taken
corrective action. Yet in most instances this did not happen,
and when it did, parental concerns were often ignored or
dismissed, as we saw in the previous section. The fact was
parents were actively discouraged from becoming involved in the
gurukula, and, thereby, from the day-to-day lives of their
children.
Prabhupada himself discouraged parent involvement in the
gurukula. He reasoned that the best interests of ISKCON's
children were served by communalizing them within the context of
the gurukula. Away from parental influence, a child would more
readily take to a life of spiritual practice and renunciation.
As Prabhupada stated in a 1973 letter, "Regarding gurukula, it
is not required that parents live there with their children. We
can take care of children, but not the parents" (1992:794).
While relinquishing their children to the gurukula proved
difficult for many parents, they took solace in the knowledge
that their children were advancing spiritually.
The idea that parents represented a threat to the spiritual
lives of children was widely promoted throughout ISKCON, and was
accepted by many devotee parents. As we have seen, ISKCON's
leadership promoted this idea as a means to reclaim parents for
sankirtan. Accepting the "ideological work" (Berger 1981;
Rochford 1985:191-220) of the leadership, many parents
maintained minimal contact with their children. In fact it
appears that in some cases parents essentially abandoned their
children to the gurukula. Teachers too considered parents as
threats to the spiritual well-being of their children. In the
words of one teacher.

There is a problem with parents. The experience that we have had
in gurukula is that much of the training that you are trying to
give the child is lost when the child is with the parents.
Because the parent is not maintaining the same standards, or
doesn't have the same abilities, whatever it is....And you knew
as a teacher that when you sent a kid home for three and a half
weeks [for vacation] you knew you were going to get a basket
case when they came back. (interview 1997)

As this teacher further suggests, this way of thinking
influenced strongly how parents were treated by those working in
the gurukula.

And so maybe unfortunately, in retrospect, the wrong attitude
was conveyed about parents. The parents are a problem; keep the
parents away, all of that. (interview 1997)

The larger consequence of these ideas was the virtual exclusion
of parents from the gurukula. Parental involvement with their
children was largely unwelcome. Moreover, when children did
return to their parents' home community for school vacations,
these visits very often afforded limited opportunities for
parent and child to spend time together. As one mother and
teacher explained.

You have to remember that parents didn't have houses. They
didn't have their own place. We never had a house.... So when
you say a kid went home, that's a euphemism. He went to the
temple. His mother had service that she was doing all along. His
father had service that he was doing all along. And now all of a
sudden this kid is there. So now what does he do? He hangs
around the temple. He gets stepped on by people as they are
coming up the stairs [into the temple]....And he wants his
mother's attention when she is cooking for the deities. The fact
is no one took care of the kids....The kid did whatever he did.
And the parents just kept on doing whatever it was they were
doing. (interview 1997)

A second generation devotee recounts her vacations from school
and the burden these visits placed on her and other family
members.

When I got older, I started to spend my vacations with my Mata.
But vacation time for me was not vacation time for her. For
Kapila [her brother] and I, she would get a motel room every
night but her service to the temple still came first. Only after
she had chanted all of her rounds without interruption and she
had
collected at least three hundred dollars did Kapila and I get to
do anything. We usually would sit for six hours in the cold van
parked outside a shopping mall and wait for her. Finally she
would finish, and even though her back was aching and her
shoulders were heavy from carrying a ninety pound bag of books
all day, she somehow would find the energy to sneak us into a
nearby pool and then take us to ice cream. But most of the time
we didn't see how tired she really was and so, whining and
complaining about how little attention we got, we sometimes
drove her to tears (devi dasi, K. 1990:12).

The gurukulas in India undertook what can only be described as
extreme efforts to further isolate children from their parents.
In the Vrindavan gurukula it appears that the administration of
the school monitored, and sometimes censured, letters written by
students to their parents. When a student att, empted to write
his
parents about the negligent and abusive conditions found at the
school, he was reprimanded and told to re-write his letter.

X: I used to write letters to my mom, during the rough times,
saying, "Get me out of here." And he [school administrator] read
them and would tear' em up and make me write new ones.

XX: He did that to me too. (Group Interview, 1993)

In other cases, students in the Vrindavan gurukula avoided
writing their parents about the conditions found at the school
because they assumed their letters would be read by the
administration, or, as in the case below, they feared their
parents would reject allegations of abuse. As one mother
explained.

My son complains bitterly about what went on in Vrindavan. Of
course I have asked him a million times why he didn't tell me
what was going on. Because I used to go and visit him every
year. And he wouldn't say anything to me. He would just give me
his shopping list. When I asked him in retrospect why didn't you
tell me he just said, "Because you wouldn't believe me."... He
assumed I wouldn't believe him. And he assumed his letters would
be censured. And so he never wrote anything that would cause him
to be censured. (interview 1997)27

In still other instances the administration of the school in
Vrindavan apparently sought to hide the abuse taking place there
during the early 1980s.

He [Headmaster] knowingly covered-up....There are
two or three incidents that I can think of where I was beaten or
something happened to me. He would take me into his room and
he'd
lock me in there for like a day with him and he was like
constantly preaching to me and so finally I just went "Okay! I
won't say anything to anybody. It didn't happen!" And he would
let
me out of the room. (interview 1993)28

On final analysis it seems clear that the gurukula became an
institution onto itself, in Goffman's (1961) terms, a "total
institution." Within the gurukula children remained largely
separate from the day-to-day lives of their parents, and, very
often, from ISKCON community life more generally. From an
institution meant to train and educate, the gurukula instead
became the functional equivalent of an orphanage. As one teacher
from this period remarked.

The whole scenario set up an orphanage.... Even though you have
kids with parents. Because we didn't allow the parents to become
part of their children's lives. (interview 1997)

Avoiding Child Abuse: Resources and Victimization

Although my focus thus far has sought to understand a number of
factors and processes that contributed to child abuse within
ISKCON's schools, I now want to consider why some young people
were able to escape abuse and neglect. As I have already
suggested, a portion of the students who attended the gurukula
during the 1970s and 1980s escaped being victims of child abuse.
This happened despite the fact that in some cases their
classmates were targeted for abuse, while they were spared.
Perhaps the most obvious factor in whether a child was abused or
not related to the school itself. It seems that some gurukulas
experienced far less child abuse, while others were defined by
neglect and abuse. To a significant degree, where a student was
sent to gurukula had a profound influence on whether he or she
became targets of abuse. Perhaps the most vivid example is
provided by the schools in India, where abuse and neglect were
by all reports commonplace. Since only adolescent boys were sent
to the schools in India they faced far more abuse than their
female counterparts. In the United States several of ISKCON's
schools also experienced relatively high levels of child abuse
(e.g., Dallas, Seattle, New Vrindaban), whereas others
experienced considerably less (e.g., Bhaktivedanta Village,
California; New Talavan, Mississippi). It appears also that
child abuse was far less prevalent in Europe and Australia than
in either India or North America.
But what explains these differences? I think several things.
First some schools had a more stable gurukula staff--both
academic and ashram teachers, as well as the school's
administration. While teachers in these schools may have been
more devoted to working in the gurukula, they also were able to
establish enduring and caring relationships with the children
they worked with. Two former gurukula students suggest why a
particular school proved especially positive for them in ways
that highlight the role of the teacher.

It was M[other] Kutila who changed our lives and who let us know
that someone could love us; that devotees did love one another.
I swear for the first week I thought I was a princess. We were
never hit any more, we had all new clothes, our own bags, filled
with our own soap, brushes and hot water showers. It was then
that I knew I had a mother and father, they were Kutila and
Kuladri (her husband) (author's emphasis; devi dasi, K. 1990:1).

One of the high points of my life in gurukula was because the
teacher, (name), took us in as his sons (original Vedic
standard) and treated us like adults. We had incredible
camaraderie as well as growth--including fitness, mental
strength, creativity, and Krishna Consciousness. (Second
Generation Survey 1992-93)

A second factor that played an especially important role in
limiting the possibility of abuse had to do with the level of
parental involvement in the gurukula. While the leadership and
the gurukula staff each pressured against parental involvement,
some parents found ways to remain involved nonetheless. In some
cases this was made easier as parents resided in the same
community as their child/children's gurukula. In other cases
parents wrote letters, made phone calls, and visited their child
or children on a regular basis.
The sad irony is that parents who accepted the ideological
justifications offered by the leadership and chose to
remain "detached" and minimally involved in the lives of their
children, effectively left them vulnerable to neglect and abuse.
Simply put, children without involved parents became ready
victims for abusers. As one second generation devotee concluded.

Usually, if our parents showed an interest in us, by sending us
mail and gifts, visiting us, and maintaining a tight bond, the
abusive teachers would view that child as a liability to them.
(Hickey and Charnell, 1997)

To assure regular involvement with their children, some parents--
especially mothers--chose to work in the gurukula as teachers.
As the Headmaster of one school commented, "Practically every
teacher had their children in the school. And that was an
important factor [limiting the potential for abuse] that those
parents' eyes were there. It was important." As this suggests,
the presence of parents working in the gurukula served to
protect all children against abuse, not simply the child of the
teacher. Because mothers were much more likely than fathers to
have a position in the gurukula, girls more so than boys gained
parental protection against abuse. As one woman teacher
recounts.

With my daughters it was a little different because I had some
ability and determination to keep my daughters with me. So I was
a teacher and I taught my daughters, or at least I knew where my
daughters were being taught. But with my son it wasn't allowed.
He had to be removed from my presence. (interview 1997)

A child also gained protection against abuse if he or she had a
male parent who was an ISKCON leader, or was otherwise
recognized as important and influential within the movement. For
an abuser, these children presented substantial risks and
thereby were less likely to be targeted. Even in India, where
abuse was more commonplace, children with influential fathers
normally escaped being targets of abuse. As one mother whose son
spent years at a gurukula in India reported.

My son tells me that he didn't get abused. And its funny isn't
it in light of his [activism over the abuse issue]. But this is
because of who his father was [a member of the GBC].29
(interview 1997)

For children whose parents remained largely uninvolved in their
lives, there was one available means to create a protective
resource against abuse. Again, India was the context. Apparently
adolescent boys in the gurukula were less subject to abuse if
they received initiation from one of ISKCON's gurus. In effect,
initiation created an interested and powerful ally who could
expose or punish an abuser. Initiation thus served as a means to
create an interested party in the absence of involved and/or
influential parents.

CONCLUSION

Marriage and family life have played a central role in the
development of religious communities and institutions (Berger
1969:133; Dobbelaere 1987; Foster 1991; Kanter 1972:86-92,
1973). Kanter's investigation of 19th century American
communities demonstrated that successful utopian communities--
religious and secular--controlled or otherwise regulated two-
person intimacy and family relationships. Only by renouncing
couple and family relationships could intimacy become a
collective good serving the interests of the community as a
whole. As such, utopian communities face the task of building
and maintaining relational structures "which do not compete with
the community for emotional fulfillment" (Kanter 1972:91).

Beginning in the 1970s ISKCON sought increasingly to control
marriage and family life. This involved several processes:
First, marriage itself was redefined such that it became
symbolic of spiritual weakness, an institution suited only for
those unable to control their sexual desires. Secondly, in order
to educate children separate from their parents, Prabhupada
established the gurukula. While founded initially as an
educational institution, the gurukula also freed parents to work
full-time on behalf of ISKCON and its communities. For many
parents this involved performing sankirtan.30

In important respects sankirtan and children represent
interrelated and pivotal issues in ISKCON's North American and
worldwide development. To ISKCON's largely sannyasi leadership,
sankirtan represented the means by which the movement could
fulfill its missionary objectives. It served too to bring
substantial resources into ISKCON's communities during the 1970s
(Rochford 1985:171-189). Children, on the other hand,
represented a potential threat to each of these objectives. With
a decline in recruitment beginning as early as 1974 in North
America (Rochford 1985:278), ISKCON leaned ever harder on
householders to perform sankirtan. The result was the purpose of
the gurukula organizationally came to rest on its ability to
provide child care. Unfortunately, as I have described, the
gurukula became an institution defined by neglect and the abuse
of children.

Prior to widespread allegations of child abuse, ISKCON
represented what Shupe (1995) refers to as a "trusted
hierarchy." Religious groups and organizations are distinct from
their secular counterparts precisely because "those occupying
lower statuses in religious organizations trust or believe in
the good intentions, nonselfish motives, benevolence, and
spiritual insights/wisdom of those in the upper echelons (and
often are encouraged or admonished to do so) (italics in the
original Shupe 1995:29). Indeed parents often socialize their
children to respect the religious authority of church leaders,
thus perpetuating the very basis of trust within religious
organizations. It was such unquestioned trust in the leadership,
and in ISKCON as a whole, that led parents to readily assume
that their children were being properly educated and cared for
in the gurukula. As we have seen, this very assumption helped
create opportunity structures facilitating abuse and
exploitation (see Krebs 1998; Shupe 1995 for other examples).

As one might expect, child abuse affects far more people than
those directly victimized. As Pullen suggests "religious
congregations can collectively share psychological, emotional,
and spiritual trauma when faced with the reality that their most
vulnerable members have been sexually violated by individuals
the community invested with authority" (1998:68). Among members
of a support group formed in response to clerical sexual abuse
of children in California, Pullen found members making reference
to their own "spiritual abuse." Although not directly abused
themselves, group members nonetheless expressed "that their
trust and faith in the credibility and integrity of their
religious leaders had been shattered" (1998:68-69). Nason-Clark
(1998) found much the same response among female congregants in
the aftermath of child sexual abuse by Church officials in
Canada. In organizational terms, child abuse and malfeasance by
clergy precipitates a crisis of trust among rank and file
members. As Seligman argues the "existence of trust is an
essential component of all enduring social relationships"
(1997:13) and is indeed necessary for the continuation of any
social order.

The betrayal of trust represented by child abuse has challenged,
if not undermined, the ISKCON commitment of many first and
second generation members alike. Child abuse stands as a
powerful symbol of the failure of ISKCON's leadership, and that
form of social organization (i.e., communalism) which supported
its' political and spiritual authority. As trust gave way to
anger and doubt, householders became less willing to commit
their lives to ISKCON as they had in the past. Needless to say,
many second generation devotees also rejected their ISKCON
collective identity. This fact, perhaps more than any other,
accounts for the fragmentation and decline of ISKCON in North
America. (But see Rochford 1997 for another interpretation). In
failing to maintain a safe and healthy environment for the
movement's most vulnerable members, ISKCON faced discreditation
from within, and a corresponding loss of legitimacy in the eyes
of many long-time members. Many abandoned ISKCON, while others
joined an emerging congregation of independent householders and
their families residing on the margins of ISKCON's North
American communities. As this implies, the tragedy of child
abuse has shaped, and continues to shape, the career of ISKCON
as a new religious organization.

ENDNOTES

1. This article has been painful to write, and certainly many
readers will feel distressed by the story told here. Many past
and present ISKCON members--second generation devotees and their
parents alike--have been personally touched by child abuse. And,
as I suggest here, ISKCON's larger membership has also been
affected. One result is that child abuse has become an issue of
growing political significance within ISKCON and the broader
movement. While I am not so naive as to believe that this paper
won't become part of this ongoing politic, my attempt here is to
maintain a sociological stance to the issue. Yet it seems likely
that some readers will find reason to charge me with
partisanship of one sort or another, and perhaps even dismiss
what is said here (See e.g., Rochford 1992). I would only ask
that devotees in and outside of ISKCON who care deeply about
this issue do something constructive to aid young adults abused
as children within ISKCON's schools. In need of support too are
the largely forgotten parents, who often suffer in silence,
riddled with guilt because of what happened to their children.

2. I had planned to address the ongoing efforts by ISKCON
authorities to address the problem of child abuse, including
assistance for abuse victims, child protection policies, and so
forth. Because of the length of the present article this did not
prove feasible. I asked the editor Saunaka Rsi dasa to have
someone else knowledgeable in this area to write a separate
paper to accompany this one. See Bharatasrestha dasa in this
volume.

3. Yet there is no reason to assume that child abuse is absent
from ISKCON's communities. To the extent it does exist, it is
far more likely to occur within the context of nuclear family
life. Thus child abuse within ISKCON today likely mirrors causes
and patterns found within mainstream cultures.

4. While research and official statistics demonstrate that child
abuse has been on the rise, the question of why remains less
certain. Surprisingly, before the 1960s there were no laws which
prohibited child abuse in the United States (Pfohl 1985:309).
Yet within a few short years all fifty states "discovered" the
problem and passed legislation to control it (Pfhol 1985:309).
The question is why, then? Violence against children was hardly
new in the 1960s. One researcher has shown that "child abuse"
only gained legal status as the medical profession--specifically
pediatric radiology--was able to "break the legal hold that
parents held over children" (Pfohl 1977, 1985:309). Thus the
legal basis of child abuse is derived from professional
expertise and power. Beating a troublesome child, an act taken
for granted by many parents even a single generation ago, is now
often considered "abusive," if not illegal behavior. Obviously
these issues are critical to understanding child abuse as a
social problem. Just as obviously, such a treatment goes well
beyond the scope of the present paper. (For a social
constructionist account of religion and child abuse, see Jenkins
1996.)

5. Some researchers have expressed concern that data from the
American Association for Protecting Children (AAPC) overstates
the amount of child abuse in the U.S.. This is because the AAPC
data fails to account for duplicate reports involving a single
child. In counting the total number of abuse reports these data
overstate the actual number of abuse cases. Costin et al.
(1996:136) assert that the result is a 20% inflation of the
actual incidence rate. This conclusion seems born out by a study
conducted by Westat (1981) who found an incidence rate of child
abuse in the U.S. of 22.6 per 1,000 children. By contrast the
AAPC incidence rate was 32.8 per 1,000 children, 23% above the
Westat figure (Costin et al. 1996:136).

6. Defining what we mean by child abuse and child neglect is an
important yet difficult task. Moreover, how we use the
term "child abuse" in ordinary language often differs from legal
and social science definitions. What one person defines as
physical abuse, for example, another may view as necessary
discipline for an unruly child. Physical abuse is often defined
as inflicting physical injury by other than accidental means
(Costin et al. 1996:5). Corporal punishment by contrast is "the
use of physical force with the intention of causing a child to
experience pain, but not injury" (Straus 1994:4). Physical abuse
and corporal punishment involve the use of violence in that both
intend to cause pain and suffering (Straus 1994:7). Child sexual
abuse involves a number of specific acts from fondling a child's
sexual organs, vaginal intercourse, and sodomy (including oral
and anal intercourse). It may also involve an adult forcing a
child to fondle his or her sexual organs and child pornography.
Psychological abuse involves the attempt to inflict "mental or
emotional injury that results in the child's physical or
emotional deterioration" (Costin et al. 1996:5). Child neglect
is even a more ambiguous concept to define. Typically, a
neglected child is one that lacks proper care and supervision
from a parent or adult, or where the environment represents a
threat to his or her health (Costin et al. 1996:5). Apart from
these formal definitions is another offered by Rabbi Lawrence S.
Kushner. While he speaks specifically about "parents" we could
substitute "adult." In his address on the occasion of Yom
Kippur, he argues that child abuse "is when parents deliberately
treat children as objects so as to gratify themselves. It is
using a child for one's own pleasure, without regard to the
child as an autonomous person....using them as lightening rods
for our own misdirected hostility, manipulating their trust and
love for our gratification against their will....The child is
deprived of personhood, autonomy, spontaneity, the ability to
respond freely and appropriately, sense of self worth and holy
uniqueness" (1990:7).

7. Medical neglect of children has also been identified as a
form of abuse associated with religion. The Jehovah's Witnesses,
who do not believe in blood transfusions, and Christian
Scientists, who often favor prayer over medical expertise and
procedures, are perhaps the two most well known examples
(Bottoms et al. 1995:88). Citing First Amendment protections
against government intrusion in religion, these, and other
religious groups, have generally retained the right to refuse
medical treatment. This trend may be changing however as some
states have successfully challenged these legal exemptions,
especially when a child's life is placed at risk. (See e.g.,
Skolnick 1994, on changes in Massachusetts' exemption laws
following the death of two and a half year old Robyn Twitchell
who died of a bowel obstruction after his Christian Science
parents denied him treatment.)

8. These figures should be viewed with a certain amount of
suspicion, however. Information collected relied heavily on
individuals already undergoing therapy. Cases included were
therefore selective, and the findings reported unrepresentative.
It is worth noting however the relatively large number of sex
abuse cases for both celibate and non-celibate clergy. This
questions the view that the Church's policy of celibacy explains
pediphilia among Catholic priests (see e.g., Berry 1992).

9. The noted author, sociologist, and Catholic priest Andrew
Greely wrote the following in the forward to Jason Berry's book
Lead Us Not into Temptation: Catholic priests and the sexual
abuse of children: "Bishops have with what seems like programmed
consistency tried to hide, cover up, bribe, stonewall; often
they have sent back into parishes men whom they knew to be a
danger to the faithful....Catholicism will survive, but that
will be despite the present leadership and not because of them"
(1992:xii-xiv).

10. In 1979 I served as a teacher's assistant for a boy's ashram
at the Los Angeles gurukula. In 1989, thinking about the young
boys who I often took to the park and beach, I began an
investigation of ISKCON's second generation. I began by
interviewing 70 first-generation parents in four ISKCON
communities in the U.S. Over the past eight years I have also
interviewed dozens of second generation youth about their
experiences in the gurukula. In 1992-3 I conducted a non-random
survey of second generation youth in North America (N=87). I
have also attended four gurukula reunions in Los Angeles and at
New Vrindaban, and served as a member of ISKCON's North American
Board of Education.

11. It was assumed that adolescent girls would marry at an early
age and hence none were sent to India for further schooling. The
rather "primitive" living conditions in India also were deemed
unsuitable for adolescent girls. At ISKCON's New Vrindaban
community in West Virginia, for example, it was not uncommon for
girls as young as 13 to be married or betrothed in the late
1970s. When many of these marriages failed, and girls and their
parents began to resist the idea of early marriage, adolescent
girls began attending local public schools. Lacking secondary
schools for girls within ISKCON, and with few other acceptable
alternatives (e.g., home schooling), outside schooling became a
solution, if not always a preferred one. (For a discussion of
how attending state-supported secondary schools has influenced
the collective identity and religious involvements of ISKCON
youth in North America, see Rochford forthcoming.)

12. In the midst of writing this article the teacher and
Headmaster of the Vaisnava School for Boys in Alachua, Florida,
was accused of sexually molesting four of his former students
some 10 years ago. He admitted his sexual misconduct and left
the ISKCON community in Alachua. The case was investigated by
Florida State officials, as well as by the Alachua ISKCON
community and ISKCON's Governing Body Commission (GBC). The
school now only accepts day students, having disbanded its
ashram in response to the molestation charges (dasa, N. et al.
1998).

13. Relying on estimates of child abuse is especially tricky.
For the fact is child abuse and children in general represent
ongoing social and political issues within ISKCON.
Dedicated "moral entrepreneurs" (Becker 1963) are actively at
work attempting to make child abuse and the plight of ISKCON's
children a publicly defined social problem. As one might expect,
many of those involved are young adults who attended the
gurukula. Many were themselves abused. While opposition within
ISKCON appears to be lessening, a few leaders and some other
ISKCON members continue to argue that child abuse was only a
minor and isolated problem involving relatively few children. I
raise these issues here not to in any way diminish the
seriousness of the abuse that took place. Rather, I want to
underscore the fact that no one knows with any degree of
precision how extensive child abuse actually was. Obviously,
systematic research on this question is long overdue.

14. The reader will note that normally individual's names are
avoided in order to maintain the anonymity of my interviewees.
In a limited number of instances, where I quote from published
sources, names are used, including the author's. However, in
every case, I avoid using names of alleged abusers in published
and unpublished sources, including the VOICE Web Page. The
latter source is an internet site established by ex-gurukula
students to expose the child abuse that they and their peers
suffered. This web site has become very controversial within
ISKCON. Because ISKCON leaders are concerned about the adverse
public relations impact of VOICE, the latter has exerted
considerable pressure on the leadership to respond
constructively to the problem of child abuse in general, and to
the young people abused as children.

15. It appears that sexual abuse of children was not limited to
teachers and others working within the gurukula. There are
reports that single renunciate men (bramacharies) were involved
in molesting children in India (Brzezinski 1997). Allegations
also persist that some male leaders associated with the Mayapur,
India, gurukula were involved in sexually abusing children
(Brzezinski 1997; Prabhupada Anti-defamation Association 1993).

16. This situation contrasts sharply with other groups which
have communalized children and child-rearing. In the Oneida
community, founded in northern New York during mid-1800s by John
Humphrey Noyes, children were also raised separate from their
parents in a community school. Yet as Kephart explains this
system of communal child-rearing was based on "ample affection
and kindness...[and] that childhood in the Old Community was a
happy and exhilarating experience" (1963:268). This suggests
that the communalization of children and child-rearing is not in
itself neglectful or abusive. (For a discussion of children in
the Kibbutzim, see Spiro 1958; Talmon 1973.)

17. There is a fourth factor that I have been forced to forgo
considering here because of limitations of space. This involves
a selective understanding of Prabhupada's views on disciplining
children held by some teachers and others working in the
gurukula. Simply put, some teachers felt that corporal
punishment was fully sanctioned by Prabhupada as a means to deal
with unruly children. And it appears that there is some evidence
to support such a conclusion. Yet, a close inspection of
Prabhupada's ideas on child discipline suggest that overall he
was not in favor of physical punishment.
It is worth noting however that Prabhupada's letters and
conversations, now widely available from ISKCON's Bhaktivedanta
Book Trust, were not available to any great degree during this
period. Most members of ISKCON, including gurukula teachers, had
limited and certainly incomplete information concerning
Prabhupada's views on child discipline and other issues.

18. Ravindra Svarupa dasa (1994) states that Prabhupada refused
to sanction any further marriages beginning in 1974. His 1972
letter suggests the decision came earlier, although it is
possible that Prabhupada did not actively withdraw from marital
concerns until sometime after the letter was written.

19. The findings reported should be taken as reasonable
estimates rather than precise figures. Neither the 1980 or the
1991-2 surveys were based upon probability samples.

20. Prabhupada provided somewhat mixed messages on the spiritual
status of householders. He often reminded his disciples that the
entanglements associated with marriage and family made
it "difficult to make any progress in Krishna Consciousness"
(Prabhupada 1992:852). The spiritual ideal therefore was to
remain an unmarried renunciate. Yet Prabhupada also said that,

...if you cannot [avoid sex life], then get yourself married,
live with wife, but have sex only for progeny. Not for sense
enjoyment. Therefore even [if] one is married, then the husband
is also called brahmacari. Even though he is grhastha
[householder]. And wife is called chaste (quoted in devi dasi,
U. 1992:6).

21. This attitude continues to the present day. ISKCON's leaders
remain hesitate to engage issues relating to children and family
life, claiming that neither is the proper domain of sannyasis.
The result is that leaders have essentially turned their
collective backs on those issues most salient to the lives of
ISKCON's membership. There is evidence that this stance may be
changing however. See dasa, B. in this volume.

22. During the 1970s and early 1980s it was common for marriage
partners to be selected by the leadership with an eye toward
reducing the likelihood that a particularly productive sankirtan
devotee would be lost to his or her local ISKCON community (See
Rochford 1997).

23. As one second generation devotee commenting on an earlier
draft of this paper said. "I agree 100%. Every day in the
morning, sankirtan scores [were] read out to inspire the
devotees and praise the individuals who [did] good collecting
money, or distributing the most books. Never, never ever [were]
the teachers' praised, or the kids who [did] good at school."

24. It also resulted in long-term emotional consequences for
some second generation youth. As one reported:

We don't want to trust anyone else with our feelings, our
emotions, our love....because we "know" that that person will
just turn around and hurt us...They'll leave, they'll reject
us..."They don't really care about us..." we think. I'm 26 years
old. I'm still struggling to trust someone on an
emotional, "feelings" level, and to share my feelings with them.
It's hard for me. Damn hard. Being raised by 26
parents/caretakers from age 7 to 15 makes it damn hard to place
my love and trust in someone again. (personal communication
1998)

25. Things became so bad financially that one winter the school
ran out of funds for coal to heat the school. Realizing that the
GBC man responsible for the school was unlikely to help, the
Headmaster was forced to call on some of his temple president
friends for assistance. As he said,"...and they sent money just
because they realized 'Our friend is in need.'"

26. Questioning of Prabhupada's role in the child abuse that
occurred in the gurukula has only recently surfaced as an issue
among second generation youth. In fact the VOICE Web page has
given considerable attention to the issue. Those implicating
Prabhupada charge that he knew that children were being
physically punished, yet failed to directly intervene, or have
leaders under him put a stop to such behavior. It does seem
clear from Prabhupada's letters that he was aware, as early as
1972, that physical punishment was being administered to
children in the gurukula (See, e.g., Prabhupada 1992:797, 799).
There is also evidence suggesting that he did intervene
(Prabhupada 1992:797). In a 1972 letter to a disciple who had
complained that her child was being mistreated in the gurukula
in Dallas, Prabhupada wrote:

But you may be assured that I am always anxious about the
welfare of my disciples, so that I am taking steps to rectify
the unfortunate situation... [C]hildren should not be beaten at
all, that I have told. They should simply be shown the stick
strongly. So if one cannot manage in that way then he is not fit
as a
teacher....[H]e must have two things, love and education. So if
there is beating of child, that will be difficult for him to
accept in loving spirit, and when he is old enough he may want
to
go away--that is the danger (1992:793).

Yet physical punishment and various forms of abuse only
escalated in the years to follow. Some former gurukula students
believe that Prabhupada "...did not implement appropriate
measures to guarantee the safety of children in his movement
from his disciples. [And] that the programs he established and
interpretations of his words greatly fostered an environment
under which child abuse flourished" (Hickey et al. 1997).

27. This raises another issue about parental involvement. Many
of those who attended the gurukula had less than close
relationships with their parents. This may have dissuaded some
from telling their parents of the neglect and abuse present
within the gurukula, including their own abuse.

28. In one instance parents sending their child to the Vrindavan
gurukula developed a strategy to circumvent the monitoring
system in place. Responding to rumors about child abuse, and the
censuring of student mail by the administration, the parents and
child developed a code that would sound the alarm if harmful
things were occurring. In a letter to his parents, the student
would request pizza be sent to him through the mail. This served
as a request to be removed from the school.

29. I am aware of one influential ISKCON member whose son was
sexually molested.

30. It may be worth noting here that the state-supported school
system in North America and elsewhere also serves the latent
function of providing child care. In my own community some
parents were outraged when teachers at the local elementary
school wanted to release students early one afternoon a month so
they could discuss curriculum. Working parents were upset
largely because they had to find alternative child care
arrangements.

REFERENCES

Barry, J. 1992. Lead Us Not into Temptation. New York:
Doubleday.

Becker, H. 1963. Outsiders. New York: The Free Press.

Berger, B. 1981. The Survival of a Counterculture. Berkeley:
University of California Press.

Blanchard, G. 1991. "Sexually Abusive Clergy: A Conceptual
Framework for Intervention and Recovery." Pastoral Psychology 39
(4): 232-246.

Bottoms, B, Shaver, P., Goodman, G. and J. Qin. 1995. "In the
Name of God: A Profile of Religion-Related Child Abuse." Journal
of Social Issues 51(2):85-111.

Brzezinski, J. 1997. Letter. VOICE Web site (January 5).

Capps, D. 1992. "Religion and Child Abuse: Perfect Together."
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 31(1): 1-14.

Costin, L., Karger, H. and Stoesz, D. 1996. The Politics of
Child Abuse. New York: Oxford University Press.

dasa, Bharatasrestha. 1998. "Child Abuse in ISKCON." ISKCON
Communication Journal.

dasa, Manu. 1998. Gurukula Alumni database.

dasa, Narada Muni, Sarva-satya dasa, and Kunti dasi. 1998.
Letter to the Alachua ISKCON community concerning the
investigation of child molestation. (March 10).

dasa, Ravindra Svarupa. 1994. "Cleaning House and Cleaning
Hearts: Reform and Renewal in ISKCON." typescript.

Daro, D. 1988. Confronting Child Abuse. New York: Free Press.

devi dasi, Karnamrta. "Guru-kula." 1990. A Confidential Report:
The Hare Krishna Kids. II (January-May):1-2, 11-15.

devi dasi, Urmila. 1992. According to Religious Principles: A
Guide to Sexual Relations in a Krsna Marriage. Hillsborough, NC:
ISKCON Education of N.C., Inc.

Dobbelaere, K. 1987. "Some Trends in European Sociology of
Religion: The Secularization Debate." Sociological Analysis
48:107-37.

Ellison, C. and Sherkat, D. 1993. "Conservative Protestantism
and Support for Corporal Punishment." American Sociological
Review 58:131-144.

Foster, L. 1991. Women, Family and Utopia. Syracuse, NY:
Syracuse University Press.

Goffman, E. 1961. Asylums. Garden City, NY: Doubleday (Anchor).

Greeley, A. 1992. "Forward." In Jason Berry, Lead Us Not into
Temptation. New York: Doubleday.

Greven, P. 1991. Spare the Child: The Religious Roots of
Punishment and the Psychological Impact of Physical Abuse. New
York: Knopf.

Goswami, J. 1984. Srila Prabhupada on Guru-Kula. Los Angeles:
Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

Hickey N. and M. Carnell. 1997. "Perpetrators' Targets for
Sexual Abuse." VOICE Web Site.

Hickey N., M. Carnell, and other anonymous contributors.
1997. "Our View of Prabhupad's Responsibility." VOICE Web Site.

Isely, P.J. and Isely, P. 1990. "The Sexual Abuse of Male
Children by Church Personnel: Intervention and Prevention."
Pastoral Psychology.
39:85-99.

Jenkins, P. 1996. Pedophiles and Priests. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Jenkins, P. 1998. "Creating a Culture of Clergy Deviance." Pp.
118-132 in
A. Shupe (Ed.), Wolves Within the Fold. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.

Kanter, R. 1972. Commitment and Community. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Kephart, W. 1963. "Experimental Family Organization: An
Historico-Cultural Report on the Oneida Community." Marriage and
Family Living 25 (August):261-271.

Krebs, T. 1998. "Church Structures that Facilitate Pedophilia
among Roman Catholic Clergy." Pp. 15-32 in A. Shupe (Ed.),
Wolves Within the Fold. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Press.

Kushner, L. 1990. "God Will Take Me In: A Theology of Child
Abuse". Presented on Yom Kippur morning, September, typescript.

Nason-Clark, N. 1998. "The Impact of Abuses of Clergy Trust on
Female Congregants' Faith and Practice." Pp. 85-100 in A. Shupe
(Ed.), Wolves Within the Fold. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.

Palmer, S. 1997. "Hiding from Herod: Utopian Children, Child
Abuse Allegations, and 'Cult Wars.'" Typescript.

Pfohl, S. 1977. The 'Discovery' of Child Abuse," Social Problems
24:310-323.

Pfohl, S. 1985. Images of Deviance and Social Control, McGraw-
Hill.

Prabhupada Anti-defamation Association. 1993. "Child Molesters
Gurus? The False Krishna Gurus." California. Typescript.

Prabhupada, A.C. Bhaktivedanta. 1992. vol. 1, Srila Prabhupada
Siksamrta. Los Angeles: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

Pullen, E. 1998. "An Advocacy Group for Victims of Clerical
Sexual Abuse." Pp. 67-84 in A. Shupe (Ed.), Wolves Within the
Fold. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Rediger, L. 1990. Ministry and Sexuality. Minneapolis: Fortress
Press.

Rochford, E. B., Jr. 1985. Hare Krishna in America. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Rochford, E. B., Jr. "On the Politics of Member Validation:
Taking Findings Back to Hare Krishna." Pp. 99-116 in G. Miller
and J.A. Holstein (Eds.), Perspectives on Social Problems, Vol.
3, Greenwich: JAI Press.

Rochford, E. B., Jr. 1995a. "Family Structure, Commitment, and
Involvement in the Hare Krishna Movement." Sociology of Religion
56(2):153-75.

Rochford, E. B., Jr. 1995b. "Crescita, Espansione e mutamento
nel movimento degli Hare Krishna." Religioni e Sette nel monde 1
(1):153-80.

Rochford, E. B., Jr. 1995c. "Hare Krishna in America: Growth,
Decline, and Accommodation." Pp. 215-21 in T. Miller (Ed.),
America's
Alternative Religions. Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press.

Rochford, E. B., Jr. 1997. "Family Formation, Culture, and
Change in the Hare Krishna Movement." ISKCON Communication
Journal.

Rochford, E. B., Jr., 1998. "Reactions of Hare Krishna Devotees
to Scandals of Leaders' Misconduct." Pp. 101-117 in A. Shupe
(Ed.), Wolves Within the Fold. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.

Rochford, E.B., Jr., forthcoming (1999). "Education and
Collective Identity: Public Schooling of Hare Krishna Youth." In
S. Palmer and C. Hardman (Eds.), Children in New Religions. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Seligman, A. 1997. The Problem of Trust. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.

Shupe, A. 1995. In the Name of All That's Holy: A Theory of
Clergy Malfeasance. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.

Shupe, A. 1998. Wolves Within the Fold. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.

Skolnick, A. 1994. "Massachusetts' New Child Abuse and Neglect
Felony Law Repeals Religious Exemption." Journal of the American
Medical Association. 271:489-491.

Spiro, M. 1958. Children of the Kibbutz. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Straus. M. 1994. Beating the Devil Out of Them. New York:
Lexington Books.

Straus, M. and R. Gelles. 1986. "Societal Change and Change in
Family Violence from 1975 to 1985 as Revealed by Two National
Surveys." Journal of Marriage and Family 48:465-80.

Talmon, Y. 1973. "Family Life in the Kibbutz: From Revolutionary
Days to Stabilization." Pp. 318-333, In R. Moss Kanter (Ed.),
Communes: Creating and Managing The Collective Life. New York:
Harper & Row.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1997. Statistical Abstract of the
U.S.,1997. (117th edition), Washington, DC.

Westat, and Development Associates. 1981. National Study of the
Incidence and Severity of Child Abuse and Neglect. National
Center on Child Abuse and Neglect.

Anonymous a. 1996. Letter. VOICE Wed Site (December 28)

Anonymous b. 1996. Letter. VOICE Wed Site (December 28)

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

Child Abuse in the Hare Krishna Movement*

E. Burke Rochford, Jr.
with Jennifer Heinlein
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Middlebury College
Middlebury, VT, USA, 05753
(802) 758-2363 (home)
(802) 443-5303 (College)
E-mail: Roch...@Middlebury.edu

I thank Chaitanya Mangala dasa, Madhusudani Radha devi, Manu
dasa, Nirmal Hickey, Pancaratna dasa, Saunaka Rsi dasa, Tamal
Krishna Goswami, Jean Burfoot, Robert Ferm, and Peggy Nelson for
comments and suggestions. Despite the good advice offered, I
didn't always follow it.

copyright: E. Burke Rochford, Jr.

Published in ISKCON Communication Journal, Oct. 1998.
Published at ccrgroup.com for voice, August 1999.

http://www.allindiaserver.com/

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

Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com