[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : SRH Reorganization
>
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 11:59:33 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Vivek Sadananda Pai <vivek@cs.rice.edu>
> Message-Id: <199607181659.LAA13239@cs.rice.edu>
> Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.indian,alt.jyotish,alt.flame.jay-stevens
> Subject: Re: ARTICLE : SRH Reorganization
> References: <4skjn3$a8t@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
>
> In article <4skjn3$a8t@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
> <SVAISHNAVI@BOSCO.MEIS.UAB.EDU> wrote:
> >What's even more disturbing to me
> >is that these few individuals are using ISKCON's name in this vindictive,
> >vendetta-like action.
>
> If you can find _one_ instance of any of the proponents using ISKCON's
> name in support of the reorg proposal, I will gladly issue a firm
> apology to anyone involved.
Though I hadn't named you, I'm glad you volunteered yourself as one
involved in this vendetta.
> However, if you cannot, and if you have
> any integrity whatsoever, I expect a full public apology.
I don't have anything against you personally, Vivek; I want this to be
a debate about the issues. Yet, you insist on attacking my integrity. I
expect a full public apology for this.
It doesn't behoove you to think along a bunker 'it's me against the
world mentality'. If the effort to replace the moderator of SRH is damaging
to ISKCON's image, don't you think that you should rethink your endeavors?
After all, both of us want what's best for ISKCON. Actually, we're on the
same side.
To reply specifically to your claims, your name has been
inexorably linked with ISKCON, and your support of this reorg proposal carries
with it, in the public mind, the image that ISKCON is involved. Do you deny
that your support for this proposal has nothing to do with revenge for Mr.
Shah's opposition to SRV? You didn't deny that in your reply and I assume you
admit it. If you recall, different ISKCON-related individuals were certainly
involved in the SRV debate (recall Bhaktivedanta Manor's role). You were
certainly involved in that very public fracas and there's no doubt you're
identified with ISKCON in the collective internet mind. Consequently, what
you do with this reorg proposal does indeed affect ISKCON's image. To use a
couple of cliches, it's 'guilt by association' and 'image is everything.'
>
> >I don't know if these individuals have official ISKCON
> >support; I suspect that they do not. If that is the case, the ISKCON
> >leadership needs to take action immediately. ISKCON needs to distance itself
> >from the actions of these people and make it clear that these people do NOT
> >speak for the organization.
>
> The simple fact of the matter is this - ISKCON has nothing to do
> whatsoever with this reorg proposal, and the only people who've even
> mentioned ISKCON are not the proponents, but the usual crowd of
> misanthropes who have been on a systematic campaign against ISKCON.
I think you've seen too many Oliver Stone films - there's not a
'systematic campaign' against ISKCON by any significant number of people
(certainly not by 'misanthropes'). There's only been one person (from
Hawaii) who can be characterized to be on such a campaign and I think it's
important to counter him vigorously. I certainly believe that ISKCON has
nothing to do with this proposal - but the problem, I repeat, is the image.
Think about it - a person who is a vigorous, even aggressive ISKCON supporter
flails Mr. Shah for not supporting SRV (which has strong support from some
ISKCON members) and seemingly tries to take revenge by removing Mr. Shah as
moderator of SRH. Whatever your personal stake in this mudfest, ISKCON's
image gets muddied.
>
> It's always been clear that nobody on the Internet speaks for ISKCON
> as a whole, and when there have been occasional people speaking for
> ISKCON, they very clearly say so. I have stated my position before - I
> am very clearly _not_ initiated in ISKCON, so it would be ludicrous to
> assume that I somehow speak for the organization.
I'm glad that you don't think you speak for ISKCON. Perhaps to make
this clear in everyone's mind, you should have a disclaimer on all your
postings saying just that. Someone who *does* speak for ISKCON needs to take
a stand on this reorg proposal. Like I've said before, it is not in ISKCON's
interest (certainly at this juncture with the Centennial) to make enemies with
Hindus who support Mr. Shah's tenure on SRH. In fact, ISKCON needs to win the
support of *all* Hindus if the Centennial is going to be successful.
>
> Now, as for the rest of your article, has it occurred to you that
> nobody is trying to force Ajay Shah out of his position as moderator?
> The offer to have him join the moderation panel of the reorg proposal
> has been standing for several months now, and is still open.
The question, rather, is why remove Mr. Shah at all as the sole
moderator? The reasons you listed are vacuous and untenable at best. The
only reason seems to be a vindictive one.
>
> If, after all of this, you still feel that your take on the situation
> is correct, I'm sorry to say that you and I will likely not see
> eye-to-eye.
>
> -Vivek
Vivek, I don't particularly care for verbal sparring (or any kind of
sparring for that matter), but I felt I had to respond to this proposal due to
the effect on ISKCON. As I've said before, I'm a very strong supporter of
ISKCON and I don't want ISKCON's image to be besmirched and for ISKCON to
unknowingly commit a major public relations snafu. That is my major concern.
>
