Although this is an older post, still it is relevant, in light of the recent post by Rupanuga Prabhu “The Change Disease” and an even more recent reply post by Ramesvara Prabhu entitled “A Reply to Rupanuga’s Article“. Followed by the reply from Hansadutta Prabhu; “Ramesvara was never a BBT Trustee“.
One needs a score card to keep up with it all, but personally I find
it all very interesting, and perhaps in the big picture on Book Changes,
all this is needed.
“What happened to the BBT”
Posted by Hansadutta das
My Dearest Urdhvaga Prabhu,
Obeisances, all glories to Srila Prabhupada.
I owe it to Srila Prabhupada and to the devotees, to yourself, as
having been appointed by Srila Prabhupada to act as trustee for life, to
clarify what happened with the BBT.
In your post “
Copyrights Transferred to the BBTI?”,
published up on the Sampradaya Sun, you’ve understood correctly that
BBTI is not the same as Prabhupada’s BBT. BBTI (Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
International, Inc.) is a California corporation (non-profit) that was
registered in 1988, in a deliberate attempt to bypass the legal trust.
Immediately thereafter, ISKCON GBC voted to assign the copyrights
from BBT to BBTI. However, they had no legal authority to do so, because
Prabhupada gave express instructions in the trust document that ISKCON
was to have no jurisdiction over the trust.
But that’s not all… for years Ramesvara operated a shell as if it
were the actual BBT – used ISKCON of America and later another ISKCON
registered in California for which he applied to the local authorities
for the dba (“doing business as” otherwise known as a fictitious
business name) “Bhaktivedanta Book Trust”. For so many years he and the
GBC bypassed Srila Prabhupada’s actual trust and trustees.
Devotees did not know it, but Ramesvara was never a BBT trustee – he
was only ever appointed secretary by Prabhupada. He might have been a
trustee of the Indian Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, which was really only a
publishing trust and did not hold the copyrights to Prabhupada’s books.
So you can see that the term “BBT” has been loosely applied to any
one of a few different legal entities, a convenient smoke screen for
ISKCON to take over the trust.
First of all, stop here and understand what is a trust. A legally
constituted trust consists of the Settlor, or the person who is making
the trust; the property vested in the trust; a beneficiary, or the party
who benefits from the trust; and trustee or trustees, who carry out the
terms of the trust.
Prabhupada’s trust, the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, is no different.
Prabhupada is the Settlor and was, until his departure, one of the
trustees. He made ISKCON the beneficiary of the trust.
And he vested all the copyrights to his books in the trust. As for
the trustees, he designated that there be no more than three at any
time. Initially there were just Srila Prabhupada, Karandhar and Bali
Mardan. Later, when Karandhar resigned, Prabhupada appointed me to
replace him.
Prabhupada inserted a provision in the Trust Agreement
BBTAgreement
(pdf, 540 KB) stating that the BBT existed independently of ISKCON and
that the trustees were bound to carry out the duties of the BBT
separately from and not depending on the ISKCON GBC.
But even without such a provision, by law the beneficiary of a trust
has no legal right to direct the trustees or to take over the trust
assets. So what ISKCON did is actually illegal.
ISKCON bypassed the trustees and took over the operation and property
of the BBT. Let’s say a father sets up a trust for his children, and
vests all his property in it, and appoints a trustee to look after it in
the interests of the children.
But somewhere along the line, the children decide they want direct
control over the property and so they scheme to get rid of or go around
the trustee and seize the assets for themselves. Why is this so wrong?
After all, they are the beneficiaries, and the trust is supposed to be
for them.
But no, the court takes the view that the trust belongs to the
Settlor, not the beneficiaries, and although the Settlor may have
departed, his expressed wishes live on in the terms of the trust
document, and so the court upholds the trust, and finds that the
children have attempted to convert the trust res illegally. This is
exactly what has happened in the case of Prabhupada’s BBT.
Or another example to illustrate – which is what I presented to
Amarendra. Amarendra asked me, during settlement negotiations, “What
does it matter to you if BBT exists or not as long as BBTI carries on
the BBT’s work? The books are being published, they’re being
distributed. What’s the difference?”
So I asked him, “Suppose I take your wife, I do all those things that
you do with her – maybe even better than you do – what does it matter
to you?” Poor Amarendra was shocked. The point is: BBT belongs to
Prabhupada, not to ISKCON. Prabhupada set it up to work in a particular
way, and ISKCON has no right to interfere or to take over, as they have
done.
Going back to 1988, the time when BBTI was incorporated, devotees may
remember that around that time ISKCON began blacklisting devotees who
were outspoken against GBC or official ISKCON policies, especially with
regard to the policy of forced reinitiation.
Some devotees had gone through four Gurus! Many left ISKCON and went
back into material life; and the few who tried to go it on their own
were subjected to a campaign to extinguish them – they were made
unwelcome at ISKCON temples, they were unable to buy Prabhupada’s books
at wholesale rates for sankirtan, and ISKCON devotees went out of their
way to sabbotage their preaching efforts.
This is what happened in Singapore to Bhima das, who, with one other
brahmachary, had been distributing Prabhupada’s books in Malaysia and
Singapore, even Philippines, Thailand and Taiwan, at least 1.5 million
books from 1978. But from 1988 the regional “BBTs” refused to sell to
him, and he was refused even when he approached “BBT” in Australia.
Not only this, but the BBT was letting so many books go out of print, and publishing only Jayadvaita’s new and improved books.
In 1990 I approached Tamal Krishna Goswami to buy chinese Bhagavad
gitas from him, he refused , telling me he would sell them to me only at
the retail price. OK, I said I’ll buy two copies, thinking enough is
enough. So in 1990 we printed Bhagavad-gita As It Is in Chinese. Within a
few months, Bhima received a letter from a lawyer alleging copyright
infringement.
The lawyer’s client was none other than Sundar Gopal in Singapore,
then still working under Tamal Krishna Goswami. Shortly afterwards, BBTI
brought a lawsuit against Bhima in Singapore, claiming their copyrights
had been infringed and asking for damages.
We challenged BBTI to prove ownership, and they came back with a
fake, back-dated document signed by Svavasa, supposedly assigning BBT
copyrights to BBTI. But we presented the original Trust Agreement for
Prabhupada’s Bhaktivedanta Book Trust and the resolution bearing Srila
Prabhupada’s signature appointing myself as trustee, and demanded that
BBTI prove its legal connection with the original BBT. When they
couldn’t do that, they all at once backed out of the lawsuit.
That’s when ISKCON and BBTI sued Hansadutta, myself, in 1997. It was
not actually a lawsuit against myself personally. It was a direct attack
on Prabhupada’s original BBT.
ISKCON and BBTI were seeking a court declaration that Prabhupada’s
BBT was never a legally valid trust and thus never held the copyrights
to his books; or in the event that it was once valid, that it had ceased
to be valid; moreover, that Hansadutta, myself, was never a trustee of
that trust, or if I was, then I had ceased to be or should be removed
and new trustees appointed. Download the complaint (pdf, 3.2 MB).
Over the course of more than 1-1/2 years, much came to light. For
instance, ISKCON claimed that Prabhupada had never owned the copyrights,
that they were “works for hire”, meaning that Prabhupada was ISKCON’s
hired worker – they supplied Prabhupada with room and board, dictation
machine, paper, pen… and whatever he wrote was the property of ISKCON.
Read it yourself what ISKCON said (pdf, 1.5 MB).
I did not relinquish my position as BBT trustee lightly. It was a
grave decision. I understood very well that Prabhupada had appointed me
for life to safeguard his books, and I would never have simply thrown it
away. But after 17-18 months of litigation, we had no financial
resources to continue the legal battle into trial. Our lawyer,
Fedorowsky (Gupta das), required us to come up with another $100,000 in
advance payment to go to trial.
Contrary to what has been reported by some, I did not leave ISKCON
with money, and I have never done business or been gainfully employed,
so I had to rely on Krishna to send help in defending Prabhupada’s BBT.
Bhima had spent more than a million dollars fighting the BBTI courtcase
in Singapore. Then when ISKCON – BBTI changed course and filed legal
action against me, again Bhima came to the rescue, but by then he was
pretty much tapped out.
He scrambled to put up the money to retain Fedorowsky. Veda Guhya
also contributed – a quarter of the amount Bhima gave. But when
Fedorowsky called for more money for trial, we just didn’t have it, and
no one responded to our appeals for help – not one of the
Prabhupadanugas. Everyone just kept silent. No one came forward, and
former friends retreated.
Talk of betrayal… I felt betrayed at that time, deserted by
godbrothers who would not support the defense of Prabhupada’s BBT. (I
remember in those days you wrote to me your disappointment that
Chakravarty did not want to communicate with me because it might
compromise his job with BBTI under Harikesa.)
Moreover, Fedorowsky advised me that even if we were to proceed to
trial and if we should prevail, there was every likelihood that ISKCON
and BBTI would appeal and that ISKCON would petition the court to remove
me from the trust in any case, and the matter could drag out for years.
We didn’t know it at the time, but Fedorowsky had already
misappropriated money that was principal in an investment scheme that
was to pay his fees.
Had we known that, we would not have trusted him, but we did trust
him, and we had no other option for an attorney – Fedorowsky knew the
ins and outs of ISKCON, he had a grasp of the legal issues, which
baffled all other attorneys we consulted, and he had made us an offer
impossible to refuse – very discounted fees.
And so it was that 18 months into litigation, I was corralled into
accepting a settlement, crafted by Fedorowsky and Amarendra. Fedorowsky
promised me that in exchange for stepping down from the BBT trustee
position, BBTI and ISKCON would give me an “unfettered” license to
publish all of Prabhupada’s original books (pre1978) pretty much
worldwide. This turned out to be otherwise, but at the time I trusted
Fedorowsky’s legal advice.
I had to consider that if we went to trial and lost, BBTI and ISKCON
would get away with everything, spelling the end of Prabhupada’s
original books and depriving many devotees of access to buying books for
distribution. And I had to consider that even if we went to trial and
won, it would not be the end of it; ISKCON and BBTI would fight on and
eventually I would be removed as trustee.
Then too, Fedorowsky spoke of the cost of protecting the copyrights,
how if the BBT did not file legal action for each and every copyright
infringement, then they would be lost to public domain – which might
have been done anyway. So thinking to make the best of a bad bargain, I
made the decision that I felt would protect the integrity of
Prabhupada’s original books and enable their publication and make them
accessible to the devotees everywhere regardless of their affiliation
with ISKCON.
I considered also ISKCON’s and BBTI’s assurances that the BBT would
be left intact. It was for Prabhupada that I did what I did. For
Prabhupada and the devotees. In the end, I could only hope that the
settlement would resolve our differences, and so I took a leap of faith
to trust our godbrothers at their word, give them a chance to make it
possible for us to participate in serving Prabhupada and his mission by
printing and distributing his unadulterated books.
I did not do so with personal profit in mind. That was not the case
at all. For that reason I did not object when Fedorowsky added his own
name as member of the board of the licensee.
Out of gratitude to him for his services, and desiring to include the
persons who had sacrificed money, time and energy to defend
Prabhupada’s BBT and the purity of Prabhupada’s original books, I
consented to the naming of Fedorowsky, Veda Guhya, Bhima and his wife
all as members of the board. As for the settlement money, it was
initially agreed that the money would be used as startup capital for
printing Prabhupada’s books.
However, Fedorowsky laid claim to it, and a dispute arose. As it
turned out, Fedorowsky, with the support of Veda Guhya, Bhagavan and
Niscintya, pulled the carpet out from beneath us, and took control of
the licensee, ousting myself, Bhima and Das devi dasi.
But I assure you, I did not ever intend to betray Srila Prabhupada or
his Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. I acted in good faith. Fedorowsky and
others took advantage of my trust and good will. If you are looking for
those who betrayed Prabhupada, look to them, look to ISKCON and BBTI.
As you have pointed out, I have since put ISKCON and BBTI on notice
that their failure to pay out the settlement monies as per the terms of
the settlement means that the settlement has been breached, and so I
have rescinded my resignation as trustee of the BBT. As far as I know,
the BBT is intact. But ISKCON and BBTI continue to produce and
distribute counterfeit books, and the BBT courtcase has been swept
underneath the bed.
To check them with legal action is prohibitively costly. But if the
devotees rally and demand remediation, that Prabhupada’s BBT be restored
and that BBTI cease all revisions of Prabhupada’s books, then it’s
possible that one day things will be right again with the movement. This
is my stand. And I call for all Prabhupada’s faithful disciples to
stand with me, to stand by Prabhupada’s Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, to
stand for Srila Prabhupada and his books.
Remember the Alamo! But devotees need to do more than talk. Many
devotees have strongly protested the changes to the books, but BBTI and
ISKCON turn a deaf ear to them and will continue to do so unless and
until they are faced with real consequences such as court action. This
costs money. So put your money where your mouth is, and let’s see who is
willing to do for Prabhupada.
I know that I have disappointed you and so many other devotees. I am
very sorry for so many things I have done recklessly and for having
failed to live up to all our expectations. All I can do is ask again for
forgiveness from you and from the devotees everywhere, and for your
blessings to be allowed to serve Prabhupada alongside his faithful
devotees.
We are meant to follow Prabhupada, all of us as members of his
entourage, as his servants, in this life and in the next and the next
after that, forever, and this is all I look forward to – meeting up with
Srila Prabhupada wherever he may be and being counted once again as one
of his disciples. Please do not think too badly of me and cast me out
from your association.
Your servant, Hansadutta das
