When the Protectors Need Protecting: A Devotee’s Crisis of Faith

Asking the hardest questions about child safety, institutional accountability, and the true cost of surrender.

For a long time, I believed I already had the answers.

Whenever uncomfortable controversies about our movement surfaced — guru fall-downs, financial disputes, or allegations of child abuse — I rarely encountered them in isolation. They always arrived wrapped in official explanations, institutional apologetics, and reassurances from senior devotees. Because of this, it was incredibly easy to dismiss the entire body of criticism as fundamentally untrustworthy.

To me, the tragedies of the early gurukulas felt like a closed chapter. I genuinely believed child abuse was a tragic historical problem from decades ago that the institution had successfully acknowledged and addressed. My first instinct was never to investigate; it was always to protect my existing belief. Instead of asking, “Is this actually true?”, I immediately asked, “How can this be defended?”.

But the turning point for me did not begin with a major public scandal or a news article; it began much closer to home. I started noticing recurring patterns in how failures were handled, which motivated me to re-examine old controversies with a more skeptical mindset. Instead of asking how an issue had already been answered, I began asking if the answer was actually sufficient.

The Chronology of a Crisis

When you step back and look at the history of child protection within the movement without a defensive filter, the chronology reveals a crisis that spans decades.

• In the early 1970s, children were increasingly separated from their parents at very young ages to receive spiritual training in residential gurukulas. This structure transferred trust from families directly to the institution, creating conditions where problems could remain hidden for years.
• By the late 1980s and early 1990s, former students increasingly began speaking publicly about experiences of physical abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect.
• In 1998, the International Child Protection Office (CPO) was established to investigate allegations and develop safeguarding standards.
• However, by 2004, internal reports warned that the CPO lacked sufficient authority and institutional support, with critics arguing that leadership desired the appearance of accountability more than actual accountability.
• These issues did not remain safely in the past; in 2021, leaked recordings allegedly revealed discussions about bypassing the CPO process to handle allegations against a senior leader.
• Furthermore, in 2025, a petition was filed before the Supreme Court of India alleging serious abuse concerns in ISKCON-run schools, proving the issue remains active rather than purely historical.

The most difficult question raised by this timeline is not whether abuse occurred. Even our own publications and leaders acknowledge that it did.

The more difficult question concerns accountability. Why do controversies repeatedly emerge around the very institutions created to prevent future abuse?.

The Right Questions

As an internal practitioner, examining this history forced me to ask terrifying questions about the culture I had surrendered to.

Every organization can have bad individuals, but when similar concerns repeatedly appear across different times, places, and people, the pattern itself requires investigation. I had to ask:

• Why is the scriptural principle of avoiding offenses (Vaishnava Aparadha) sometimes weaponized to mask criminal behavior or stop people from reporting exploitation to secular authorities?.
• Why is the concept of “forgive and move on” used to bypass systemic justice, while victims are left to suffer in isolation?.
• Why does the institution sometimes appear to protect the prestige of the organization over the safety of its members?.
• If an accountability system is controlled by the same circles being investigated, how independent can it truly be?.

I realized that institutional self-preservation often competes with the search for truth, and reputation tends to receive priority. A healthy system treats criticism as information, but an unhealthy system treats criticism as a threat, shifting attention away from the allegation and toward the person raising it.

The True Cost of Surrender

Questioning these patterns is not an abstract theological exercise. These are intensely practical questions about career, relationships, financial sacrifice, and trust.

We sacrifice our time, careers, and energy believing we are serving God, but what safeguards exist to ensure that our surrender is not exploited by another human being?. I did not conclude that every leader is corrupt or that every criticism is true. Reality is far more complicated. But I did realize that placing significant control of my life into the hands of an institution whose reliability I could no longer evaluate felt like an unnecessary risk.

I had to separate the beauty of the philosophy from the fallibility of the institution built upon it.

If you are a devotee who has felt this exact same friction — if you have ever wondered why loyalty is sometimes demanded at the expense of truth, or why our accountability structures seem to falter when powerful figures are involved — you are not alone.

It was this exact internal crisis that led me to write Perfect Answer, Perfect Question:Revisiting Foundations of Faith

It is a deep, honest exploration of the questions we are often afraid to ask aloud. We owe it to the victims, to the philosophy, and to ourselves to look clearly at the patterns of the past so we can navigate our spiritual futures with open eyes.

souravuttarkabat.github.io/book-website/