There are terrorists threatening our country! We must legislate to give the government unprecedented sweeping powers to deal with the threat as it sees fit!
There are critics threatening our movement! We must legislate to give the GBC unprecedented sweeping powers (unilateral annotation of Srila Prabhupada's books) to deal with the threat as it sees fit!
Can anyone else see a parallel here?
Although the proposal is constructed to look like it is about annotating that one straightforward and uncontroversial point, what it does is give an unprecedented sweeping "power to annotate" in response to some perceived threat in the environment.
It's not about one annotation, as the proposal seeks to portray it. It's about the GBC legislating into existence a power it has not had up to this point. The power to address internal cultural issues and external PR issues through the mechanism of annotating Srila Prabhupada's books.
This unprecedented landmark change is being done with no public discussion of the pros and cons, no brahminical position papers, no explanation from senior devotee thought leaders such as Ravindra Svarupa prabhu, etc.
Those who give up their essential liberty for temporary safety will find themselves with neither.
Those who give up the inviolable sanctity of Srila Prabhupada's books for temporary convenience will find themselves with neither.
Annotations
My humble comments (I am suggesting some things, you put them up to our leaders as you see fit):
1) The most controversial statement in the Srimad Bhagavatam is not about women. Rather, the most controversial statement is that the moon is farther than the sun. That is the statement which academicians can use to straightaway discard our philosophy. We haven't as of yet given any comments or annotations on what exactly Prabhupada meant by that statement. Why ? Because we ourselves don't completely know what Sukadeva or Prabhupada meant by that. So, how are we having complete confidence that we know what Prabhupada meant by the statement on women ? Tattva or truth cannot be ascertained by a majority vote. A single brahmana who speaks the naked truth is correct, whereas many votes based on speculation are false. This is a society of brahmanas, but unfortunately the method of ascertaining the truth is democratic.
2) Why stop at women's statements ? The entire teachings of Rsabhdeva should be annotated because he calls the human society dogs, hogs, camels, asses, ox, bulls, envious serpents and everything in between. Are we going to annotate that, or are we going to accept that the Srimad Bhagavatam is what it is - a slap in the face of the modern society ? If we sugarcoat the medicine too much, the patient may as well die of diabetes.
tad vag visargo janatagha viplavo
yasmin prati sloke abaddhvaty api
namany anantasya yaso nkitani yac
chrnvanti gayanti ghrnanti yah sadhavah
Translation : On the other hand, that literature which is full with descriptions of the transcendental glories of the name, fame, form and pastimes of the unlimited Supreme Lord is a transcendental creation meant to bring about a revolution in the impious life of a misdirected civilization. Such transcendental literatures, even though irregularly composed, are heard, sung and accepted by purified men who are thoroughly honest. (SB 1-5-11)
3) It would be interesting to note what exact situations caused the GBC to take this decision ? If the academia is not accepting Prabhupada's books because they think that Prabhupada's books contain unacceptable statements, then let them continue with their own studies. In so many years, we have tried to be friendly with the academicians, and how many academicians turned into devotees ? And how many academicians should we expect to become devotees if we make these changes ? Better to realise that book distribution is the backbone of our movement and instead of trying to please the academicians, lets please the acarya by distributing books and creating devotees. People do not turn away from devotional service because they find objectionable statements in the Bhagavatam. People turn away from devotional service because they find objectionable behavior in existing devotees (that is, all of us).
(i prefer to stay anonymous).