Voting in elections – Clarification in response to HH Bhakti Vikas Maharaj

I deeply respect His Holiness Bhakti Vikas Maharaj as an exalted Vaishnava, a dedicated leading follower of Srila Prabhupada, a meticulous scholar and a vigorous writer. Especially through his writings, he has also been one my most important shiksha-gurus. His books on brahmacharya and Prabhupada were vital guiding lights that shaped my convictions in the formative years of my Krishna consciousness. His three-volume magnum opus, Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Vaibhava, is arguably among the best offerings that ISKCON has made to the Gaudiya sampradaya, forming a precious link to our glorious past and illumining the way to the future. I was so inspired by that book that I wrote a long appreciative review of his book and sent it to Maharaj, and he posted on his site as well sent on his egroup. Moreover, I have served Maharaj as an editor on a few occasions.

Given this background, I am dismayed and appalled at the impression being circulated in some circles that we are embroiled in some controversy due to our seemingly opposing stands on the issue of voting in elections.

Transcript:

Elections are integral part of the democratic process. They take up a fever of their own. During this time the media itself is filled up with ads, analysis, reports of elections, the trends and predictions.

From spiritual perspective there may be different responses possible to this social situation:

Three attitudes towards the world

There is the idea that all this is temporary and nothing is going to change in this world full of miseries. Ex. One may quote Srila Prabhupada here, when congress lost power in the 1970s, that time elections were coming up, at that time Srila Prabhupada told that ‘this is not going to make any difference. Adhyatmik adjustment is what is going to solve the problem. Not the social Adjustment.’ That may make some devotees dismissive towards the elections. From Transcendental perspective it is true that the material changes don’t make much difference. But Srila Prabhupada himself was not indifferent towards the social situations. At one time Srila Prabhupada encourages devotees to form a political party called ‘in god we trust’. There were devotees who campaigned in America as well as Australia. Srila Prabhupada said that one advantage of this democratic set-up of elections is that you can freely criticize others. So as to bring the people towards the awareness of the core issues and make healthy choices.

So Srila Prabhupada had both these attitudes. Rather to say we may find Srila Prabhupada quotes for whichever attitude we may have. So if we look at the Vedic philosophy at large there are 3 ways to look at the world:-

1. ‘Demonize the world’ —–> Gyan Marg (everything in this world is dangerous, distracting and entangling so there is no need to indulge in it)
2. Romanticize the world’ —-> Karma Marg (If only a few things change, then everything will be so wonderful in this world and we will be happy. Changes at material level can bring happiness)
3. ‘Utilize the World’ —-> Bhakti Marg (Everything belongs to Krishna and should be used in the service of Krishna. Principle of Yukta Vairagya i.e. whatever is usable in Krishna’s service, shouldn’t be rejected)

Bhagwad Gita doesn’t endorse 1st and 2nd interpretations, but supports the 3rd way.The way Democracy works is that the way citizens can express their power is through voting. There is a material level and there is a transcendental level to it. Within the material level (made up of Goodness, Passion and ignorance) there are things that are Pro-spirituality and there are things that are anti-spirituality. For example Excessive passion and ignorance would be anti-spiritual.

For Bhakti, out of these material elements, what is Pro-spiritual is encouraged
 and what is Anti-spiritual is discouraged (lower modes). 
At one level devotees are meant to practice spirituality without getting entangled in this world. But at the same time Srila Prabhupada told devotees to contribute to the world by raising the consciousness of the society.
 So by the principal of Yukta-Vairagya whatever principle we can use for raising the consciousness we should use. And government is vastly useful and powerful machinery in today’s society. Whether that government is in the hand of those who are pro-spiritual or anti-spiritual that is something that is significantly going to determine if spiritual message that can be practiced and shared.

Fanaticism – secular and religious

There are irreligious fanatics which make practice of spirituality impossible. We had in Soviet Russia where devotees were tortured and persecuted because they were practicing religious principles. Communism which rejected all the religions as opium of the masses is irreligious fanaticism.

Similarly there are theocracies that encourage practices of one religion and ban the practices of other religions (at least publically).

Indian Tradition has been a tradition of plurality and broad-mindedness. There have been different paths for different people, according to their traditions/ mentalities/ psycho-physical natures. That’s why there are gyan marg, karma marg, and bhakti marg.
So in today’s society this plurality is being endangered in the name of secularism. Often secularism should broadly mean that different religions to be allowed to practice without any interference by the state. But unfortunately in India, secularism often leads to reverse-discrimination against the majority. So what it ends up doing is in the name of being Secular the minorities are given disproportionate favors and majority is disproportionately disfavored. This sort of secular intolerance makes the practice of the mainstream Vedic culture more and more difficult. That is undesirable. That has to be avoided.

Of course at the other extreme is the religious fanaticism that is also not a part of the Vedic tradition. The Vedic tradition was that different people can propagate their ideas. There can be intellectual debate and the one which is intellectually strongest would triumph. But there are religious fanatics who do not tolerate any intellectual debate and they go into aggression.
 So both secular fanaticism and religious fanaticism are very dangerous for the plural culture of India for sharing the spiritual wisdom. Of course the mainstream media today highlights the dangers of loss of secularism far than the dangers of religious fanaticism in terms of the disproportionate favor to the minorities.

Three concentric circles


That’s why devotees who at one level wants to practice their spiritual life (the innermost circle) and want to share it with other and help them to come to the devotional level (the outer circle), and the outermost circle are people broadly who are not practicing spiritual life but are appreciative of the spiritual life, that what the spiritual culture would spread broader and broader.
If the government is anti-spiritual or is run by those who are anti-spiritual or anti-Vedic religion can have injurious effects not only for the core practitioners or those who want to share the devotional culture but the outer culture can also be harmful. So devotees have to be very intelligent and responsible recognizing that just as we practice Krishna Consciousness, while doing so we use technology and so many things that were not used in the past because we understand the principle of Yukta-Vairagya, that whatever can be used in Krishna’s service must be used in Krishna’s Service.

Similarly the process of democracy and elections can also be utilized by the principle of the Yukta Vairagya for making the choices that will help in establishment of broad socio-cultural governance that is favorable to India’s broad-minded tolerant and pluralistic spiritual culture. So that’s why the elections provides the devotees the opportunity to exercise their social responsibility that by participating in the electoral process, casting one’s vote to those candidates who will promote the spiritual values, who will not reject spiritual values in the name of secularism, and who will gradually enable the establishment of socio-culture administration that raises people’s consciousness, in that way the devotees can help in re-spiritualization of society as Srila Prabhupada desired and wrote in his preface to Srimad Bhagwatam.

***

In response to several questions about this topic, I gave the following talk as as a clarification:

By asking devotees to vote, why are you dragging Prabhupada’s pure legacy into dirty politics?

Transcript:

Someone asked the question to HH Bhakti Vikas Maharaj and he gave the following answer that led to the perception of a controversy.

HH Bhakti Vikas Maharaj response

To remove the misimpression of controversy, I wrote to Maharaj, clarifying my position. He also felt that the controversy was unnecessary and has posted his clarification here.

HH Bhakti Vikas Maharaj clarification

My clarification (This talk is an expanded version of the below text, which is an edited version of the letter I had sent to Maharaj – edited so that it addresses the readers instead of Maharaj)

*

In my talk, “Voting in elections is the social responsibility of devotees,” my using this term ‘social responsibility’ may have conveyed that I was saying that devotees have to vote in elections. That was not my intention at all.

I gave my talk because I had come across some devotees who were insisting that, as a matter of principle, devotees shouldn’t vote. Is that sort of insistence warranted by the teachings of Srila Prabhupada? No doubt, he disapproved democracy. But does his disapproval amount to an eternal ban on voting for devotees?

Only if we divorce his words from his actions.

In his practical example, Srila Prabhupada was dynamic in responding to changing social realities. For example, in the initial days of our movement, he stated that there was no need for varnashrama – just Krishna consciousness was enough. But later, seeing how the contemporary culture made sustainable practice of serious bhakti extremely difficult, he emphasized that varnashrama was needed.

This social dynamism was evident even in his approach to democracy.

For example, though Lord Chaitanya refused to meet King Pratap Rudra when the king himself was desperate to meet him, Srila Prabhupada went out of his way to meet Indira Gandhi – he cancelled a world tour to meet a democratically elected leader who was a politician and a woman. And he did that after he had repeatedly stated and written that democracy was not a desirable form of government, that politicians weren’t trustworthy and that a female being a head of state wasn’t appropriate.

How do we understand this difference between Srila Prabhupada and Lord Chaitanya – and even the difference between Srila Prabhupada’s words and actions?

By understanding the context.

Srila Prabhupada lived in a socio-political situation substantially different from the one at the time of Lord Chaitanya. Whereas Lord Chaitanya’s reputation would have been sullied by meeting a king, in the modern situation Srila Prabhupada’s reputation would have been enhanced by meeting the Indian Prime Minister.

In his writings, Srila Prabhupada declared as ideal a government headed by a spiritually enlightened monarch. But he also recognized that today’s practical reality was radically different, necessitating a pragmatic response that made the best use of a bad bargain. One such response was meeting and influencing a democratically elected head of state.

Srila Prabhupada’s context-sensitive response demonstrates that his practical actions in relationship with democracy were far more nuanced than mere condemnation. And ISKCON’s global history confirms that devotees too need to adopt carefully considered socio-political positions.

In today’s socio-political situation, overall countries with democratic governments have been far more conducive for sharing Krishna consciousness than countries with non-democratic forms of government.

Had it not been for devotees’ contacting politicians who had been elected democratically and who therefore had to be responsive to public opinion,

1. We might have had no temple at Juhu (An influential democratic leader intervened to stop the demolition),
2. Bhagavad Gita As It Is might have been banned in Russia (India’s democratically elected Parliamentary leaders vehemently opposed the proposed ban and sent a strong message to the Russia government).

In contrast, non-democratic governments have often been hostile to devotees

1. The non-democratic communist governments in USSR persecuted devotees.
2. The non-democratic theocracies in the Middle East ban the public practice of devotional service to this day.
3. Countries with nominal democracies such as China are similarly hostile.

So, in a world when there’s no enlightened spiritual form of government, ISKCON’s history testifies that democracy appears the best option for us.

In a democratic setup, there will be karmic reactions in voting for a government that doesn’t correct wrongs like cow slaughter. But is not voting necessarily a karmically safe option?

Given the choice between a party that may curb cow slaughter and others that most certainly won’t curb it, not voting may also lead to karmic reactions. How? Because by our inaction we may have neglected doing what was in our power to try to stop cow slaughter. After all, the Bhagavad-gita asserts that inaction is also a form of action; and the Mahabharata demonstrates that Bhishma and Drona became culpable during Draupadi’s disrobing because they didn’t do anything. As His Holiness Bhakti Vikas Maharaj has stated in his talk, the social situation today is extremely complex and there are no easy answers or quick solutions such as “all devotees should vote” or “no devotee should vote.”

Of course, if we had a devotee-candidate, or better still, a political party formed by devotees was contesting, then naturally the answer would be: “devotees should vote”. Srila Prabhupada encouraged devotees to start a political party and campaign for getting votes. Unfortunately, at present, there’s no such party.

For those devotees who feel inclined to vote for a party that is relatively more favorable to sanatana-dharma than others, my talk intended to show that our philosophy is inclusive enough to accommodate their inclination. Maharaj too gave that room for choice by stating that devotees can vote.

The purpose of my talk was to help devotees concerned about bringing in a social environment more favorable to sanatana-dharma could see voting as a social opportunity.

If I intended to convey that voting was a social opportunity, then why did I use the word ‘social responsibility’?

To convey that devotees shouldn’t be apathetic to the social situation, dismissing it as mundane. I have observed that the dismissive disdain for voting among some devotees unnecessarily alienates socially responsible people, many of whom are intelligent, are in the mode of goodness and are potential devotees. Such people see the disdain of devotees as a confirmation of their misperception that devotees are socially irresponsible: “You people don’t care about what happens in society – you just want to, like a parasite, use society’s resources for doing your own other-worldly stuff.”

If we feed the public perception that devotees’ role in society is parasitic, we do violence not just to our preaching mission but also to the truth. Our social role is not parasitic, but cathartic. Or at least it should be. Srila Prabhupada wanted us to transform society positively – in that sense, devotees are meant to be socially conscious and socially concerned, or in other words, socially responsible. One way devotees can express that social responsibility is by voting in elections.

Will such voting distract devotees from their far more important social responsibility to implement Srila Prabhupada’s broad program: all-round social reform necessary for bringing in guna-karma-based varnashrama?

That distraction is possible, but not probable. Because voting in elections will take only a few minutes once in a few years. As I had said in my talk, Srila Prabhupada has abundantly cautioned us against romanticizing this world. This means that we shouldn’t become obsessed with politics, entertaining vain hopes that political change alone will solve all problems. The occasional activity of voting shouldn’t become a replacement for our perennial social responsibility of spiritually-centered reform.

To the contrary, this occasional voting may well contribute towards that long-term program. One way to progress towards varnashrama is by influencing social leaders. Though the ideal situation is that political leaders come to spiritual leaders for guidance, we are far away from that situation, as Maharaj pointed out. So making the best of what we have, one way to begin interacting with today’s leaders is by making our social presence felt in a way that counts for them – as a group of socially conscious voters.

To conclude, my use of the word ‘social responsibility’ was not to convey that voting was something that devotees had to do – rather, my intention was to convey that it being a social responsibility is optional, as contrasted with a spiritual responsibility which is mandatory.

Devotees who feel inclined to vote don’t have to be made to feel that they are going against Srila Prabhupada’s teachings – nor, of course, should devotees who feel disinclined to vote. His Divine Grace has built a house big enough in which both groups can live.

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Hare Krishna voting in elections clarification about a fortnight ago I had given a talk on this topic voting elections is devotee’s social responsibility after that Bhakta Vikas Maharaj had answered a question on this topic is voting the social responsibility of devotees and he had a different opinion where he felt that the idea that this is a social responsibility of devotees is not idea coming from Shastra so this difference in opinion seemed confusing and troubling to some devotees who wrote to me and then I wrote to Bhakta Vikas Maharaj and Bhakta Vikas Maharaj also has given a clarification of what he meant what was his context and also that difference in opinion as long as within the ambit of Shastra is not undesirable so here I would like to elaborate a bit more on what I meant when I said voting in elections is the social responsibility especially the term social responsibility and how this whole concept of voting in elections can be understood in the light of the teaching of Prabhupada Shastra and the experience of experience within his school so when we talk about the word social responsibility often the idea that comes in the mind is that it is something which is mandatory for devotees the word social responsibility is something equivalent to aparadharma and there is spiritual responsibility which is paradharma so for devotees spiritual responsibility is mandatory and social responsibility everybody has social responsibility but the specific forms of social responsibilities can vary so according to Varna according to Ashrama the social responsibility can be different and for according to Desh Kalpatra social responsibility can also change so what would be the social responsibility in today’s socio-political context for devotees now when the elections were coming up now we are almost towards the end of the elections there is a sort of fever that gripped the nation and naturally the talks spilled over in the devotee community also and some devotees were of the opinion that devotees should do not vote in elections and those who had the idea would quote from Shila Prabhupada many quotes are there about democracy is demon crazy or democracy is unqualified leaders elected by unqualified voters so people are not educated properly how can they vote and the system is non-shastric and Prabhupada’s quotes if taken together seem to support a dismissive attitude towards democracy and based on this some devotees took the position that devotees should not vote in elections so it is true that Prabhupada disapproved democracy but does this disapproval translate into an eternal ban for devotees as far as participating in democratic process in any way no not at all actually his disapproval will become a ban only if we divorce his words from his actions Shila Prabhupada gave the shastric ideal in his books when we look at his words are there but along with that when we look at his actions he was also realistic and practical in dealing with the situation as it was present before him so for example Shila Prabhupada would say that in the early days of the movement in 1966,67,68 if we see Prabhupada’s quotes he is repeatedly saying that there is no need for Varanashram just Krishna consciousness is enough but later on when socio-cultural challenges started coming up those in the renounced order could not maintain their vows even those who are married often found it difficult to continue living together and sought divorce so at such time Prabhupada felt that and said that foundation for practicing spiritual Krishna consciousness would be Varanashram and establishing Varanashram is also important so here we see Prabhupada’s dynamic social responses so the scriptural truths are eternal but how to implement them in varying social situations that can vary according to time, place, circumstance so the same social dynamism with respect to the need of Varanashram which Shila Prabhupada displayed he also displayed with respect to democracy Prabhupada did say that democracy is not a good form of government and he disapproved democratic elected leaders but still he was not averse to engaging with them that means interacting with them whenever the opportunity arose so when Shila Prabhupada was on a world preaching tour and he got an opportunity to meet then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi Prabhupada cancelled his tour and came back all the way just to meet her so he was not dismissive, he accepted the point that okay this person is respected and has power and will meet now if we contrast this, this particular action Shila Prabhupada can be contrasted first with the precedent from our own with the founder of the Sampradaya, that is Shaitanya Mahaprabhu Shaitanya Mahaprabhu refused to meet Lord Chaitanya although Lord, refused to meet King Prataparudra, although Prataparudra was desperate to meet and Shila Prabhupada went out of his way to meet Indira Gandhi, why the difference? because again this is a social response and in Shaitanya Mahaprabhu’s socio-cultural situation for a sanyasi to meet a king Shaitanya Mahaprabhu felt would be, would lead to a sullying, a darkening of the reputation of a sanyasi sanyasi has renounced the world why does he have to meet a materialistic person like a king Prataparudra was of course not materialistic but Shaitanya Mahaprabhu wanted to keep the reputation of the renounced order spotless Shila Prabhupada lived in an entirely different socio-cultural situation you know, today’s socio-cultural situation far from respecting sanyasis, often considered sanyasis to be worthless so in such a situation if sanyasi gets to meet a sanyasi meets a head of state, a prime minister then that actually enhances the reputation of the sanyasi so Prabhupada was pragmatic and further in Shila Prabhupada’s example of meeting Indira Gandhi is significant in another context Prabhupada disapproved democratically elected leaders Prabhupada also spoke about how politicians are not trustworthy and Prabhupada also said that females being head of states is not appropriate but still Prabhupada met a democratically elected politician who was a female why? because that was what could have facilitated the spreading of Krishna consciousness so we have the scriptural ideal but we have to work with whatever is available and if this was what was available, Shila Prabhupada was ready to work with that so if we just look at Shila Prabhupada’s responses to various situations then we see that his stands are far more nuanced than mere dismissal of democracy as good for nothing so the same nuanced carefully thought approach has also helped ISKCON in its post Prabhupada phase actually speaking devotees have found it often much easier to practice and share Krishna consciousness in places where there are democratic governments than where there are non-democratic governments for example, the communist regime in former USSR oppressed, persecuted, tortured, maimed and even killed devotees and to practice devotional service there often meant to risk one’s life now with the fall of that communist regime and now its democratic set up coming up devotees have much more freedom to practice now where there are dictatorial rule where there is monarchy which is considered the Vedic standard that kind of rule is there which we see in the Middle East there devotees are not allowed to practice Krishna consciousness publicly at all, only private practice is allowed and its not foreseeable in near future that things will change unless there are major upheavals and even countries where there is nominal democracy like we see in China there actually devotional service, again people cannot practice it publicly so in this way we see that the non-democratic regimes are from the point of view of practical socio-political reality unfavorable for the practice of devotional service on the other hand democratic regimes are relatively much favorable actually Prabhupada himself after going to Russia and coming back he contrasted he says he was speaking to his American disciples in your country they give us freedom to practice our our faith but there they did not give us Russia is not giving us practice so this freedom which is there in America he appreciated that so democratic countries generally respect the people’s right to practice a particular religion so and in democratic places when the people government has to be response the government heads the politicians have to be responsive to people’s opinions and that often also is influential in the in the facility in getting and preserving the facility for sharing Krishna consciousness for example when the Juhu temple was being constructed at that time the land owner in cahoots with the municipal commissioner demolished this building and then the devotees approach influential politician and he intervened and protected the temple so there we see that actually the devotees were helped so because of their approaching a politician who was democratically elected same way we also see that in Russia recently there was an attempt to ban the Bhagavad Gita as it is and when this news came to the Indian parliament it created an outrage in the parliament and then India sent a strongly word message to Russia and then after the ban was appeal in the court was cancelled the court case which was supposed to ban the Bhagavad Gita was rejected so political pressure can be applied and it has been successfully applied in democratic setups therefore devotees need to carefully check in their particular situation what would be the best and accordingly make a decision so Narshala Prabhupada was not only not averse to interacting with politicians but he was not averse to even devotees entering into politics he in fact encouraged devotees to form a in god we trust party wherein the devotees campaigned and obviously campaigning means seeking votes and if in those constituencies any devotees had been there then naturally they would have voted for the devotee candidates so if we look at the situation today unfortunately we don’t have any party made of devotees we may not even have devotee candidates but still we can see that there are different parties which party would be relatively favourable to Sanatana Dharma and we can vote for that so we have to think ourselves and make a decision now one consideration may be that the consideration of karma that if you vote for a particular party and that party allows a continuous cow slaughter then will we get the karma we may but then there is no guarantee that not voting for a particular party or not voting for any party at all not participating in the democratic process will also keep us free of karma how is that? because the Bhagavad Gita is very clear that inaction is also a form of action so in 4th Mark 18 Krishna says the wise should see action in inaction and inaction in action that means that one who can see that even when a person is inactive one may still be getting implicated in karma such a person is actually a proper seer so the Mahabharata demonstrates that actually when Draupadi was being dishonoured Bhishma and Drona did nothing and because of doing nothing they became culpable so in today’s situation if there is a party which may ban cow slaughter and another party which most certainly won’t ban cow slaughter then if we don’t vote at all we may be jeopardising the only chance that is there in the near future of stopping cow slaughter and that way we might get karma so even if we look at karma there is no clear case of what may happen or what may not happen so karma alone cannot be a guiding factor over here because we don’t clearly know what would be good karma, what would be bad karma so we’ll have to make carefully considered intelligent choices and when we think about the factor that there are various responses possible and each of us has to make our own response so when we decide this that I will think for myself based on Guru Sadhu Shastra of course but ultimately each of us has to live our life ourselves so we think based on Guru Sadhu Shastra and make a particular decision and some devotees may feel inspired to vote and they are also considering how to their thoughts need to be respected because they are also considering how best to contribute to the sharing of Krishna consciousness or to creating an environment where eventually sharing of Krishna consciousness will become easier and some devotees may feel that there is no need to vote and they are also feeling why waste time and energy in this particular activity and nothing is going to change so their point is also it’s not that they are doing something wrong it’s not that they are doing something which is contrary to scripture not at all actually speaking wherever scripture doesn’t give a very clear practical direction we may have to think for ourselves now of course one thing even those devotees who feel inclined to vote we have to remember that just political change is changing change of government will not make will not solve all problems we shouldn’t romanticize the world thinking that just some little adjustment will solve all issues no ultimately we have to change our consciousness and we have to help others change their consciousness that inner change in the individual alone is going to help in the long run without as Prabhupada said that without the awakening of divine consciousness in the individual there is no use of crying for world peace so the divine consciousness has to be awakened and that is our primary responsibility and orienting society in a way that that awakening of divine consciousness can take place that is what we should be trying to do and at a social level whatever social platform we feel will best help us to help us to awaken that divine consciousness in ourselves and others we can do that activity and even when I use the word social responsibility if devotees in general are too dismissive about elections elections are pointless nothing is going to happen by that and we don’t have to vote in elections so dismissive attitude often conveys to people the mistaken notion that devotees are socially irresponsible that means people say that you people you don’t care for society the only thing you care for is that society provide you facility to do your spiritual stuff and you don’t want to contribute in any way to society you don’t want to participate in society you are like parasites now when to let such a notion go unchallenged even or to speak of letting such a notion spread widely that if we let that happen then we are doing violence to our spiritual mission because devotees role in society is not at all parasitic it is meant to be cathartic cathartic means cleaning we are meant to contribute to the solution by cleaning our consciousness and helping clean the consciousness of society in general so if people feel that if people devotees are socially irresponsible then those people may also feel that what is the point of becoming a devotee many people who are in the mode of goodness who are thoughtful and who are who have the potential to become devotees in the near future they get alienated by seeing such a dismissive attitude among devotees so Isla Prabhupada wanted devotees to be socially responsible in the sense that he wanted that it was not just that we should practice our own devotional service but we should also feel responsible for the well-being of others the well-being ultimately is of course spiritual well-being where we connect everyone with Krishna as a precursor for for having a society where we can share Krishna consciousness properly the social environment does matter and if devotees can contribute in some way to establishing that social environment that is good and this need not distract us from spiritual reform because spiritual purification and individual reform because ultimately voting is only a few minutes it may take a few minutes once in few years we shouldn’t let that distract us from our main activity of practicing and sharing Krishna consciousness but by doing this activity firstly we can exercise our social responsibility by trying to help a government more feasible to come in we can also show to society that we are social responsible and also we can get ourselves to contemplate scripture more deeply and try to understand what will be the best social stand for us to take as Krishna tells in the Bhagavad Gita deliberate deeply and then decide what you want to do so there may still be some devotees who feel inclined to vote some who don’t feel inclined to vote actually Prabhupada has built a house in which both groups of devotees can live neither group needs to feel that the other group is unfaithful to Shri Prabhupada both can live in respecting each other differences and celebrating the similarity that we are all devotees trying to practice and share Krishna’s message with the world Thank you, Hare Krishna