Dear Temple Presidents of North America - and the rest of the world, as well as the members of the GBC and All Assembled Devotees. Please accept my humble obeisances. All Glories to our Life and Soul, Saviour and Spiritual Master of the world, JagatGuru, His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad. On May 24, 2007, Dandavats.com published as article by Ravindra Svarup in which he presented the facts as viewed by the GBC concerning ISKCON's bylaws and what was seen by many as a recent attempt by the current GBC to change managerial structures. Some months ago a paper had surfaced in which it appeared the GBC were asking Temple Presidents and temple boards to drastically modify their legal structures in ways that many of us knew were clearly inappropriate and against some of Srila Prabhupad's clear instructions. I will avoid discussing the actual paper contents, as that paper is not the main issue. Rather, the real issue here is monumental and it goes to the very foundation of ISKCON's future. Ravindra Svarup did reference aspects of the underlying difficulties that are the result of this main issue. And he gave us a little background from the GBC's perspective. However, I find the GBC's conclusions to be lacking and weak in a number of areas. I am not writing to discredit Ravindra or the GBC. I have no such interest. I simply have reached very different conclusions. I am herein presenting my different views along with the logic and argument that supports them in the hopes that it be received in the mood it is given, and that is as an offering to Srila Prabhupad, for the intended purpose of helping to serve his mission. I will also present my arguments showing the weakness in the GBC's views. Please accept this offering in the love it is given. I pray to the Lotus Feet of Srila Prabhupad to please guide my words as I write so that this article can be of great benefit to him, his glorious mission and all of his loving followers. In his article Ravindra Svarup says that he, "shall try to clear up various areas of misunderstanding and forgetfulness, and by doing so, show why the current effort to revise the North American bylaws follows Srila Prabhupada’s will". Yes, that is our goal. To see that Srila Prabhupad's will is fulfilled. That is the goal of all sincere followers of Srila Prabhupad, is it not? From the humble dish washers to the book distributors, to the sannyasis to the garland makers to the rtviks. All sincere followers of Srila Prabhupad only want to see that Srila Prabhupad's will is executed. It is indisputable that Prabhupad's will very much included that we, his followers, cooperate together. All of us are sincere in our desire to please Srila Prabhupad. The first place we need to start is by showing him that our love to him is genuine. And, he told us how we must do that. By cooperating together. Yes, I am writing because I disagree with the GBC on a number of issues, major issues. My disagreement is not because I unwilling to cooperate. Cooperation must be both ways. I have reasons, based on what I find to be sensible and logical arguments that I find are in agreement with shastra and Prabhupad's teachings. I have a duty to speak up when I see that something is not right. If I am wrong, then correct me in a civil and respectable way. But, don't label me with bad names, accusing me of being an offender simply because I have different views and reached different conclusions. I am putting forth my arguments in hopes that others will find positive benefit in them - for the ultimate purpose of seeing that Srila Prabhupad's will is fulfilled. Lets proceed with our dissertation:
Ravindra writes about Three Areas of Misunderstanding.
( I will make a sideline comment here. This is simply an honest observation. It has been my experience that the GBC have proven themselves no less susceptible to making mistakes and falling into illusion then the majority of other of Srila Prabhupad's sincere disciples who have given their lives to his service. Even though it was many years ago, it is still something that cannot be easily forgotten, and that it is that it was the GBC, themselves, who set up and promoted the very destructive Zonal Acharya system in the past. Yes, that was many years ago, but the point is that at the time the GBC were just as adamant that they were right about that fiasco as much as they are today convinced they are right about the issue we shall present, or the rtvik issue. In the end it was proven that they were the ones who misunderstood. It was proven that their opinion is not divine and flawlessly perfect while all other senior disciples of Srila Prabhupad who hold a different opinion are automatically to be considered the ones who have misunderstood. Praying to the Feet of Nityananda Ram, and to the Feet of all the great acharyas and Vaishnavas, I pray for their blessings and their mercy that this article will reach the hearts of the readers and will be understood in the most beneficial way for ISKCON's future.) Ravindra writes, "The bylaws changes are portrayed as plot devised and furthered by the GBC, as a kind of power-grab by that body to establish absolute control, taking powers away from the temple presidents and local devotees." I do not wish to get into the content of that 'draft' paper, but, lets be honest, the reason a number of senior devotees were so concerned and alarmed is because there were many unacceptable and radical changes presented in that draft paper, that factually did alarm a number of us. Ravindra used words and labels to discredit the actions and even character of those devotees who spoke out because they were alarmed at what they read. He called them "Alarmists", intending the negative connotations of that term, he referred to them as having 'broken off from ISKCON' (which if you ask those devotees I am sure they would not agree with such a derogatory label). Labeling them as such is actually demeaning and offensive. He also demeaned their intelligence, saying that they justed don't understand Srila Prabhupad's will, etc. Please do not discard other's sincerity so cheaply. All sincere followers of Srila Prabhupad are Golden. Those who have differing opinions are just as much concerned for Srila Prabhupad's happiness as any of the GBC men are. So please do not discard their genuine concern so cheaply. As, I will also try not to discard those of the current GBC. I know that the current GBC are also sincere followers. RS writes, in 2004, "..."it had become clear that many temples had bylaws or articles of incorporation that did not embody Srila Prabhupada’s chain of authority nor formally give the GBC the minimum powers of oversight needed to maintain the temples’ spiritual and managerial standards". Later Ravindra also mentions what events brought this to everyone's attention. It was several lawsuits concerning the rtvik issue with temples in India and then NA . Although he makes some references, he really does not give much information. So, let me give a little more perspective for the readers. During the Long Island lawsuit in 2004 the GBC found that in North America, at least, most of the temple's legal incorporation papers and bylaws included no mention of the GBC at all. This meant that the GBC actually had no 'legal' footing or authority over such temples or their management if and when it came to dealing with some issue in a court of law. Devotees need to know how this came about. Srila Prabhupad took care to set up his multi-centered ISKCON ashram mission in such a way that he had each temple legally incorporate themselves independently of one another. He took care to see that ISKCON Temples and the BBT were established legally, in accordance with appropriate State laws. When he set up the GBC, however, he did not set them up as a separate legal entity. That is, the GBC is not a corporation, nor is it a legal Trust. This means that the GBC has no separate corporate or 'legal' existence. This is quite an interesting insight. The GBC was set up more as an advisory board, like a hierarchical brahmnical advisory board, yet the body also had authority in many areas regarding actual management as well. What really gives form and function to the GBC if they are not a separate legal entity? And what provides a mechanism by which the GBC can have real 'legal' authority to carry out it's managerial duties? Duties that clearly Srila Prabhupad intended them to have. Did Srila Prabhupad not set up the GBC properly? Did he miss these vital aspects that now we must sit down and invent some new document to fill the void that he left us? Ravindra informs us that this is sort of what the GBC and TP's are trying to do. That is what the 'draft' paper that was floating around was meant to achieve. This would seem to make us believe that Srila Prabhupad, himself, was not aware of this and did not set ISKCON's structure up very well. That he did not make the GBC authority legally binding. None of the above is a fact. Srila Prabhupad did provide for all the above. As I will disclose. In his article Ravindra does state the following: "When Prabhupada established the GBC in 1970, he put his initial ideas in a document called the “Directions of Management.” There he stipulated that the GBC members would be elected regularly by temple presidents. In the event, such elections were never held, and..." I will address his full quote later on, but, I wanted to point out here that the above is his only mention of the Direction Of Management. He gives the document little importance, even saying that Srila Prabhupad rescinded aspects of it (I will dispute that claim later on as well). The Direction Of Management (which we abbreviate as DOM in this article) is central to this whole issue. Everyone must educate themselves as to the document and the history. When Srila Prabhupad established the GBC he wrote and signed the Direction Of Management (I have scanned copies of the original DOM on my website at: www.16108.com/DOM/dom.htm ). This was written as a legal document that would empower the GBC to have specific managerial authority in his ISKCON mission. However, even though the DOM was written as a legal document, since the GBC were not formed as a separate legal entity, how was the DOM to be applied and recognized, in 'legal' terms by the separate temples? ISKCON had no central corporate entity. Not being a separate legal entity and not part of the temple 'legal' structure, how were the GBC to have legal authority in management of ISCKON affairs? Srila Prabhupad recognized this problem and 4 years later, on July 22, >http://16108.com/DOM/dom.htm at the bottom of the page). This is a very important document as I will explain later on in this article. (And, when one discovers the true importance of that letter, we find it interesting that Ravindra could write an article about the 'facts' of this issue and not even mention such an important document). That July 22, 1974 document contained emphatic and clear instructions that it was to be amended to all of ISKCON temple's legal papers. That document directly names the GBC as having managerial authority over the temples, in accordance with the provisions of the Direction Of Management, which it mentions by both name and date signed. The order by Srila Prabhupad that this document be amened to all of ISKCON temple's legal papers is very clear and urgent. The results of doing this would have bound the authority of the GBC to all of ISKCON's temples in a clear, real and 'legal' manner. Note that I say that is the legal effect that this document "would have" had. The sad fact is that the GBC at the time, back in the mid 1970's, never followed those very important instructions by Srila Prabhupad. That, my dear friends, is the real foundational cause of the current problems and dilemma. The cause of the current problem is not the 'rtviks', the problem is not this lawsuit or that lawsuit. The real cause of the current problems is that in the mid 1970's the GBC failed (yes, failed. We must be honest here. We must say the GBC failed in this respect because that is exactly what the historical facts tell us, there is no other way around it, they failed) to carry out Srila Prabhupad's instructions (I will explain in more detail on this later on in this article). In 2004 the GBC lost their lawsuit against the Long Island temple which had elected a supporter of on-going rtvik initiations as their temple president. In that case the GBC tried to remove the temple president via the courts in a lawsuit they instigated. The case entered the Supreme Court of the State of NY. I am not that familiar with all the details of the case, but, the basic understanding I have was that the court examined the legal corporate papers of the Long Island temple and they found no mention of any GBC authorities at all. Thus, the court asked the GBC what legal right or authority they had over removing or replacing a temple president or over any other aspect of the management of that (or any) ISKCON temple? That is when the GBC realized their dilemma. The GBC then submitted, in the court of law, a document that many senior devotees had never heard of or seen before. It was entitled the, "Direction Of Managment" (http://16108.com/DOM/dom.htm). Since that time, 2004, slowly word of the DOM gradually spread around among many senior devotees, and a lot of questions sprang up in many devotees minds. When the GBC submitted this Direction of Management to the Superior Court of NY they presented it as the sole 'legal' document, signed by Srila Prabhupad, the Founder-Acharya of ISKCON, which outlined the authority of the GBC in giving managerial direction to the ISKCON temples. While the Direction Of Management gave the GBC authority over the temple's in our ecclesiastic laws, that is, because it was written and signed by Srila Prabhupad all followers of Srila Prabhupad would accept it and want to follow it, the problem is that the temples were incorporated via the laws of the State in which they function, and so, "legally', that is according to civil or State law, the Direction Of Management would need to be amended to each of the temple's corporate papers to make the authority of the GBC 'legally' binding, so that if need be the 'legal' authority of the GBC can be upheld by a court of law. . Srila Prabhupad had instructed his GBC men in 1974 to do just that. The FAULT lies not on the rtviks in Long Island, it rests on the shoulders of those GBC men of 1974 who failed to dutifully execute the order of their spiritual master in this connection. Thus, the Court ruled that, in the case of the Long Island temple, since their corporate papers were never amended to include the DOM, the DOM does not 'legally' apply and the GBC has no legal authority over their choice of temple president Again, lets get the facts straight. The cause of this problem is not the rtivks, the real cause of the problem is the failure of the GBC to obey Srila Prabhupad's emphatic orders back in 1974. If they had obeyed his orders, then the authority of the GBC would have been bound, legally, to all temples. Monumental Importance What this court case did was it brought the Direction Of Management out into the open after so many long years. What was alarming and shocking to many devotees, many Senior Prabhupad disciples, in the days, months and years following is that for many Prabhupad disciples they not only got to see and read this document for the very first time in their lives, but they hadn't known it even existed before this case. It became clear to many of us that this document held a very important place in the history and the formation of ISKCON. This paper, signed by our spiritual master, Founder-Acharya of ISKCON, gave birth to, and form and function to, the newly created GBC. This was a document of monumental importance to our movement. Many senior devotees were not happy with the fact that they had never heard about this document for over 30-35 years. It is very hard to avoid wondering if the original GBC had, in fact, deliberately kept this document secret? At least, that is what it appears like to many. This has made a number of Prabhuad disciples rightfully upset. Such an important document written by their spiritual master seems to have been kept hidden from them for so many years. The question: WHY? rings out very clearly. There could be very benign and understandable reasons. But, most of us haven't heard any, and in the vacuum we are left to our own conclusions based on the information we can gather on our own. It should be noted that some devotees had found out about the DOM back in the mid 90's and had tried to make others aware of it then, and again in 2000 there was attempt by a few to publicize it, but neither attempt gained much popularity. Even now, since 2004, although more devotees became aware of the DOM over the last year, it still has not gathered as much popularity as the document and the surrounding issue deserves. Was there any reason for the GBC to purposefully keep the DOM secret? Actually, the DOM has only 9 numbered core statements. The content of 7 of those 9 statements is common knowledge and the GBC operates under or in adherence to those 7 statements. The 2 other statements deal with a feature regarding the GBC that most of Srila Prabhupad's disciples had never heard of before, and was never implemented in the managerial structure of ISKCON. The provisions that were not made public were that Srila Prabhupad set up terms of limits for GBC members and an exacting election process which very much directly involved the Temple Presidents. (Ravindra does barely mention these provisions, but dismisses them because, according to the GBC, Srila Prabhupad rescinded those provisions - I will deal with this point later) >From my research it seems that even most (if not all) devotees who were Temple Presidents in the early to mid 1970's never knew about or heard about the DOM or this provision, even though this provision involved them. That is very disturbing to a lot of devotees. Here are excerpts from the Direction Of Management Particulars of the Governing Body Commission
I have only listed the pertinent particulars above, there are only 9 in total, so as you see, it is not a very long or complicated document. #'s 2 and 3 represent the provisions most of us had never heard of before. That Srila Prabhupad actually wanted the GBC to only serve 3 year terms and that Temple Presidents were to elect new members from among themselves. These provisions of the Direction of Managment were never ever implemented.
Srila Prabhuoad wrote the DOM in 1970 and set up the first GBC then. However, in 1972 the GBC held a meeting and they elected Atreya Rishi to join them as a new GBC member. Ravindra rightly points out, the reason for Atreya Rishi being added was that the GBC wanted to set up a central financial system for ISKCON, Srila Prabhupad was so upset by the whole ordeal that he briefly disbanded the whole GBC. Centralized financing was the main issue, but also, was the issue that the GBC themselves elected a new member, which was not a provision of the DOM. Even though the DOM states elections were to be held every 3 years, by July of 1974 it had already been 4 full years and no elections were ever held. Ravindra Svarup dismisses this with hardly a mention. NO - We cannot dismiss this lightly at all. The fact that there had been no elections, the fact that the DOM was not widely known, or that the Temple presidents had not been informed, are all the direct failures of the original GBC. Both those provisions and the fact the GBC failed to implement them are both very significant. We have to deal with this issue honestly and openly. Why the GBC failed in these areas we do not know. We do not know if it was incompetence only, or if it was purposefully done due to ill-motivation. That, there must be an unbiased committee formed and a full investigation conducted to determine. All that we do know is that this single feature of the DOM was never followed or implemented or made public. On July 22, 1974, exactly 4 years after Srila Prabhupad wrote and signed the original Direction Of Management (July 28th, 1970) Srila Prabhupad wrote and signed another document on his official letter head that, in this connection, is also extremely important and historical. On the upper left-hand corner of this document was typed, in all CAPS, the words TOPMOST URGENCY. This document, according to Srila Prabhupad, was to be consider and acted upon by the GBC with the Topmost Urgency. The title of the letter was also printed in All CAPS, it read: "AMENDMENTS TO BE IMMEDIATELY ADDED TO ALL OFFICIAL REGISTRATION DOCUMENTS, CONSTITUTIONS, INCORPORATION PAPERS, ETC." This document was signed by Srila Prabhupad and witnessed by 2 GBC's, Brahmananda Swami and Bali Mardan. This document carried with it direct and very emphatic written instruction, written orders, signed by Srila Prabhupad personally. The order was to amend that very same document to ALL ISKCON temple's legal documents. He stipulated this with the compelling words "TOPMOST URGENCY", and that the amendment be added IMMEDIATELY. How is it, then, that the GBC of the time also FAILED to carry out this very clear and emphatic and, as we shall see, very important foundational order? Why did the original GBC disobey their spiritual master? Was their failure intentional, or were they simply incompetent? I know these are sharply pointed questions. And, it could be that there are benign explanations and answers, but, with the information we have so far, all we can see is that the above failures by the GBC did take place and thus, we need to know why? This Topmost Urgent document contained only 2 numbered items. Item 1 basically stated that Srila Prabhupad was to remain the Ultimate Authority of ISKCON, that his position is not to be occupied by anyone else. It also states that only he is to sit on his asana, and no one else. (a copy of this letter in on my website at the bottom of the DOM page at http://16108.com/DOM/dom.htm). Item 2 read (in part): That was it, just 2 basic points, that Srila Prabhupad would remain the Ultimate Authority in ISCKON and that the GBC must function in accordance with the Direction Of Management.
There are far reaching implications had the GBC actually carried out this emphatically given order.
Lets assume that the GBC had indeed obeyed Srila Prabhupad and amended that letter to every ISKCON legal paper. That would have bound up, legally, the GBC and the DOM to every temple. Legally, the GBC would be mentioned as a 'committee of trustees appointed by' Srila Prabhupad, who were to "govern" the affairs of ISKCON - in accordance with the DOM, which it mentions by title name and by date signed. And this would be bound, legally, to every temple legal corporate bylaws. If this had been done, then what effect would it have had? Well, for one the temple authorities would have become aware of the existence of the DOM and they would have been aware that the GBC men were to be held to 3 year terms and that the elections of the GBC were to be held by the Temple Presidents. Knowing these things the temple authorities would have carried their duties out. The whole landscape of who would have become a GBC would be much different then today. I will discuss more about the positive effects the DOM provides later on in this article. I think is is very reasonable for there to be a formal investigation by a committee made up of senior devotees who are non- GBC members (past or present), to investigate why the DOM was never followed in the early years, why the DOM was kept secret, why the Temple presidents were not informed of it? Who among the original GBC were responsible for keeping it secret and hidden, if that is what took place? And, why this Topmost Urgent document was never amended to all ISKCON's legal papers? These are VERY IMPORTANT and SERIOUS questions, as this is a very important and serious issue. This issue concerns the very Foundation of the managerial structure of ISKCON. The whole managerial landscape of our movement will dramatically change when these documents are finally accepted and implemented. The Solution is Simple. All That Is Needed Is Here. The DOM & the Topmost Urgent Document. Ravindra Svarup tells us that for the past 3 years, since the GBC lost the Long Island court case, the GBC and Temple authorities have been left facing the task of trying to come up with a document that temples could (and or will) adopt that would give the GBC the sort of authority that Srila Prabhupad wanted them to have, and for that authority to be recognized, legally, by the courts. The most obvious fact is, there already exists such documents that are written and signed by Srila Prabhupad that do just this. IF the GBC had followed Srila Prabhupad's instructions, then they would not be in their current dilemma. Why the GBC should invent and concoct any other made up bylaws or management structure when the simplest and most obvious thing would be to just implement and follow the Direction Of Management as given by Srila Prabhupad, and as instructed by him to make it legally binding? All the GBC need do is to ask the Temple authorities to amend their legal papers to accommodate Prabhupad's original DOM, in full accordance with Srila Prabhupad's written instructions to do so. Temple authorities who are followers of Srila Prabhupad will certainly and eagerly oblige. The entire issue and dilemma would be solved. But, the GBC refuse to accept this idea. Why? It centers on the provision of the DOM that stipulates 3 year term limits for the GBC and the provision that states the elections of the GBC is to be performed by the Temple Presidents. Outside of those 2 provisions the rest of the DOM is accepted and followed by the GBC. Why do the GBC not want to accept these provisions ? The GBC tell us they do not accept these provisions because, at least according to their understanding, or their version, Srila Prabhupad himself no longer wanted them to follow those provisions. They remind us that it is their duty to see that Prabhupad's will is executed, and then tell us that it is Srila Prabhupad's will that those provisions of the DOM not be followed. Did Srila Prabhupad Rescind the DOM provisions of Temple Presidents Holding Elections & GBC Term Limits? Did Srila Prabhupad, in fact, and without any doubt at all, clearly and explicitly reject this feature? Or is it possible that the GBC have mistakenly just thought he did so? Did Prabhupad reject it entirely, Or, did he simply act as needed which temporarily delayed the need to implement those features until after his disappearance? The entire foundation of ISKCON's managerial structure is dependent on these answers. Each and every follower of Srila Prabhupad must very carefully examine and research these points, and not just blindly take anyone's word or opinion. Here is what Ravindra Svarup says is the GBC's hard and solid evidence that it was Srila Prabhupad's desire and his will to change the elections provisions. Ravindra writing about the 1975 GBC meetings:
[Note that Prabhupad only participated in the first part of the first meeting. Not all the meetings, and not even the entire duration of the first meeting. Why would this be since Srila Prabhupad was right there in Mayapur at the time? Why not sit in on all of the meetings in full? He was there, in Mayapur, during the duration of the meetings. Why not direct everything himself personally? This is actually a very interesting feature of how Srila Prabhupad did things. He instructed the GBC how he wanted them to manage. He partook in this meeting only long enough to show by example how to conduct such meetings properly. Then he left the meetings and would simply be briefed later on how the meetings were going. He did this so that he could see how the GBC would manage in his absence. He was well aware his time was limited and he wanted to see that the GBC could handle matters in his absence.]
The way Ravindra presents it, we are to assume that this feature was explicitly discussed and that is was Srila Prabhupad's direct and personal desire that this feature be rescinded. However, before I could accept such a thing I would need to hear the actual audio recording of the meeting. It really is not clear if this specific proposal was discussed while Prabhupad was even actually present in the meeting to discuss it with them, or if, in fact, this proposal was discussed after he left the meetings. Even if Srila Prabhpad was actually present, it makes a very big difference whether this was an idea that he, Prabhupad himself, put forward and told the GBC explicitly that it was his own desire to rescind the elections provisions of the Direction Of Management, or was this merely the way the GBC (mis) interpreted what he was saying? We would really need to know whether or not the idea of rescinding the elections provisions was actually discussed at all, or was Srila Prabhupad simply redefining how he would handle matters before his disappearance, assuming that after his disappearance that the DOM was to be followed? My point is this, that if it was in fact not explicitly Srila Prabhupad's own direct proposal and instruction that the elections provision be rescinded, then, in light of the logic and reasons I shall give below, it would behoove the GBC to re-evaluate their conclusions, as my logic below indicates that we should adopt the original provisions of the DOM. What was the history of events, in regards to these specific provisions, leading up to this meeting? As Ravindra admits that the DOM (very clearly) states that the GBC is to be limited to 3 year terms (in accordance with the exact procedures given) . It also clearly states that the elections of the GBC are to be performed by TP's and that they are to only select a new GBC from among the other Temple Presidents. At the time of the 1975 GBC meetings nearly 5 years had elapsed and "such elections were never held". At least Ravindra admits this fact, but just see how he glosses over this so quickly, as if it has no real importance or significance. The fact is, this is a very significant issue. It represents no less than a major failure on the side of the GBC. It also has the appearance that the GBC very possibly rejected those provisions due to personal mundane motivation. It presents to us the very real possibility that they rejected those provisions because those original GBC did not want to give up or be voted out of the their new position of authority. It presents the possibility that they didn't like the idea that every 3 years there was the possibility that they may lose their post of authority and all the fame, false-prestige, adoration and distinction that came along with it, as well as the ability to lord it over other devotees in their post as managerial heads. These may be real considerations if we find that it was the GBC, not Srila Prabhupad, who proposed to change the original provisions that Srila Prabhupad had wanted to be followed. Or if it was the GBC who misunderstood what Srila Prabhupad was saying or meant by this resolution. Since there exists the very real possibility that they may have been illy-motivated, or at least that they may have misunderstood, then it behooves us all to re-evalute this entire issue with an eye to the ultimate goal, That we faithfully execute the actual 'WILL' of HDG ACBSP. If any of this could be true, then the whole movement, especially all of Srila Prabhupad's sincere and senior disciples, should be consulted on whether or not Srila Prabhupad's original provisions should be reconsidered and adopted today in place of these other provisions which may have been introduced under the influence of mundane desire for the fame, false-prestige, adoration, profit, distinction and an illy motivated propensity to Lord-It-Over others. If these are what motivated the changes to Srila Prabhupad's original provisions that he set forth, then there is no other choice but for the current GBC to rescind the changes and restore Srila Prabhupad's original provisions as outlined in the DOM. At the very least, there is the very real possibility that the GBC simply misunderstood what Srila Prabhupad was saying or what he actually wanted (and such a possibility is not without precedence)
My dear respected prabhu's (readers), this is the whole purpose of this article. It is to bring these point out in the open with the aim that a full investigation be held by an unbiased third party committee of senior devotees to determine if any of the above is true. Then, we must do the needful.
However, all that said, when examine the 'changes' themselves, we find such major shortfalls that all sensible logic dictates that the resolution was not at all intended to be a 'replacement' for the elections provision of the DOM. The actual resolution:
There are 3 sections to this resolution. It is indisputable that sections 1 and 2 clearly only apply to when Srila Prabhupad is physically present. Therefore it is logical to assume that the entire resolution only applies during Prabhupad's presence. And, when we examine this further we find that this is the only scenario that makes any sense at all. The first section, that Srila Prabhupad will select the GBC members, that is directly there in the DOM, where it states that Srila Prabhupad will select the initial GBC members. This is not a change at all. Section two. If there are discrepancies and a GBC must be replaced, Srila Prabhupad will handle this. While this feature is not explicitly stated in the DOM, it does fall under the same function of making the original selections of the GBC. And, it is also allowed for in the DOM by the fact that Srila Prabhupad was to remain the ultimate authority of ISKCON, over and above the GBC. Thus, it is allowed that Srila Prabhupad had the right, within the wording of the DOM, to act and manage as he pleased during his presence with us. However, it is stated in the DOM that in 'succeeding years' the elections provisions were to be followed. In the 5 years since the DOM was written Srila Prabhupad had been adding replacing fallen ones and shuffling them around as needed. Thus, he was still functioning in the capacity of selecting the original GBC and still acting in his role of absolute authority of ISKCON, over and above the GBC. This is all well within the scope of the DOM. The DOM states there are 2 phases of GBC selections. The first phase is that of Srila Prabhupad directly selecting the initial GBC members. The second phase takes place in 'succeeding' years, at that time the GBC will be elected by vote of the Temple Presidents. It is obvious that Srila Prabhupad was still in the first phase of still selecting the original GBC men, thus these first 2 parts of this resolution do not necessarily negate the elections provision of the DOM at all. These statements merely temporarily further delay the 'succeeding' years provision of the DOM while the initial selections phase, where Srila Prabhupad is personally selecting, has been extended. It is to be noted that Srila Prabhupad was still making selections of initial GBC members right into 1977, so second phase, or the succeeding years, would not have come into effect until after Srila Prabhupad departed.
Now, the 3rd part of the resolution. It states: "There will be no elections, and the GBC will remain".
There will be no elections. Obviously this not a very well written statement. If we tried to apply that statement, along with the other 2 above, as being 'replacments' to the elections provisions of the DOM then we are left with a GBC that will simply die out and merge into the empty void. The first 2 parts of the resolution state that Srila Prabhupad will make new selections and that he will make selections of replacement GBC. If this is taken as a replacement of the DOM provisions, then these points do not provide at all for how the selection process is to continue on after Prabhupad is no longer present to perform these functions. Especially when we add this 3rd provision that there are not to be any elections. Period. No elections. Not now, or for ever for that matter. Unless we understand that this was not an actual rescinding of the elections provision, but merely a temporary delay of it being implemented. When we add the 3rd section stating no elections, then after Srila Prabhupad departs there would no longer be any way to select new GBC or replace any GBC. When the original members died off, that would be it, no more GBC. Ravindra and the GBC say they understood exactly in that way, that Srila Prabhupad rescinded the DOM election provisions and replaced them with this resolution. If that be the case, then the GBC would simply die out and that would be the end of them. When analyzed none of this makes any sense. Rather, all this resolution does is temporarily delay the election provisions of the DOM, and it does so by Srila Prabhupad exercising his right, as stated in the DOM, to continue to act as the ultimate authority. This resolution more clearly defines that while Srila Prabhupad remained present the first phase, the initial selections phase, was to remain in effect. It does not negate that in 'succeeding years' the DOM provisions for term limits and elections by TP's was not to proceed as clearly written and defined in the DOM. But, there is the some what new feature that "the GBC shall remain". All this means is that during Prabhupad's initial selections phase that he will continue to select new GBC, and that while he remains in our presence that he will determine who stays on the GBC and who is to be replaced. In other words he was taking the place of the elections process while he remained in our presence. Obviously, however, this resolution does not, in any way, replace the elections and term limit provisions of the DOM in the years succeeding the initial selections period, or period that Srila Prabhupad invoked his right to manage as he saw fit during his presence. Simply because if we accept that it does replace the elections provisions then it does not provide for ANY on-going elections process at all. It was not a replacement or a rescinding of the DOM provisions, at all, it was just a clarification of the initial selections period or an extension of that period. Why would Srila Prabhupad delay the elections provision of the DOM? I cannot take on the appearance that I know what was Srila Prabhupad's actual thinking. But, Srila Prabhupad had said that he was concerned that he be relived of management so that he could dedicate his time in translation work. After 5 years of prodding, the GBC had not implemented the electios feature. Srila Prabhupad was constantly functioning in an emergency or urgent mood and he knew his time was short and limited and there was so much to be done. He had a society that was growing by leaps and bounds. It needed well trained men in place to run it. He had his all important translation work to do, and there were so many new members and so many new issues to deal with every day. The mission itself was barely 10 years old. At that time, the majority of his disciples actually had not much more than 1-2 years experience in the movement. The bulk were new, untrained. Compare that with today when the bulk of devotees are much more experienced and have been around for 10-20 years or more. Back in 1975, that was not the case. It is reasonable to assume that Srila Prabhupad was aware that the current GBC men had their faults and some may even have been avoiding the elections provisions deliberately, even to the point of diobedience. If Prabhupad had pressed for the 3 year term limit provisions to begin at that time, then it would be reasonable to assume that not all the men he had taken so much time to train up as GBC managers would be re-elected. Every 3 years there may be new untrained me for him to invest his time and energy in training all over again. He had his translation work to do, and thus, I find it very reasonable to conclude that he could have chosen to delay the TP and term limit provisions of the DOM until after his disappearance. What is very important to note is that Srila Prabhupad did not write any other document to replace the DOM. He took care in writing the original DOM as a formal legal document, signed, dated and witnessed. He wrote the subsequent Topmost Urgency document of 1974 also as a formal legal document, signed and dated. And, he ordered that it be legally amended to all legal corporation papers of ISKCON. He never wrote anything, at all, in such a formal and legal manor, or in any form at all, that could be taken as a formal replacement or rescinding of the DOM. Thus, he left the DOM stand, As It Is, as the only legal document which clearly spells out his Will and Desire of how the GBC are to be set up and how they are to function.
For these reasons we cannot accept the idea that this resolution at all represents a replacement or recinding of the DOM and we say that the election provisions and term limit provisions of the original DOM stand.
Ravindra continues:
We have no issue with the hierarchy given by Srila Prabupad. The GBC, however, want us to accept that they, the GBC, were given full authority to decide when, if and how a Temple President can be removed by them, without any more need to follow the provisions stated in the DOM. They want us to accept that Srila Prabhupad had totally abandoned the DOM and that this resolution is to be taken as a replacement of the DOM provisions. The DOM provides that a GBC cannot remove a Temple President without consulting with the local temple congregation. The local congregation has the power to replace a Temple President by their right to vote. The GBC are not to vote a TP in or out, they can, however, elect a new president for a new temple that does not yet have a congregation. I do not accept that this resolution is to be taken as a replacement of the DOM criteria, but that it can be added to the DOM. Only in those above circumstances can a GBC act to replace a TP, not any other circumstance. But, the DOM provision that the local congregation must be consulted, that provision stands. I do not accept that Srila Prabhupad had wanted the DOM to be replaced. The DOM itself stands as the only "legal" and formal, signed and dated, document that Srila Prabhupad wrote giving the legal structure of how ISKCON is to be managed. (Besides, Prabhupad was not present in the meetings when the details of this proposal were discussed. He may have signed off on these resolutions, but I do not accept that he intended them to be taken as replacements for the DOM, at best, they could only be taken to be additional clarifications or further definitions, but they do not negate any fundamental aspect or provision of the DOM.)
What did Srila Prabhupad actually want? In his article Ravindra Swarup also asked the same: "What did Srila Prabhupada actually want? Is this fact, opinion or propaganda? There were regular GBC meetings for years before 1975, but RS is calling the 1975 meetings the first 'official' meeting. I have never heard that before. That the previous meetings were "unofficial". But, I've never been a GBC or TP so maybe I missed this? Then he says that Prabhupad previously was fiddling around and experimenting, trying this way and then that way of establishing a structure of authority in ISKCON. After fiddling this way and that for 5 years, in 1975 Srila Prabhupad 'finally' determined the final structure for GBC management at the Mayapur meetings in 1975, and thusly discarded the original DOM. But, the logic and facts don't match this idea. Had Srila Prabhupad acutally been experimenting with different management structures? (As if he really didn't know what would work or what he was really doing. As he has said regarding modern scientists, research and experimentation, he said, means they really do not know, that is not science, that is nescience. One who actually knows he does not need to experiment.) Anyway, I don't find evidence for that in the Vedabase. What I find is that Srila Prabhupad had a clear and concise view of how he wanted the structure set up and run, and he stuck with the system he wanted. He wrote the DOM and for 4+ years he promoted that system as he had set it up, without changes. The July 22, 1974 letter was written 4 years after he signed the DOM That was just 8 months before the 1975 GBC meetings. At that time he issued a Topmost Urgency document demanding that all temples amend their legal papers to include the DOM and he ordered that the GBC is to manage the society in accordance with the DOM. He never wrote this change or that change, 4 years after he wrote the DOM he is still instructing the GBC to manage in accordance with the DOM - AS IT IS - no changes. So, what is this idea that Srila Prabhupad was fiddling around and trying this and that structure? If that is not enough, there is another letter in September of 74, to Mukunda, wherein Prabhupad wrote: According the ``Direction of Management'' the GBC cannot change the President but only by vote can it be done. That was about 5 months before the 1975 GBC meetings. Srila Prabhupad is not experimenting, he is instructing his men, follow the DOM as it is. And, if this was not enough, again in November of 74 he wrote 2 letters, both to Rupa Nuga Prabhu:
Regarding Abhirama, in your letter you mention that in Miami it is so important center, 65 devotees, growing each day, ideal location. So Abhirama, has done this. He has done much service. He cannot be removed whimsically. Sex disturbance is the permanent disease of the Western people. Anyway I have already written you that the local members must agree for him to be removed by you, according to the ``Direction of Management.'' Srila Prabhupad is instructing the GBC that they must manage in accordance with the structure and provision that he, ACBSP, personally documented in writing in the Direction Of Management. He was not changing the structure, trying this out and then that. He kept telling the GBC to refer back to their foundational document, manage in strict accordance within the provisions of the DOM. If there were any changes going on with the ISKCON management structure they were coming from the GBC themselves, not from Srila Prabhupad. The DOM says new GBC are to be selected by Srila Prabhupad, or voted in via elections by the Temple Presidents. In 1972 the GBC decided to hold an election themselves and voted in a new member. The DOM did not authorize this. At the same time the GBC decided to set up a central financial and property ownership system. Thus, Prabhupad disbanded the whole GBC and started all over. It was not Srila Prabhupad who was experimenting around trying this and that, it was the GBC who were not following the simple DOM that Prabhupad gave them. 7 months before the 1975 GBC meeting we have the Topmost Urgency document demanding that the GBC manage in accordance with the DOM. Then 5 months before those meetings a letter advising to refer to the DOM on how to manage. Then just 3 months before those meetings Srila Prabhupadis again saying the same thing. Where is the evidence that he was changing things, trying out this and that? It sounds like a fabrication made to fit the proposed idea that Srila Prabhupad was just experimenting and fiddling all the time, he really didn't know what the heck he was doing or wanted, until suddenly at the 1975 meetings he finally stopped fiddling around. He finally settled on a totally different structure that provided no means of checks and balances. A new system that he never documented in writing and never tried to make legally binding as he had done with the DOM. This makes no logical sense. It is also not typical of Srila Prabhupad. If he were to have really wanted to change the DOM he would have done it in writing as a formal and legally binding document. If the GBC had obeyed his orders and amended the topmost urgency document then the only way to effect a legal change in the DOM at that point would be to write a formal amendment and have all legal papers in ISKCON again amended with those changes. Srila Prabhupad would have clearly been aware of that and known that, after all, he just sent out the document demanding the DOM be amended to all legal documents just 7 months earlier.
Original Selected GBC Men Should Remain for Good.
Although the following was not brought up in Ravindra's article there is another conversation that the GBC refer to regarding GBC term limits that they say is further proof that Srila Prabhupad had discarded the elections provisions of the DOM. The following is from the 'future initiations' conversation on May 28th, 1977. Satsvarupa: Srila Prabhupada, we were all asked by the rest of the GBC to come to ask some questions. Most... These are the members of the original GBC as you first made it up. So our first question is about the GBC members. We want to know how long should they remain in office?
There is an interesting feature to note here. Satsvarup says that he is referring to "members of the original GBC as you [Prabhupad[ first made it up". Satsvarup is not asking about other GBC added later by Srila Prabhupad, but only asking specifically about those 'original' members (Karandhar and others had already resigned). It can be reasonably argued that the questions and subsequent answers are only to apply to those 'original members' and not to any other GBC members.
How long 'should' a GBC remain in office. And Srila Prabhupad replies that they "Should" remain for good. Is this a negation of the DOM? Then he states that "selected" men are "chosen", so they cannot be changed. The GBC take this to be a total rejection and negation of the 3 year term limits provided for by the DOM. However, this is not necessarily the fact. The words "should" are significant. We already know, and the GBC also accept, that this idea is conditional. That is, if a GBC man were to fall from the qualifications of GBC, such as stops chanting his 16 rounds, does not follow the 4 regs, does not rise early and perform regular sadhana, or fails to perform his duty, then he not only can be removed and replaced, but he must be removed and replaced. No one accepts the idea that Srila Prabhupad meant that once selected a GBC man could never be replaced no matter what, under any circumstance - period. No, that is not what he meant. Thus, Srila Prabhupad's words do not NEGATE the elections provision by the Temple Presidents as stated in the DOM. How is that? Because, what would be the process to remove and replace a GBC who did not meet up with the above standards? That was the election process as provided by the DOM. The DOM very easily accommodates this statement by Srila Prabhupad. The way it accommodates it is that Srila Prabhupad is saying that a GBC who is in good standing is not to be whimsically replaced. As long as he is perfoming his duty and his sadhana is strong, then a chosen man 'should' not be replaced. The DOM provides for this feature via the elections process. All this is, is a clarification and directive for the Temple Presidents that they must consider this, that as long as an exising GBC is not fallen or has become unqualified, then they must automatcially re-elect that person. They cannot whimsically remove and replace, as that would be very disruptive to the society. Since Srila Prabhupad did not formally replace the DOM, the DOM still stands As It Is, and none of the evidence cited by the GBC are proven to really be negations or replacements for the DOM at all. The DOM remains the only formal and legal document that Prabhupad wrote and signed in regards to how the GBC is to be 'elected' and their 'terms' in the 'succeeding years'. By Krsna's divine arrangment, without the DOM the GBC have no legal base of authority, and this is exactly how Srila Prabhupad left it stand. This is obviously how he wanted it, and clearly the DOM represents his true will in this regards. Without the DOM and the 1974 topmost urgency addendum the GBC has no 'legal' authority. This, they themselves have painfully realized. Since Srila Prabhupad never formally replaced the DOM we can only look to see how to accommodate these features into the DOM, as I have shown here. And we find the DOM can accommodate them. Therefore, the effective legality of the original DOM stands. It was not negated even by the above. However, there is one additonal point that the GBC make in regards to the above conversatoin. The conversation continues and another point is put forward that "would have" negated the election process as defined by the DOM, but, as we shall see this proposal was never discussed with Srila Prabhupad and he never responded to it. Tamala Krsna: Vasudeva is Deoji Punja. He's the founder of our... He's building the temple in Fiji.
[This is all accommodated within the framework of the DOM. Not that when a GBC learve, or falls, then they are to be replaced. How, via election process.]
Satsvarupa: By the votes of the present GBC. Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you're no longer with us. We want to know how first and second initiation would be conducted.
>>> Ref. VedaBase => GBC Meets with Srila Prabhupada -- May 28, 1977, Vrndavana
"By votes of the present GBC". This is the ONLY point that is not accommodated by the DOM. All other points can be accommodated by the DOM. This idea stands alone as representing a major change in the provisions of the DOM and a very drastic change to the managerial structure of Srila Prabhupad's mission for it totally abolished the system of checks and balances inherent by having elections held by the Temple Presidents. Ramifications of such a dramatic change: This totally changes the structure from that of a hierarchy of Temple Presidents choosing whom they want, from among themselves, who they want to lead them, to that of a totalitarian dictatorship in which the GBC alone elects their own members. This change removed all provisions of proper checks and balances. If the GBC were to go in the wrong direction there is provided no means by which any other leaders and senior members of the mission can keep them in check. This introduces the potential for corruption and misdirected management. At this point the GBC could give all bad direction and cause great disturbance to the mission. This scenario is not at all far-fetched, and we see that even during Prabhupad's presence the GBC made wrong decisions in which Srila Prabhupad had to intervene and correct them. And, immediately after Srila Prabhupad departed we can see that this scenario again occured concerning the Zonal Acharya disaster. The GBC concluded that system was correct and they harshly enforced their decisions and ideas. Prabhupad disciples who disagreed with the Zonal Acharya system were kicked out of Srila Prabhupad's temples. I personally knew of one incident where a new devotee wanted to take initiation from a guru in a different zone (which was not allowed under the Zonal Acharya system), and the disciples of the guru in the present zone beat the new devotee severely, the new devotee wound up leaving ISKCON all together. Actually, there were a lot of fights between the disciples of different gurus, and against Prabhupad disciples. Once Bhavananda made a statement in Detroit that he no longer wanted devotees coming to the temple wearing dhoti during the day. They were conducing tours of the Fisher Mansion, and he didn't want devotees to be seen during the day at the temple. I missed his class and came to the temple later in the day in my dhoti. I was escorted, physically and violently, dragged off the temple property by my spiritual nephew, a disciple of Bhavananda. I was told not to return until I came back in non-devotee clothes. If I came back in dhoti I was told I would be beaten severely for not following the instructions of the "new acharya". Things were that mad and crazy under the Zonal Acharya system, a system that the GBC had set up and enforced as being Srila Prabhupad's will). That system did nothing but alienate thousands of Prabhupad's disciples, causing so much disturbance in his mission. Becasue there remained no system of checks and balances other senior devotees and Temple president leaders were powerless to effect any change or influence to correct the situation. It was not until things degenerated into near chaos and rebelliousness by the Temple Presidents did the GBC agree to listen and make changes, finally admitting (not publicly or explicitly) they were wrong. Today there are a growing number of senior Prabhupad disciples who say the same thing has occured regarding the guru and rtvik issues. That the GBC is just as wrong about those issues as they were about the Zonal Acharya system. But, that is a whole other topic. Under the current system what ever the GBC decides (whether or not their decisions may be self-serving) there is no means to check them. However, the original DOM provisions that elections be held by the Temple President's removes this negative feature and provides such safe-guard. It provides for a healthy system of checks and balances. During Srila Prabhupad's presence he provided the checks and balances. Since he has left and these election provisions of the DOM have not been implemented, there has been no such safe-guards or checks and balances. Thus, the GBC rule as a totalitarian dictatorship where there is no means to check them if they go off in the wrong direction. Understanding the far-reaching ramifications of this change, how dramatic and major of a change to the managerial structure this represents, and then to review the evidence the GBC presents for why they have taken on these major changes, and the history leading up to this (which i will again review shortly), it is totally unconsciousable that the GBC could argue, with any intergity, that we are to accept, in any way, shape or form, that these changes are to be seen as representing Srila Prabhupad's will. All we have is what amounts to no less then much more than a passing comment, made by one member after asking what to do in the case of a GBC who falls down. Srila Prabhupad replies that another should be 'elected. Elected by whom? That Srila Prabhupad already gave in the DOM, but here Satsvarup makes a passing comment and says "by vote of the GBC", and before Srila Prabhupad can comment on this, Satsvarup changes the topic and introduces an even more important issue, how initiations were to be conducted in Prabhupad's absence, which grabs Prabhupad's attention and he only responds to that new more important topic. It can be very rightly argued that the passing comment may not even have really caught Srila Prabhupad's attention at all. This was not presented in the form and attention that such a major change would merit and command. There was no formal discussion, no proper presentation, nothing. Just a passing and very short comment, then change of topic to another issue of even greater importance. And, yet, the GBC have argued for years that this was a change that was fully endorsed by Srila Prabhupad, if not introduced by Srila Prabhupad, himself. The GBC have even argued that Prabhupad's silence to Satsvarup's passing comment marks his full agreement to the idea. Therefore, on the basis of Srila Prabhupad not responding to the passing comment the GBC instituted major changes to the foundation of the management structure, in their favor, of course. DAMN - is this any way to run our movement???? What company would allow it's managers to make such major changes in this way? What CEO would allow and endorse major changes in company policy to be made by such proceedure? What government would allow such a farce??? Why should we allow this? Let me give an analogous example. Let say there is a company that is a privately owned with one BOSS, the Owner (which more fits Srila Prabhupad's position in this analogy). The owner has written a set of company bylaws, a company constitution. He has a chain of 108 stores or branches, each has a president who manages the operation. He wants the company to function smoothly after he departs so he sets up a group of trustees whom he directly hand selects and trains. He gives the trustees specific managerial authority over the presidents of his branches. He writes a Direction Of Management document which outlines the duties of the trustees and how elections of the trustees is to take place, which is by vote of the presidents of his branches. And the terms of the trustees is to be for 3 years. Later he instructs his trustees to legally record a document that will bind their management structure and his Direction Of Management to all his store's or branch's legal papers. But, for some reason the trustees never do this. Then, during an annual meeting with the trustees he decides that it will be best for him that while he remains living that he will continue to handle the elections aspect, of deciding who to add to the trustees and to replace non performing members. However, the only thing he wrote on how things are to be managed in his absence is his Direction Of Management. Now, later, just before he passes away, one of the trustees asks what to do if one of the trustees becomes unqualified for managment. The owner says, a new Trustee must be elected. The ONLY legal documents he wrote specfies that the election was to be done by the Presidents, however, that trustee makes a passing comment that the elections of new trustees are to be held by the existing trustees, which represents a very drastic change to how the company's managerial landscape is arranged. And, the owner doesn't reply, rather, another more pressing topic is brought up that grabs his attention and this idea is never discussed. No formal proposal for making such a drastic change is made, no discussion, all that exists is a passing comment made by one trustee, and then a change of topic to a more serious issue, and that is it. Now, the presidents of his branches, they were never even told that the owner wrote a DOM, and so they never had any knowledge that the owner had given them the right, duty and authority to chose who the trustee managers of the company were to be. Rather, after the owner passes away the Trustees make it part of company law that they will self-elect new trustees. They will self-monitor themselves, no one else. Thus, they introduce ideas that the presidents disagree with, that they feel is not to the liking of the owner, but the presidents find they are powerless to do anything. And so the company goes off in the wrong direction. Does any of this sound right??? Over the years those presidents who had disagreed with the trustees had all been removed and replaced by the Trustees with new presidents who totally agree with anything the trustees tell them. Now, years later those presidents and other senior members of the company discover that the owner had written this DOM, which they had no knowledge of before. And they find these provisions where the presidents were to hold the elections of the trustees. What? They never knew that. So, they ask the trustees why were these changes made? And, they say, well, you know just before the owner passed away one of the trustees was meeting with him and he asked what to do when a trustee becomes unfit, and the owner said a new one must be "elected", and, ah, well, hey, you know what? The trustee made this passing comment that the trustees will elect their own members, and then he changed the topic to an even more pressing issue, and you know what, the owner never disagreed with the idea. So, we said, well hey, this is just great. So we have taken this to be his legal desire and we just eliminated the whole idea of allowing presidents to hold our elections. Who would accept and agree to such a senseless thing? One could only question the integrity of such so called leaders. Another analogy would be of a government. The DOM is ISKCON's Constitution. Srila Prabhupad is our 'government's' sole Founding Father. He wrote the Constitution. In his constituion he writes that he will select the initial board of leaders for the country, but in subsequent years the governors of the states (the presidents of the temples) shall hold elections of the leadership board every 3 years. Then, just before the founder passes away, one of the board members asks what happens if one of the board leaders should need to be replaced. The Founder says, yes, by election, and the board member makes a very short passing comment, 'elected by the leaders', then changes the topic and the Founder never discusses this major change that would take away the checks and balances that the Founder had set up and that is written in the Constitution. Who would acceept the integrity of the leadership if they then force the idea that the Founder wanted this drastic change? They argue, hey, one of the leaders made this passing comment and then changed the topic, and the Founder never got a chance to reply, so on that basis alone we never implemented the constitution and chose to self-elect our own members and are now setting out to re-write our own constitution. Who would accept this? What sort of integrity does this give to such leaders? But, that is the situation we are finding ourselves in today in ISKCON. Understanding the ramifications of this change to the managerial structure of ISKCON, and how it is a very significant change, then how can any reasonable person accept that the above situation ethically and morally and without any doubt can be interprettede as being Srila Prabhupad's accepted WILL that such a major change be made? And what reasonable and sensible person could accept that Srila Prabhupad would have wanted such a change be made only on the basis of that one passing comment, without any ensuing and in depth discussion? Where in the past had Srila Prabhupad ever acted so whimsically or non-professionally as this???? Plus, Srila Prabhupad had given written orders in 1974 that, if followed, would have bound the DOM legally to all temples. To make any sort of a change at all, what to speak of a fundamental change as this, it would have required new documents to be written and those documents would have needed to be re-amended to all legal papers, that is, had the GBC properly carried out Srila Prabhupad's urgent order of 1974. Srila Prabhupad never re-wrote the DOM, he never wrote a replacement, nor did he ask such to be done. In the legal sense of things, he left the DOM stand As It Is. I find it a very bad judgment call on the part of the GBC to have pushed this idea that on the basis of this one quickly made passing comment by Satsvarup as representing Srila Prabhupad's will in this regard. No sensible person could accept this. It castes shadows on their integrity. When you put it all together, the GBC's version falls flat short of credibility. If they can misconstrue this passing comment and push it forward as being Srila Prabuhupad clear desire, and base major changes to the managerial structure of Prabhupad's mission on such thin and flimsy evidence, it castes deep dark shadows of doubt on other major issues the GBC have made in the past. Especially concerning issues where there are many other senior disciples of Srila Prabhupad in disagreement with them, such as the rtvik and guru issues. Personally, I want to see that the original DOM be adopted and followed by all of Srila Prabhupad's temples. The way to do so would be for the temples to amend the 1974 Topmost Urgency orders. Nothing less. We must also demand transparency. Honesty. Straightforwardness. We need answers to questions I have posed in this article. What Really Matters Is Which System Will Best Serve Srila Prabhupad and His Mission It appears that the GBC failed to implement the elections provisions after 5 years. They never informed the TP's. They never informed the mass devotees about the DOM. They seemed to have failed to obey and execute his Topmost Urgency letter of 1974. And after all of this, we are to accept (based on weak and flimsy evidence) that it was Srila Prabhupad's desire to remove all checks and balances provided by TP's holding regular elections of the GBC? (I do not accept this). We need to re-asses the whole matter. What really is the foundational principle? It is clearly to do that which will please Srila Prabhupad. That is it. Since the GBC's evidence that they say shows us Prabhupad's will is actually not at all strong and leaves many doubts, then another process to consider in determining what will please Srila Prabhupad the most is to analyze both systems (the current structure and the one provided for in the DOM) and see which will be most beneficial for ISKCON's long term future. As that will clearly be most pleasing to Prabhupad. What are the positive and negative features of each structure? Here is the result of my analysis: The Current System by which GBC self-govern themselves with no other party who can provide a means of checks and balances: Beneficial Features: Well, I really can't think of any good features that would come of this structure that would not be found in the structure involving the TPs which provides a mechanism for checks and balances.
The DOM Provisions for Elections to be held via the Temple Presidents
Many devotees have analyzed that original system that Srila Prabhupad set forth and they find it to be far better, more secure, able to provide a system that can be kept more free of corruption or misdirection, as in the past with the Z-Acharya system.
The real goal is to follow the path that will best serve Prabhupad's mission, which will best serve his will. Conclusion & Reasons for Demanding the DOM be Followed In concluding I will list the reasons one more time why I want to see the Topmost Urgency letter amended by all temples (thus legally binding the DOM - and legally binding the authority of the GBC to all temples). 1) The GBC's evidence that it is Srila Prabhupad's desire that elections for GBC in years succeeding his departure were to no longer be held by Temple Presidents, but by the GBC themselves is very weak, thin and flimsy. 2) When we carefully analyze the system as it is today, the way the GBC say Srila Prabhupad wanted it, we find undesirable flaws and potential for abuse and corruption (just look at the current flaw, that 'legally' many temples do not even recognize the GBC authority at all. This 'flaw' was caused by none other then the same GBC themselves. It was caused by their own failure to follow Srila Prabhupad's order). On the other hand, when we analyze the structure and system as it would have been had the original DOM been implemented and followed we find that it eliminates those negative aspects of the current system. The original system was simply much better. It provides a simple, yet efficient, system of checks and balances that have been sorely missing in the current structure since Srila Prabhupad's disappearance. 3) Since many devotees consider the original system that Srila Prabhupad wanted is clearly superior, then, really, what is the harm in implementing it now? It is a system that Srila Prabhupad himself devised and for nearly 5 years repeatedly advocated that the GBC follow it. It is obvious that Srila Prabhupad wanted it followed and there is not one single shred of evidence that I have seen where he ever directly instructed that he no longer wanted us to follow it. Thus, to implement that original and exact same system as it was written would not be going against Srila Prabhupad's instructions. We would finally be implementing and following what he had demanded that we implement and follow for many years. Therefore, what would be the harm? 4) If we accept that he actually wanted to reject the election features, another problem arises. Srila Prabhupad was careful to write down and sign the DOM and subsequent letter in 1974. He was careful to instruct that it be bound, legally, to all ISKCON legal papers. This effort by Prabhupad is typical of how he handled important, far reaching and legal matters. Yet, if we accept that Srila Prabhupad actually wanted the term limit and election process of the GBC permanently changed, it is odd that he never took the time to amend the DOM in writing with his accompanying signature. After all, the original DOM and subsequent letter of July 22, 1974 together provide all the 'legal' evidence as to the 'legal' authority of the GBC (and would have become legally binding if the GBC had obeyed and carried out his order to amend it to ISKCON papers). Srila Prabhupad was careful to craft the documents in that way, and this is typical of how he handled important legal matters. It does not make any sense that he would later reject or rescind those documents and not have provided sufficient formal written replacement for them. As the GBC are so painfully aware today, without the DOM and without having carried out his order in 1974 to amend it to the legal papers, today the GBC have no real 'legal' authority. It makes no sense that Srila Prabhupad would have knowingly left such an important matter hanging in this way. Rather, it seems more logical that he never, in actuality, wanted or intended the elections provisions of the DOM to be changed. He left them stand knowing that sometime in the future it would finally be implemented. 5) There are disturbing questions as to why the DOM was never made available to the devotees in general, why we were never informed of it and especially why the GBC never informed the Temple Presidents about it when it very much concerned and included them. This casts shadows upon the motives and actions of the original members. It begs us to determine if there was any deliberate and ill-motivated attempt on behalf of the original GBC to purposefully not implement and follow the elections aspect of the system, in accordance with Srila Prabhupad's direct orders and instructions. At the very least, if we find that there was no ill-motive, then we find their failure to follow his orders must have been due to their ineptness. 6) In additional to this, Srila Prabhupad wrote the Topmost Urgency document in 1974 and, again, the original GBC failed to follow his emphatic orders. Thus, we are left with 2 scenarios going into 1975, which is the year Ravindra claims that Srila Prabhupad rejected the election aspect of the DOM. Those 2 scenarios are: a) Srila Prabhupadwas aware that the GBC failed to follow his emphatic instructions to bind the DOM legally to ISKCON temples. If he knew this, then either he knew they were not reliable and not competent, or he knew they had ill-motives and disobeyed his urgent request intentionally. Either way, if he knew this Topmost Urgent order had not been followed then why would he then remove the election process from the DOM? The election process is what provided a means of checks and balances. And if he knew the GBC had not followed his order / letter of 1974, knowing they were either incompetent or had ill motives, then why would he later hand over such election process to such a disbedient or at best incompetent GBC and let them monitor themselves with no means by other senior men to keep them in check? That makes no sense.
Either Srila Prabhupad was aware of the above, that there was no way to change the DOM without doing so in writing and then re-amending all legal papers, taking it that the GBC had followed his order to amend it - and thus he left the DOM stand as it is, knowingly OR he knew the GBC men of the time were either incompetent at best, or disobedient, and thus he had no intention of ever removing the checks and balances features of the DOM. It is one way or the other.
The ultimate conclusion is to do that which will best serve Srila Prabhupad, and that whcih we are most certain represents the execution of his will. I call on all followers of His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad - Founder-Acharya of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, to implore your local temple authorities to please follow Srila Prabhupad's 1974 Topmost Urgent order, and amend That Very same document to your temple's legal papers. This will actually bind the authority of the GBC - legally - in 100% compliance with Srila Prabhupad's request - to the management of ISKCON's temples. And, it will bind the legality of the DOM as well. That is my humble request. What would be the harm? It will also totally solve the current problems. =====<([om tat sat])>===== PS The author requests that those who read this, please forward this to your local temple authorities, in case they may miss it. I do not have email addresses for all temple presidents. I would like this information to reach as many senior and leading devotees as possible, as quickly as possible. |
|||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|