BY: AMEYATMA DASA (ACBSP)

Jun 27, USA (SUN) —
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, Jagat Guru, His Divine Grace A. C.
Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

On May 24, 2007, Dandavats.com published an 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 Prabhupada’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 Prabhupada, 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
Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada’s will is fulfilled.
That is the goal of all sincere followers of Srila Prabhupada, 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 Prabhupada only want to see that Srila Prabhupada’s will is
executed. It is indisputable that Prabhupada’s will very much included
that we, his followers, cooperate together. All of us are sincere in
our desire to please Srila Prabhupada. 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 Prabhupada’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
Prabhupada’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 Prabhupada’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 Prabhupada
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 just don’t understand Srila Prabhupada’s will, etc. Please do
not discard other’s sincerity so cheaply. All sincere followers of
Srila Prabhupada are Golden. Those who have differing opinions are just
as much concerned for Srila Prabhupada’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.

Ravindra
Svarup 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 North America. 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
Prabhupada 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 brahminical
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 its managerial duties? Duties that
clearly Srila Prabhupada intended them to have.

Did
Srila Prabhupada 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 Temple Presidents 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 Prabhupada, 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 Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada
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 Prabhupada established the GBC he wrote and signed the Direction
Of Management (I have scanned copies of the original DOM on my website. 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 Prabhupada recognized
this problem and 4 years later, on July 22, 1974 he wrote another
document (which can be found on the same web page
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 Prabhupada that this document be amended 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 Prabhupada.

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 PrabhupadA’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 New York. 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 Management“.
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
devotee’s minds.

When
the GBC submitted this Direction of Management to the Superior Court of
New York they presented it as the sole ‘legal’ document, signed by
Srila Prabhupada, 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 temples in our ecclesiastic laws, that is, because it was written
and signed by Srila Prabhupada all followers of Srila Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada’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 Prabhupada disciples, in the days, months
and years following is that for many Prabhupada 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 Prabhuada 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 1990’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 Prabhupada’s disciples had
never heard of before, and which was never implemented in the
managerial structure of ISKCON.

The
provisions that were not made public were that Srila Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada 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
“The
purpose of the Governing Body Commission is to act as the instrument
for the execution of the Will of His Divine Grace, and further;


1
- The GBC oversees all operations and management of ISKCON, as it
receives direction from Srila Prabhupada and His Divine Grace has final
approval in all matters.


2
- His Divine Grace will select the initial 12 members of the GBC. In
succeeding years the GBC will be elected by a vote of all Temple
presidents… …Those 8 with the greatest number of votes will be
members for the next term of GBC. Srila Prabhupada will choose to
retain four commissioners. In the event of Srila Prabhupada’s absence,
the retiring members will decide which four will remain.


3 – Commissioners will serve for a period of 3 years, and they may be re-elected at the end of this period.
…


6 – The primary objective of the GBC is to organize the opening of new temples and to maintain the established temples.
…


8 – Removal of a Temple president by the GBC requires support by the local Temple members.


9 – The GBC has no jurisdiction in the publication of manuscripts…

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 Prabhupada 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 Management were never ever implemented.

Srila
Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada was so upset by
the whole ordeal that he briefly disbanded the whole GBC. Centralized
financing was the main issue, but also there 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 Prabhupada wrote and signed
the original Direction Of Management (July 28th, 1970), Srila
Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada, was to be considered 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 Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada 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 is on my website at the bottom of the DOM page).

Item 2 read (in part):

“2.)
There shall be a Governing Board Committee of trustees appointed by His
Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada according to the
document “Direction Of Management” dated July 28th, 1970. The GBC is to
act as the instrument for the execution of the will of His Divine Grace
Srila Prabhupada.”

That
was it, just 2 basic points, that Srila Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada,
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’s 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 it 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, and 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 was
this Topmost Urgent document 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 Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada that do just this. IF the GBC
had followed Srila Prabhupada’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 Prabhupada, 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 Prabhupada’s original DOM, in full accordance
with Srila Prabhupada’s written instructions to do so. Temple
authorities who are followers of Srila Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada
himself no longer wanted them to follow those provisions. They remind
us that it is their duty to see that Prabhupada’s will is executed, and
then tell us that it is Srila Prabhupada’s will that those provisions
of the DOM not be followed.

Did Srila Prabhupada Rescind the DOM provisions of Temple Presidents Holding Elections & GBC Term Limits?

Did
Srila Prabhupada, 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 Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada’s desire and his will to change
the elections provisions. Ravindra writing about the 1975 GBC meetings:

“Prabhupada
himself participated in part of the first meeting, raising his hand to
vote along with the others. So long as Srila Prabhupada was present
among us, he personally reviewed the annual resolutions and signed off
on them.


At
this very first formal meeting, held under Srila Prabhupada close
supervision, the GBC adapted a resolution defining the duties and
responsibilities of the GBC:”

[Note
that Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada 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.]

“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 in this
meeting of 1975, when Prabhupada first guided the GBC in adopting its
full formal structure and function, that provision of the
“Directions of Management” was rescinded:


5.
Resolved: The selection of GBC members is that Srila Prabhupada will
nominate, and if there is a discrepancy, His Grace will change him.
There will be no elections, and the present GBC member will remain.”

The
way Ravindra presents it, we are to assume that this feature was
explicitly discussed and that is was Srila Prabhupada’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 Prabhupada 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 Prabhpada was actually present, it makes a very big difference
whether this was an idea that he, Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada
simply re-defining how he would handle matters before his
disappearance, assuming that after his disappearance the DOM was to be
followed?

My
point is this, that if it was, in fact, not explicitly Srila
Prabhupada’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 Temple Presidents
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 Prabhupada, who proposed to change the
original provisions that Srila Prabhupada had wanted to be followed. Or
if it was the GBC who misunderstood what Srila Prabhupada was saying or
meant by this resolution.

Since
there exists the very real possibility that they may have been
ill-motivated, or at least that they may have misunderstood, then it
behooves us all to re-evaluate this entire issue with an eye to the
ultimate goal, that we faithfully execute the actual ‘WILL’ of His
Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada.

If
any of this could be true, then the whole movement, especially all of
Srila Prabhupada’s sincere and senior disciples, should be consulted on
whether or not Srila Prabhupada’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 ill
motivated propensity to Lord-It-Over others. If these are what
motivated the changes to Srila Prabhupada’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 Prabhupada’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 Prabhupada 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:

5.
Resolved: The selection of GBC members is that Srila Prabhupada will
nominate, and if there is a discrepancy, His Grace will change him.
There will be no elections, and the present GBC member will remain.”

There are 3 sections to this resolution.

1) The selection of GBC members,

2) How to change a non-performing GBC member, and

3) Regarding elections / terms.

It
is indisputable that sections 1 and 2 clearly only apply to when Srila
Prabhupada is physically present. Therefore it is logical to assume
that the entire resolution only applies during Prabhupada’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 Prabhupada will select the GBC members, that
is directly there in the DOM, where it states that Srila Prabhupada
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
Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada was to remain the ultimate authority
of ISKCON, over and above the GBC. Thus, it is allowed that Srila
Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada 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
Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada is
personally selecting, has been extended.

It
is to be noted that Srila Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada
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 ‘replacements’ 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 Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada 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
Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada exercising his right, as stated in the DOM, to
continue to act as the ultimate authority. This resolution more clearly
defines that while Srila Prabhupada 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 Temple Presidents 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 Prabhupada’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 Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada delay the elections provision of the DOM?

I
cannot take on the appearance that I know what was Srila Prabhupada’s
actual thinking. But, Srila Prabhupada had said that he was concerned
that he be relieved of management so that he could dedicate his time in
translation work. After 5 years of prodding, the GBC had not
implemented the elections feature. Srila Prabhupada 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
Prabhupada 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 disobedience. If Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada 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 rescinding of the DOM and we say that the
election provisions and term limit provisions of the original DOM
stand.
Ravindra continues:

“On the second day of the same meeting, this resolution was passed:


4)
Resolved: There should be no change of [temple] Presidents but
difficulties should be worked out. In the case of an incorrigible
President who

1) doesn’t submit [monthly] reports or submits false reports

2) who misspends money

3) who doesn’t follow regulative principles

he must be changed. Three GBC men may decide on this in an urgent case
and in a non-urgent case it may be done by majority vote of GBC by
letter.


This
clearly shows how the GBC, being responsible for the management of the
ISKCON, is given the power to remove a temple president in specific
circumstances.

This
first formal meeting, then, provides a clear articulation of a line of
descending authority. Srila Prabhupada read and signed these minutes.”

We
have no issue with the hierarchy given by Srila Prabupada. 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 Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada had wanted the DOM to be replaced. The DOM itself
stands as the only “legal” and formal, signed and dated, document that
Srila Prabhupada wrote giving the legal structure of how ISKCON is to
be managed. (Besides, Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada actually want?

In his article Ravindra Swarup also asked the same:

“What did Srila Prabhupada actually want?


Although
Srila Prabhupada formed the GBC in 1970, he did not fully establish the
modus operandi of the GBC until 1975, at the beginning of the first of
its official annual general meetings. Before then, Srila Prabhupada had
considered, and even tried out, different ways of establishing the
structure of authority in ISKCON, but his final determination can be
found embodied in the minutes of the GBC meeting in Mayapur in 1975.”

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 Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada ‘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 Prabhupada
actually 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 Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada 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 Srila Prabhupada wrote:

According the “Direction of Management” the GBC cannot change the President but only by vote can it be done.

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Mukunda: — Mayapur 29 September, 1974

That
was about 5 months before the 1975 GBC meetings. Srila Prabhupada 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
replacing Abhirama and Damodara I refer to the “Direction of
Management” as follows: “Removal of a Temple President by GBC
requires support by the local Temple members.” Therefore you should
take a vote of the Temple members and do the needful. A. C. B.S.

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Rupanuga: — Bombay 7 November, 1974


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.”

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Rupanuga: — Bombay 8 November, 1974

Srila
Prabhupada is instructing the GBC that they must manage in accordance
with the structure and provision that he, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
Prabhupada, 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 Prabhupada.
The DOM says new GBC are to be selected by Srila Prabhupada, 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, Prabhupada disbanded the
whole GBC and started all over. It was not Srila Prabhupada who was
experimenting around trying this and that, it was the GBC who were not
following the simple DOM that Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada is
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 Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada. 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 Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada 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?

Prabhupada: They should remain for good.

Tamala Krsna: They should remain for good.

Prabhupada: Selected men are chosen, so they cannot be changed. Rather,
if some competent man comes, he should be added. I shall recommend that
Vasudeva become one of the GBC.

There
is an interesting feature to note here. Satsvarup says that he is
referring to “members of the original GBC as you [Prabhupada] first
made it up”. Satsvarup is not asking about other GBC added later by
Srila Prabhupada, 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 Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada’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 Prabhupada. The way it accommodates it is that Srila
Prabhupada is saying that a GBC who is in good standing is not to be
whimsically replaced. As long as he is performing 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 existing GBC is not fallen or has
become unqualified, then they must automatically re-elect that person.
They cannot whimsically remove and replace, as that would be very
disruptive to the society.

Since
Srila Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada wrote and signed in
regards to how the GBC is to be ‘elected’ and their ‘terms’ in the
’succeeding years’.

By
Krsna’s divine arrangement, without the DOM the GBC have no legal base
of authority, and this is exactly how Srila Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada 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 additional point that the GBC make in regards to the above
conversation. 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 Prabhupada 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.

Prabhupada: How many GBC’s are there already?

Tamala Krsna: Twenty-three.

Prabhupada: So add him. GBC is not to be changed.

Satsvarupa: But then, in the event that some present GBC member leaves, either leaves…

Prabhupada: Another should be elected.

[This
is all accommodated within the framework of the DOM. Not that when a
GBC leaves, 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.

Prabhupada: Yes. I shall recommend some of you. After this is settled
up, I shall recommend some of you to act as officiating acaryas.

Tamala Krsna: Is that called rtvik-acarya?

Prabhupada: Rtvik, yes.

>>> 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 Prabhupada’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 Prabhupada’s presence the GBC made wrong decisions in which
Srila Prabhupada had to intervene and correct them.

And,
immediately after Srila Prabhupada departed we can see that this
scenario again occurred concerning the Zonal Acharya disaster. The GBC
concluded that system was correct and they harshly enforced their
decisions and ideas. Prabhupada disciples who disagreed with the Zonal
Acharya system were kicked out of Srila Prabhupada’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 Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada’s will). That
system did nothing but alienate thousands of Prabhupada’s disciples,
causing so much disturbance in his mission. Because 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 Prabhupada disciples who say the
same thing has occurred 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 Prabhupada’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 unconscionable that the GBC could argue,
with any integrity, that we are to accept, in any way, shape or form,
that these changes are to be seen as representing Srila Prabhupada’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 Prabhupada replies that another should be
‘elected. Elected by whom? That Srila Prabhupada already gave in the
DOM, but here Satsvarupa makes a passing comment and says “by vote of
the GBC”, and before Srila Prabhupada can comment on this, Satsvarupa
changes the topic and introduces an even more important issue, how
initiations were to be conducted in Prabhupada’s absence, which grabs
Prabhupada’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 Prabhupada’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 Prabhupada, if not introduced by Srila
Prabhupada, himself. The GBC have even argued that Prabhupada’s silence
to Satsvarupa’s passing comment marks his full agreement to the idea.
Therefore, on the basis of Srila Prabhupada 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 its
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
procedure? 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
Prabhupada’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 management. The owner
says, a new Trustee must be elected. The ONLY legal documents he wrote
specifies 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 Prabhupada is our ‘government’s’ sole Founding Father. He wrote
the Constitution. In his constitution 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 accept 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 interpreted as being Srila Prabhupada’s
accepted WILL that such a major change be made? And what reasonable and
sensible person could accept that Srila Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada ever acted so whimsically or non-professionally as
this????

Plus,
Srila Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada’s urgent order of 1974. Srila
Prabhupada 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
Satsvarupa as representing Srila Prabhupada’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 Prabuhupada clear desire, and base major changes to the
managerial structure of Prabhupada’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 Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada’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 Prabhupada and His Mission

It
appears that the GBC failed to implement the elections provisions after
5 years. They never informed the Temple Presidents. 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
Prabhupada’s desire to remove all checks and balances provided by
Temple Presidents 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 Prabhupada.
That is it. Since the GBC’s evidence that they say shows us
Prabhupada’s will is actually not at all strong and leaves many doubts,
then another process to consider in determining what will please Srila
Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada.

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 Temple
Presidents which provides a mechanism for checks and balances.

Negative Features:


The main negative issue is the total lack of checks and balances. All negative aspects stem from or relate to this deficiency.

There
exists the very real possibility of the GBC making wrong decisions and
moving the society in the wrong direction. If and when this should
occur there is provided no other means for any other members of the
mission to keep them in check.

And,
this exact situation is acknowledged by all, including the current GBC,
to have already actually taken place in a significant way right after
Srila Prabhupada departed. That was the GBC’s view regarding the
Zonal-Acharya system. At the time, in the late 70’s in to the mid 80’s
many Temple Presidents and senior devotees very much disagreed with the
GBC’s very harshly dictated implementation of the Zonal Acharya system.
And, because their was no system of checks and balances, the majority
of SP’s followers were left powerless to effect any meaningful change
for years. Only after leading men in the GBC who pushed this agenda
forward stepped down and left, or fell aside, combined with an
organized rebellion by the Temple Presidents and senior devotees
against the GBC’s stand on this issue, did the GBC finally give in and
change their direction. The structure without providing for elections
by the Temple Presidents leave no clear system of checks and balances.

The
current GBC system remains just as prone to corruption as it did
concerning that devastating and destructive Zonal Acharya episode of
our past history. The same system remains in place and the GBC
structure remains prone to again, or still, misdirecting the whole
society in the wrong direction with no means of keeping them in check
by other senior devotees.

The DOM Provisions for Elections to be held via the Temple Presidents

Beneficial Features


As with the above, the main advantage is with concern to the system of checks and balances.

When
Srila Prabhupada was present he was able to act as the facilitator of
checks and balances. If a GBC were to have fallen or made wrong
decisions, either individually or as a body, he was there to correct
them. As in the case of their trying to create centralization one way
or the other. Srila Prabhupada was able to personally re-direct them.

The
DOM provided a system by which the GBC would have had authority mostly
as advisors. The actual management of each temple would have been
executed by the local temple authorities. Even though the Temple
Presidents were to take advice from and were to be guided by GBC
oversight, the GBC themselves would have been kept in check by those
very same Temple Presidents.

Such
a system is reminiscent of the relationship between Vedic kings and
their brahminical advisors where a team of brahmanas advise the king,
but the king has the authority to choose which brahmanas he will take
advice from. He can always replace a brahman with someone more
qualified. The king decides which brahmans are qualified to give him
council and advice. Once he has chosen the brahman, then he is
obligated to seek and take their advice. Under the DOM the temple
presidents, as managers of the local temples, act as the ksatriyas of
ISKCON, the administrators, and the GBC act more as brahminical
advisors. Setting the standards, giving advice how to manage. Yet, the
Temple Presidents can choose, by vote, who will be their advisors. Who
is qualified (in accordance with Prabhupada’s instructions, and not
whimsically replacing otherwise qualified men). Once chosen they are
obliged to take their guidance. Such a system has its roots in the
Vedic system and has a very desirable system of checks and balances.

Negative Features


I can’t really think of any at this time.

Many
devotees have analyzed that original system that Srila Prabhupada 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 Zonal Acharya system.

The real goal is to follow the path that will best serve Prabhupada’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 Prabhupada’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 Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada’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 Prabhupada’s disappearance.

3)
Since many devotees consider the original system that Srila Prabhupada
wanted is clearly superior, then, really, what is the harm in
implementing it now? It is a system that Srila Prabhupada himself
devised and for nearly 5 years repeatedly advocated that the GBC follow
it. It is obvious that Srila Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada’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 Prabhupada 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
Prabhupada is typical of how he handled important, far reaching and
legal matters. Yet, if we accept that Srila Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada’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 Prabhupada 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 Prabhupada rejected the
election aspect of the DOM. Those 2 scenarios are:

a)
Srila Prabhupada was 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 disobedient 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.


b)
the other scenario is that since Srila Prabhupada had had issued a very
emphatic order to his leading men to amend all legal papers, then Srila
Prabhupada may have assumed that those leading men would have dutifully
obeyed and honored such a direct and emphatically given request. Under
this scenario, then, Srila Prabhupada would have assumed that the DOM
was now bound up ‘legally’ (having been amended to all ISKCON legal
papers). Thus, he would know that it would not be possible to make any
changes to the DOM after that point without doing so with formal
written documentation and then having to re-amend all of ISKCON’s legal
papers to legally affect those changes. He never did or requested this,
therefore it would appear that his intention was always that the DOM
not be changed and always that it remain to be followed. Under this
scenario, there was no way to rescind the DOM provisions without doing
so in writing and re-amending all ISKCON legal papers.

Either
Srila Prabhupada 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
Prabhupada, and that which we are most certain represents the execution
of his will.

I
call on all followers of His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
Prabhupada – Founder-Acharya of the International Society for Krishna
Consciousness, to implore your local temple authorities to please
follow Srila Prabhupada’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
Prabhupada’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.

| The Sun |
News |

Editorials |
Features |
Sun Blogs |
Classifieds |
Events |
Recipes |

PodCasts |

| About |
Submit an Article |
Contact Us |
Advertise |

HareKrsna.com |

Copyright 2005, HareKrsna.com. All rights reserved.