Our Whole Movement Could be Killed
BY: VYAPAKA DASA (ACBSP)
Jan 17, USA (SUN) — As recently reported on the Sampradaya Sun, the GBC has circulated a new set of bylaws (RevisedBylawsNNdV .doc) via email with explicit instructions to the North American temples that they should adopt these bylaws immediately.
Those bylaws inaugurate a system wherein every temple is effectively taken over by the GBC or their proxy. This is revealed in the recently published GBC document noted above.
Please perform the austerity to read the following excerpts of the bylaws to see firsthand the nature of the proposed changes. Your proper understanding may be important to the future of Iskcon.
GBC ADHERENCE (Article 3 Purpose, Section 3): ..."Although ISKCON of _____________, Inc. is legally, financially, and managerially independent, all activities and powers of the corporation shall be carried out and executed in accordance with the teachings and instructions of Srila Prabhupada, as construed and applied by the GBC. The corporation shall not conduct itself in any way contrary to the ecclesiastical policies of the GBC.
ECCLESIASTICAL DISPUTES (Article 3 Purpose, Section 4): With respect to any ecclesiastical dispute between the corporation and the GBC pertaining to the spiritual standards and activities of the corporation, the GBC shall be the sole and final authority for resolving such disputes, and the corporation shall conform its activities, practices and religious standards to any relevant instructions given to it by the GBC.
BENEFICIAL INTERESTS OF THE GBC (Article 3 Purpose, Section 5): ...the [local Iskcon] corporation recognizes that all of its assets are held in trust for the GBC, which has a beneficial ownership in said assets. In the event that the GBC makes an ecclesiastical decision that the corporation has deviated from the teachings of Srila Prabhupada and/or the ecclesiastical pronouncements of the GBC, the real and personal property of the corporation shall revert to the exclusive control of the GBC until such time as the GBC appoints a new Board of Directors of the corporation.
AMENDABILITY OF THIS PROVISION (Article 3 Purpose, Section 6): 1. The corporation shall at all times remain loyal to the teachings of Srila Prabhupada, as well as to the ecclesiastical edicts and instructions of the GBC. The corporation shall insure that all of its provisions and Bylaws, and all of its activities, goals, mission, and purposes shall remain in fidelity, loyalty and obedience to Srila Prabhupada and the GBC. This provision - Article 4 - shall remain in perpetuity and may not be amended.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS (Article 6 Membership; Section 2 Board of Directors): Pursuant to the ______________ Nonprofit Law, any action that would otherwise, under the law or the provisions of the Articles of Incorporation or by laws of the corporation, require approval of a majority of all members or approval by the members, shall only require the approval of the Board of Directors.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS (Article 7, Board of Directors Section 2 Number): The corporation shall have five (5) directors and collectively they shall be known as the Board of Directors. The five (5) directors shall consist of the following:
(a) Two (2) elected members;
Two (2) members appointed by the GBC Representative for the corporation, or if he or she is unable or unwilling, then by the Executive Committee of the International GBC; and,
TEMPLE PRESIDENT (Article 8 Officers, Section 3 Appointment) The officers of the corporation shall be appointed in the following manner:
President - The President of the corporation is to be considered the highest spiritual authority in the corporation. The local GBC representative, after consultation with the Board of Directors, will recommend a candidate to serve as the President to conduct the spiritual and managerial business and the correspondence of the corporation, and to carry out such other duties as shall be delegated to him by the Board of Directors, the local GBC representative, and the GBC.
D. Removal of a Temple President in emergency situations
(b) Rebellion against the authority of Srila Prabhupada or the ecclesiastical authority of the GBC
So in effect the GBC, or local GBC member, takes complete control over the temple since he/she, and only he/she, has the right to delegate the President along with two of the five Board Members, resulting in an unassailable majority. Stipulations regarding quorum demand that four members of the board are required with two of them being GBC-appointed Directors plus the Temple President, whose appointment is also controlled by the GBC. This leaves no doubt regarding control of the temple in all matters.
The GBC also reserves the right that the local GBC member can appoint him/herself as one of the Directors. It has been reported that Iskcon Saranagati has already appointed two GBC members, Gopal Krsna Goswami and Bhakti Marga Swami, onto their Board.
These proposed changes legally strip local congregations of their legal and voting rights regarding the direction and administration of the temple. This is unfair since it is the local devotees who daily toil with fund-raising, performing samkirtan and worshiping the Deities. Temples can be sold or encumbered from under the congregation’s feet in a desperate attempt(s) to pay off legal bills and lawsuits. A neo-Kirtanananda in Los Angeles could wipe out the Toronto temple due to the GBC employing Canakya Pandit logic that it is preferable to sacrifice one temple in order to save the rest of the North American yatra. Even when portraying the future in a less dramatic light, there is no saying where this could go.
Presently, there are hundreds upon hundreds of devotees and congregation members throughout North America wrestling with the responsibilities of maintaining and directing the local temple. Each center is distinct from others. How can such diversity be understood and represented by a foreign administrative body stationed in Bengal? Even though local devotees will be appointed to the Board, they will be chosen based upon their allegiance to the GBC. This could decimate enthusiasm amongst the congregation as this criterion is overly simplistic. It may come as a surprise to the GBC members that it is the local assembly that energizes this movement, not the GBC.
Ecclesiastical vs. Secular
In Article 2 Definitions it is stated that "the "GBC" refers to the Governing Body Commission, which is ISKCON’s highest ecclesiastical authority. The GBC is a distinct body, independent of this corporation, and operates under its own rules, regulations, and principles."
When consulting a Webster dictionary the definition of ecclesiastical is: Of or relating to the church or its organization or government; not secular.
Secular is defined as: 1. Of or pertaining to the worldly or temporal as distinguished from the spiritual or eternal; specif.: a) Not under church control; non-ecclesiastical; civil; as, secular courts or education...
There seems to be a contradiction in terms regarding the role(s) the GBC wants to play. If these changes are allowed to proceed, there is no doubt that the GBC performs a management/ksatriya role and can no longer hide behind a brahminical cloister.
They claim to be ecclesiastical/brahminical yet demand absolute legal, secular authority. Something seems wrong here and our society must be circumspect regarding awarding such power to the GBC. In fact unto anyone. These powers were never legally given or asked for by Srila Prabhupada. Contrary to the GBC, Srila Prabhupada chose to lead by inspiration rather than legislation. Perhaps this is where the real problem lies.
These points are not an attempt to bash the GBC. Please note, it is the GBC who have unilaterally proposed changes and this is simply one reaction. The temple which forwarded this proposal to me received them only two or three days before being asked to change to the new system. It is improper, immoral and illogical that such serious changes be handled so quickly.
Unfortunately, this may be a sign of things to come. The GBC has decided, so now do it! Why should we expect anything in the future different from the pressure being forced upon the devotees over this issue. To conclude differently would be illogical and presumptuous on our part. Such a presumption cannot be considered unfair since these proposed bylaws by the GBC do not exhibit any love and trust for local devotee management. What goes around comes around.
Between a Rock and a Hard Place
I realize that the GBC is in a difficult position. They have lost administrative control of both Bangalore and the Long Island temples to a group supporting a disagreeable position to the GBC regarding diksa initiation. In that light, their perspective and administrative proposal is understandable. But that doesn’t make it right.
Feelings in the movement about the effectiveness of the GBC range wildly and widely. However, even if they are given full marks on their efforts at guiding the movement, how can we deduce that a future GBC 50, 75 or 100 years from now will act in a similar manner? The risks are too great and my fear is that the current GBC members are looking at this issue within an overly restricted time frame and set of criteria. Management policy must guard against worst case scenarios rather than hoping for the best.
Srila Prabhupada’s wishes must be held supreme and our challenge is to implement his instructions according to changing circumstance. This GBC proposal doesn’t fulfill that responsibility.
Who is the Acarya?
A similar attempt to centralize the administration of Iskcon was attempted in 1972. Srila Prabhupada was unequivocal in his denunciation of the plan. In a letter to Karandhara dasa Srila Prabhupada wrote:
"Do not centralize anything. Each temple must remain independent and self-sufficient. That was my plan from the very beginning, why you are thinking otherwise? Once before you wanted to do something centralizing with your GBC meeting, and if I did not interfere the whole thing would have been killed. Do not think in this way of big corporation, big credits, centralization-these are all nonsense proposals. Only thing I wanted was that books printing and distribution should be centralized, therefore I appointed you and Bali Mardan to do it. Otherwise, management everything, should be done locally by local men. Accounts must be kept, things must be in order and lawfully done, but that should be each temple's concern, not yours. Krishna Consciousness Movement is for training men to be independently thoughtful and competent in all types of departments of knowledge and action, not for making bureaucracy. Once there is bureaucracy the whole thing will be spoiled. There must be always individual striving and work and responsibility, competitive spirit, not that one shall dominate and distribute benefits to the others and they do nothing but beg from you and you provide. No. Never mind there may be botheration to register each centre, take tax certificate each, become separate corporations in each state. That will train men how to do these things, and they shall develop reliability and responsibility, that is the point."
Letter to Karanadhara dasa - Bombay; 22 December, 1972
This leaves little doubt as far as Srila Prabhupada’s intentions in this regard. Another excerpt from Srila Prabhupada’s letters asserts:
"The zonal secretaries duty is to see that the spiritual principles are being upheld very nicely in all the Temples of his zone. Otherwise each Temple shall be independent and self-supporting. Let every Temple President work according to his own capacity to improve the Krishna Consciousness of his center. So far the practical management is concerned, that is required, but not that we should become too much absorbed in fancy organization. Our business is spiritual life, so whatever organization needs to be done, the Presidents may handle and take advice and assistance from their GBC representative. In this way let the Societies work go on and everyone increase their service at their own creative rate."
Letter to: All Temple Presidents - Tokyo, 22 April, 1972
Many other citations can be given but let that suffice for now.
It would seem reasonable to conclude that the changes proposed in 1972 would be minuscule in comparison to the GBC’s contemporary effort. If so, could we expect that Srila Prabhupada’s reaction to the present attempt be that more severe? It appears that a greater effort at discretion must be taken by the leaders of the Hare Krsna movement. Otherwise, there is every likelihood of offending the Founder/Acarya.
So what is the role of the GBC in implementing the desires of Srila Prabhupada?
Circumstances have changed resulting in us all being challenged on how to practically implement Srila Prabhupada’s instructions. But going directly against the Acarya’s stated wishes seems inappropriate and foolish. After all, he is the Founder/Acarya of our mission and his mood, instructions and example in devotional service must be our guiding light. Let it be recorded by history that we remained chaste to Srila Prabhupada’s instructions and example. Anything else is squarely within the jurisdiction of the foolhardy.
The GBC was appointed the managing authority of Iskcon by Srila Prabhupada, but if there is ever an issue to contest their authority, this is the one. Remember Srila Prabhupada’s words - "Once before you wanted to do something centralizing with your GBC meeting, and if I did not interfere the whole thing would have been killed." I presume that killed refers to the Hare Krsna mission. Shouldn’t that cause concern? Are we to think that we are more intelligent or possess a broader vision than Srila Prabhupada?
Please challenge your local GBC’s authority by refusing to make such drastic changes. It may be your last chance to do so. The GBC has neither the legal nor moral authority to do this, so by no means are we required to follow their rogue leadership in this matter. If these amendments take place, it will be because we allowed it. Let us not go there. Our whole movement could be killed.
All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
This article has been forwarded to the Sampradaya Sun, Chakra and Dandavat website.
