Centralization
BY: VYAPAKA DASA
Jan 13, USA (SUN) — "Of Those who Seek Victory, I Am Morality".
Dear Temple Presidents, Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
This writing is a belated, yet necessary, response to Rabindra Swarupa dasa's essay to the ISKCON Temple Presidents regarding centralization as posted on the GBC website, Dandavats. This discussion remains relevant since the GBC continues with efforts to centralize the North American ISKCON centers.
Adopting the revised temple bylaws provides the GBC with unprecedented powers to control temple Boards and Presidents. This was not the role of the GBC mandated by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and contradicts the 1975 GBC resolution:
"1. Resolved: The GBC (Governing Body Commission) has been established by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada to represent him [sic] in carrying out the responsibility of managing [sic] the International Society for Krishna Consciousness of which he is the Founder-Acarya and supreme authority. The GBC accepts as its life and soul His divine instructions and recognizes that it is completely dependent on His mercy in all respects. The GBC has no other function or purpose other than to execute the instructions so kindly given by His Divine Grace (added emphasis) and preserve and spread his Teachings to the world in their pure form."
Therefore, by GBC definition, their authority is derived from Srila Prabhupada, as it was His Divine Grace who established the GBC, so their legitimacy must be found within his teachings.
Since the time of drafting the above resolution, it has been reported that the GBC has incorporated as the "GBC of West Bengal," and it is unknown if adherence to Srila Prabhupada's instructions has been retained in the new corporate structure. In any case, within the ISKCON movement, Srila Prabhupada's teachings are paramount, and this essay is based on that presumption.
Rabindra Swarupa dasa labels those unaccepting of his GBC edicts as outraged critics, Ritviks and alarmists, who have broken off from ISKCON, while living in a world frozen in time. Giving an opponent a bad name is a well-used tool in his arsenal; but unfortunately, it is merely a smokescreen designed to mask weak and weary arguments while avoiding an honest dialogue.
Personally, I consider myself none of the above, but rather a long-standing member of ISKCON, who disagrees with specific policies advocated by the GBC, which stray from Srila Prabhupada's teachings. This protest arises from our proximity to, rather than distance from, the GBC.
Our Whole Movement Could be Killed
He mimics the title of our previous essay "Our Whole Movement Could be Killed" but fails to note that it is a direct quote from Srila Prabhupada's 1972 letter to Karandhara dasa. Rabindra Swarupa dasa claims that Srila Prabhupada's instructions in this letter regarding centralization dealt solely with policies proposed by Atreya Rsi dasa.
Excerpts from the 1972 letter are:
...I have heard from Jayatirtha you want to make big plan for centralization of management, taxes, monies, corporate status, bookkeeping, credit, like that. I do not at all approve of such plan. Do not centralize anything ...Once before you wanted to do something centralizing with your GBC meeting, (added emphasis) and if I did not interfere the whole thing would have been killed (added emphasis) ...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. (Letter, Dec. 22, 1972)
It is evident Srila Prabhupada is addressing the specifics of the 1972 centralization effort, in addition to earlier attempts as the words "once before" convey. As such, Rabindra Swarupa's contention that this instruction is specific solely to one event is invalid.
Srila Prabhupada in a 1973 letter reinforces the fact that he doesn't want his temples centralized:
"...I have not got much stock in such centralized management or organization. I never wanted that any of my temples shall be dependent upon the other temples. Rather, our main business is to train up men to be self sufficient and competent in many ways to carry on the preaching work, not to make them into specialists or to minimize their responsibility by centralizing everything. If each center must rely upon its own strength to stand, that will be better training ground for the devotees (added emphasis)."
(Letter to: Damodara Bombay, India; 9 January, 1973; 73-01-09)
There are other quotes against centralization but we'll leave it here since these references leave no doubt that centralization is unsupported by Srila Prabhupada.
The debate should be about what role Srila Prabhupada intended the GBC to play regarding temple management, and it is contingent upon the GBC to prove that Srila Prabhupada wanted them to wield the following powers. Rabindra Swarupa dasa's paper is woefully inadequate in this regard.
"SECTION 3. GBC ADHERENCE
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 (added emphasis). The corporation shall not conduct itself in any way contrary to the ecclesiastical policies of the GBC" (Revised bylaws).
The local temples will have difficulty in following GBC edicts, as in some cases they are not carried out and executed in accordance with the teachings and instructions of Srila Prabhupada -- as construed by Srila Prabhupada. Under the bylaw revisions local temples will be independent in name only possessing little latitude in regards to developing Krishna consciousness locally.
Where in Srila Prabhupada's instructions is the GBC given such emphasis? This movement is Srila Prabhupada's offering to Lord Chaitanya and our responsibility as disciples and grand-disciples is to maintain and increase his legacy, rather than to alter it whimsically.
Please note that with these bylaws, the GBC is demanding infallibility and a monopoly on siddhanta via legal means, even though their goals are unsupported by guru, sadhu and sastra. The history of the GBC clearly does not support a distinction of infallibility.
With centralization, the possibility for error increases exponentially and can damage the vitality of our movement by tampering with 40-year-old protocols established by Srila Prabhupada.. Is this a step towards a new era of protecting the movement's assets or a sign that the GBCs are desperate, ineffective managers over-stepping the boundaries of authority?
Rabindra Swarupa dasa claims that the bylaws do not represent financial control over the temples. This is difficult to understand when the following is considered:
SECTION 5. BENEFICIAL INTEREST OF THE GBC
Although the corporation is incorporated under the laws of the State of ______________, the corporation recognizes that all of its assets are held in trust for the GBC (added emphasis), 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 (added emphasis).
This gives the GBC control over every project which adopts the bylaws. They are free to appoint directors of their choosing which is an undeniable monopolization of power.
And of what benefit is this to the local temple? Our point is not that the GBC errs in each and every action, but rather monopolization dramatically increases the opportunity for deviation. The history of the GBC is checkered and to presume that the future holds something different is a leap of faith lacking a rational basis.
Adding to the controversy is that some of these same GBCs reject centralization in their own undertakings. We have been informed that numerous projects, "within" ISKCON and run by GBC members, are not legally under ISKCON control. So why has this double standard been allowed to develop?
Such action conveys that we aren't committed to Srila Prabhupada but they are. No need worrying about their projects because they have proven their dedication while ours is suspect. They need control over your temple board, temple president, temple assets and siddhanta, yet refuse similar action in their own temples. Such action decreases the faith upon which the movement functions. This is the price of GBC control and the GBC obviously sees great value in it, but the real cost will be born by your local chapter.
GBC Dereliction of Duty?
Rabindra Swarupa dasa reveals that times "were a-changin" and current conditions demand a change of course. That course is centralization around GBC control and that legal technicalities have now become important due to changing circumstance.
Srila Prabhupada's Will dealt specifically with the question of protecting ISKCON properties. These instructions have not been maintained by the GBC, which is a grave failure on their part. So is the problem stemming from a lacking bylaw structure or rather a matter of GBC dereliction of duty?
Mrgendra dasa, a Vaisnava attorney, describes the wisdom of following their proposed system:
"I worked on the property protection issue over 15 years ago when I was retained by the ISKCON Foundation and my research and conclusions were approved without any additions or deletions by Edward Gaffney, Professor of Law who was, at that time, the Dean of the Valparaiso University School of Law. Dean Gaffney is one of the leading experts in the United States in the area of Church law and specifically in the area of Church property issues. His Holiness Romapada Swami is quoted as stating that the new bylaws are proposed for property protection, as if any accusations of overreaching on the part of the GBC could be countered by implying that there is no other way to protect temple properties. In fact, those new bylaws in no way protect the properties against the biggest problem that the U.S. temples have had, which is liabilities because of intentional torts."
Therefore, a major purpose of tailoring temple bylaws to GBC standards will not be fulfilled, and the GBC is fully aware of it, yet they continue their centralization efforts. This matter should be of great concern to our movement.
Directive of Management (DOM) Terminated
The next issue is when Resolution 5 is provided:
"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".
with Rabindra Swarupa dasa concluding that the Direction of Management is terminated.
It is wildly interpretive that such wording invalidates the DOM, which is included among the legal incorporation papers of ISKCON. My understanding is that this issue is currently being debated in court, so let us await that decision.
The GBC body regards election of GBC members as death-personified, and it would be unlikely they could achieve their hegemony over ISKCON with the DOM in place, as it makes them answerable to the worldwide congregation.
Resolution 4 of the same GBC meeting establishes rules for the removal of a temple president by the GBC. Rabindra Swarupa dasa concludes that this provides a precedent for the GBC to select temple presidents. If we take Rabindra Swarupa dasa's point at face value -- then why are further powers required when the authority has already been established?
For clarity sake, the resolution he refers to is to remove temple presidents under specific circumstances. It provides no authority to appoint a president, so is by no means a precedent.
Unauthorized Regional Governing Body
The next issue arises when Rabindra Swarupa dasa provides a GBC resolution stating:
2) a GBC member should not consider himself as the whole GBC (added emphasis), but as a member or commissioner, commissioned by the whole Governing Board.
In discussing the establishment of the ad hoc group, he explains:
"
the need for the GBCs and temple presidents to function together on a far more collegial basis than had been the practice in the past. Over time, this joint group began exercising more and more regular supervision over the affairs of ISKCON in North America. The outcome of this and parallel developments in other regions was the establishment by the GBC in 2002 of a kind of standing sub-committee called Regional Governing Body. ...By this move, the international GBC decentralized its authority and empowered local leaders."
So they decentralize to centralize. Brilliant!
Nonetheless, we humbly request the formal commissioning of these empowered local leaders. Without it, there is no alternative but to see the GBC's actions as irresponsible and this subgroup's efforts unauthorized leaving the local leadership with no legal or moral reason to accept their provisions.
The NA GBC deliberations lack validity until being voted on by the international board. More importantly, GBC authority stems solely from Srila Prabhupada's instructions, and it is their duty to ascertain if the regional board's resolutions remain chaste to Srila Prabhupada an impossibility in this case.
Rabindra Swarupa dasa asserts that the local regional boards were set up by the full GBC. However, the N.A. GBC Chairman at the time offers a different perspective.
Romapada Swami reports that no such authorization exists. The Maharaja writes:
"I received an inquiry from a member of the Canadian Yatra requesting information re. the GBC Resolution authorizing the bylaws changes which the NA leaders are requesting the temples in NA to adopt.. There is no GBC Resolution coming from Mayapur mandating or authorizing this effort."
Therefore, the Regional Governing Body and their resolutions are unauthorized.
Even if the GBC tidies up their administrative blunder, no validity can be given to the bylaw changes until it is shown that they are congruent with Srila Prabhupada's teachings, something in which Rabindra Swarupa dasa's essay proves wholly inadequate.
The procedure for developing these bylaws must be considered unauthorized per GBC standard. That a GBC resolution doesn't exist is now admitted, and it is impossible to believe that Srila Prabhupada would approve of such a radical undertaking.
As a result, this disorganized, unauthorized and undisciplined group -- having no official standing in regards to the GBC, possessing no legal status, nor established governing procedures -- through these proposed bylaws will be given undue control over the direction and administration of your local assembly. This is obviously improper..
Can Srila Prabhupada's genius and experience be more clear in regards to organizing the movement on a local, decentralized basis? Now, more than ever before, the risk to our movement -- stemming from the impetuousness and immaturity of the GBC -- comes into clear focus.
GBC to Appoint Temple Presidents
One quote provided by Rabindra Swarupa dasa is of grave concern. He claims that:
'In a recorded conversation between Srila Prabhupada and GBC members at the time of this meeting (March 27, 1975), the "necessary arrangements" were spelled out concretely: "...this is discussing the responsibilities of the GBC men in their zones. So we've already said to organize opening new temples, to appoint temple presidents for new temples, to be responsible for training all temple presidents and insuring spiritual standards...."
The above quote is uttered by Jayatirtha, NOT Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada ignores Jayatirtha's comment and changes the topic to the Oath of Allegiance. This is important so please verify this by searching "Conversation with the GBC" in the Vedabase. The result should leave you disappointed.
Rabindra Swarupa dasa offers this statement as Srila Prabhupada's endorsement for the GBC to appoint presidents. It is preposterous to conclude that Srila Prabhupada agreed to this simply because a statement -- which he ignored, or didn't hear -- was read to him.
Offering this statement as a basis for a GBC choosing the temple president clearly reveals a cheating propensity on the part of Rabindra Swarupa dasa's and the GBC Executive Committee. Apologies for the harsh words but their conclusion is so far off the mark that no other description seems fitting.
GBC does not mean to control a center. GBC means to see that the activities of a center go on nicely. I do not know why Tamala is exercising his absolute authority. That is not the business of GBC. The president, treasurer and secretary are responsible for managing the center. GBC is to see that things are going nicely but not to exert absolute authority. That is not in the power of GBC (added emphasis). Tamala should not do like that. The GBC men cannot impose anything on the men of a center without consulting all of the GBC members first. A GBC member cannot go beyond the jurisdiction of his power (added emphasis). We are in the experimental stage but in the next meeting of the GBC members they should form a constitution how the GBC members manage the whole affair. But it is a fact that the local president is not under the control of the GBC (added emphasis).
Letter to Giriraja, London, Aug. 12, 1971
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 (added emphasis).
Letter to All Temple Presidents, Tokyo, 22 April, 1972
We must ask why has Rabindra Swarupa dasa and the Executive Committee neglected these clear instructions? Something seems terribly wrong.
Ultimate Managing Authority
Rabindra Swarupa dasa invokes Srila Prabhupada's Will stating that the GBC will be the ultimate managing authority for ISKCON. We agree that this is contained in the Will, but the statement's context and intent is denied by highlighting it independently. GBC authority in the Will is qualified by the following:
"Each temple will be an ISKCON property and will be managed by three executive directors. The system of management will continue as it is now and there is no need of any change."
It is curious that an out-of-context statement is provided while those contradicting current GBC aims overlooked? Why is the first paragraph inviolable and the second nullified?
The GBC must follow all conditions of the Will which include that ISKCON properties are to be protected by three trustees; and of equal importance, is that the system of management in place at the time of Srila Prabhupada writing his Will, be maintained. Therefore, centralization is unsupportable.
As an experiment, why don't we flip GBC logic to the other provisions of the Will. That is establish three executive directors for each ISKCON property and continue the management as per the time of Srila Prabhupada's departure, but eliminate the GBC as the ultimate managing authority. This conclusion is as absurd as the GBC isolating the stipulation in the Will defining their authority.
Excuse the redundancy but please remember that the system of management referred to above is defined by the GBC as follows:
"1. Resolved: The GBC (Governing Body Commission) has been establishd by His Divine Grace
"1. Resolved: The GBC (Governing Body Commission) has been established by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada to represent him [sic] in carrying out the responsibility of managing [sic] the International Society for Krishna Consciousness of which he is the Founder-Acarya and supreme authority. The GBC accepts as its life and soul His divine instructions and recognizes that it is completely dependent on His mercy in all respects. The GBC has no other function or purpose other than to execute the instructions so kindly given by His Divine Grace (added emphasis) and preserve and spread his Teachings to the world in their pure form." I request the readership to see the connection between the second clause of the Will and the first resolution passed by the GBC. Srila Prabhupada is the "supreme authority;" so if the GBC -- or anyone within ISKCON -- steps beyond the instructions of Srila Prabhupada, then authority is lost. The proposed bylaws cross this boundary and therefore must be considered unacceptable to our society.
Only a Draft
Though not the last point made in his paper, the following seems a good way to end the discussion.
That is Rabindra Swarupa dasa's claim that the bylaws sent around to the temples were only an initial draft that found its way into the hands of "some inimical to ISKCON".
This is surprising because at a meeting in Dallas, various temple representatives stood up and acknowledged that they had implemented the bylaws. Were they being asked to assume resolutions that were only in the form of a draft? Are these temple presidents now to be considered inimical to ISKCON, as alleged by Rabindra Swarupa dasa, because they adopted the bylaws promoted by the GBC?
The original document sent to the Canadian temples included a cover letter from GBC deputy Krsnadasa Kaviraja dasa and Kuladri dasa, a prominent ISKCON employee. It stated:
Bhaktimarga Maharaja has asked me to forward this e-mail to all of you. It is just to encourage all of us to adopt these bylaws ASAP. ISKCON- Brampton opened with these bylaws in place (added emphasis)....
These cover letters were accompanied with the revised bylaws and a survey. The first question on the survey is:
"Bylaws
Have you adopted the new bylaws? Please state any problems if any that may have kept you from adopting the bylaws."
So the bylaws were not in a draft stage and Rabindra Swarupa dasa's dishonesty continues to shine. We all have shortcomings but his shallowness of character has special significance due to his being a spokesperson for the GBC Executive Committee.
"Brahmanas must be qualified by practicing cleanliness, truthfulness (added emphasis), control of the mind and the senses, simplicity, and by cultivating faith in the Vedas and particularly in Bhagavad-gita." (Krsna Consciousness, The Matchless Gift, Chapter 5: Learning Steadiness in Krsna Consciousness).
How can we have faith in leaders who misrepresent facts so callously? And if you protest, you are labeled as inimical to ISKCON and pushed to the periphery of the movement.
The words of this and previous essays do not support such a criticism. Unfortunately, Rabindra Swarupa dasa's delusion of self-importance leads him to assume that anyone disagreeing with his position is an enemy of ISKCON. However, ISKCON is Srila Prabhupada's instructions, and in this instance, it is the GBC that is delegated to the fringe.
Conclusion
The bylaw issue should be of great concern to all devotees. It is now clear that the N.A. GBC admit to have no mandate from the international GBC Body (GBC of West Bengal Inc.), and no rules of governance have been established such as what constitutes authority, quorum, etc.
In addition, this ad hoc, ill-defined structure is adopted to conceive and implement directives, resulting in unprecedented secular and ecclesiastical power over local temples, by what is administratively an unauthorized group of devotees, acting contrary to Srila Prabhupada's instructions.
Obviously, the GBC distrusts the temple congregations and management, as illustrated by these new bylaws. It must be asked why should an unauthorized group and the GBC be reciprocated any greater level of trust from the devotional community, especially when their spokesperson lies repeatedly throughout his defense.
Among punishments I am the rod of chastisement, and of those who seek victory, I am morality (added emphasis)
.
(BG. As It Is10.38)
If the GBC wishes to please Srila Prabhupada, they will be required to employ honesty and act as Brahmans. Anything less means deviation from Srila Prabhupada's plan and falls under the control of the modes of material nature.
Sastra is without the four principal defects that are visible in the conditioned soul: imperfect senses, the propensity for cheating, certainty of committing mistakes, and certainty of being illusioned. These four principal defects in conditioned life disqualify one from putting forth rules and regulations (added emphasis). Therefore, the rules and regulations as described in the sastra-being above these defects-are accepted without alteration by all great saints, acaryas, and great souls.
(BG 16.24, purport)
Unfortunately, this situation appears to further mark the disintegration of the GBC as Srila Prabhupada envisioned. The new bylaws reveal that the GBC is bankrupt both morally and spiritually. The GBC is shown as unable to lead the movement using guru, sadhu and sastra, and now attempts to secure secular power in a vain and desperate attempt to remain valid. They are unable to make their case from Srila Prabhupada's teachings and must resort to sophistry and word-jugglery.
GBC authority evaporates as it strays from Srila Prabhupada's directions. And it is imperative that temple councils and presidents do not allow themselves to be emasculated by an errant GBC.
Our first request is that the GBC reconsider their actions and return to Srila Prabhupada's directions, forgetting this attempt at centralization.
If not, the temple presidents and councils are the last stand of defense for the movement. Please take your duty seriously and do not implement these new bylaws. Neither moral, spiritual nor legal reasoning compels you to follow this course, and your responsibility to Srila Prabhupada and the long term vitality of his movement, demand that you maintain the independence of your chapter.
Please re-read Romapada Swami's letter to the Canadian Yatra where it states that the GBC is only requesting local temples to implement the bylaws. They have neither moral nor legal power to demand implementation.
If your temple board has already passed these bylaws, reverse your decision and change them back. Your legal counsel should be able to advise you as needed.
At a recent meeting, one temple president asked what stops a board from changing the bylaws back again? They replied nothing and that they were still working on that one.
Please have faith that Krishna and Srila Prabhupada will protect you if you stand up for Lord Chaitanya's samkirtan movement. There is neither offence nor insubordination on your part since the GBC lacks authority to demand compliance along these lines. Please, do not follow blindly because such does not fulfill your responsibility to Srila Prabhupada and your congregation.
In service to Srila Prabhupada's GBC.
Vyapaka dasa
