The Direction of Management, Part Two
BY: SUN STAFF
Dec 17, 2010 — CANADA (SUN) —
'Topmost Urgency' Amendments Document
From an historical standpoint, those who understood what was taking place in Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON movement at the time this 'Topmost Urgency' document was released would likely agree in their interpretation of it. However, making a literal interpretation after the fact, beginning with the heading below, is not so easy. It would be difficult to associate it with any particular legal document, considering it an amendment thereto.
The term "Incorporation Papers" is very broad, and might refer to bylaws or articles of incorporation. Stated this generally, the directive would be open to legal challenge. Amending incorporation papers would typically require the approval of the corporation's officers or directors, and the above heading doesn't specify any particular corporate entity.
Perhaps Srila Prabhupada directed his GBC men, Balimardan and Brahmananda, to execute his orders, and these two framed his urgent instruction in the form of this document, not realizing the legal implications of the style of document they had created. One can image many reasons why Srila Prabhupada might have allowed them to frame his urgent demand in a document that he himself would recognize as being this un-official, but we could only speculate.
What is perhaps most important about the above statement is the fact that it does not make mention of the Direction of Management (DOM) document that preceded it. Granted, we might consider the DOM to be part of the "Etc." in the statement above, but the DOM really doesn't fit under the category of being either an "official registration document", a "constitution", or an "incorporation paper". Consequently, from a legal standpoint, one really can't characterize this amendment document as being an amendment of the DOM itself. The fact that in item #2 below it mentions the DOM does not alone make it an actual amendment of the DOM.
Those who weren't in the know in ISKCON at this point in time might find it difficult to image why it would ever have been necessary for Srila Prabhupada to urgently state anything as obvious as the above. Who would have questioned his supreme authority, or hesitated to put his name on any and all documents or assets? Of course, the answer to that is
"the GBC".
Presumably "the Society" referred to here was the entity Steven Goldsmith incorporated in July 1966 in New York for Srila Prabhupada. Who were the officers? (They were all Americans.) The above statement is also interesting to consider in the context of paragraph #7 in the DOM, which states, "Advice will be given by the GBC in cases of real property purchases, which will be in the name of ISKCON, Inc. (Trucks or other vehicles will be purchased in the name of the local president."
This is a very interesting statement. The phrase "There shall be" suggests that perhaps Srila Prabhupada had not yet appointed his GBC trustees, although this Amendment document was executed almost exactly four years after the original DOM.
As mentioned above in the DOM, Srila Prabhupada appointed 12 disciples, describing them as "direct representatives" who were to act as "zonal secretaries" while he was living, and who were to act as Executors after his departure.
In a later paragraph in the DOM, it says that Srila Prabhupada "will select the initial 12 members of the GBC", a statement which indicates that the 12 individuals he just named as direct representatives, zonal secretaries and executors of his Will are not actually GBC members.
Now in the Amendment document, he again states that, "There shall be" a GBC, "appointed by him". Both of the phrases in quotations indicate future tense -- an event that has not yet taken place. So it's fair to say that the language is open to interpretation.
As paragraph #2 and the entire Amendment document are interpreted by proponents of the DOM today, what Srila Prabhupada really intended to memorialize by the above statement is what is contained in the latter part of the sentence: that there shall be a GBC "according to the document Direction of Management dated July 28, 1970." If it's true that this is where Srila Prabhupada intended the emphasis to be, then we could certainly see the document as being an emphatic reminder that Srila Prabhupada is waiting for his GBC men to start behaving according to the DOM he had previously established. However, the language in this Amendment document doesn't clearly characterize Srila Prabhupada's intention in that regard. For example, if this had been his intention, why would he not have stated that the "current GBC", or the "GBC he had appointed as of July 28, 1970" 'shall act in accordance with the instructions given in the DOM'. Instead, the document must be understood using the possibly future-tense statement, "There shall be".
Aside from this rhetorical problem, there is no question that Srila Prabhupada has clearly stated in the above paragraph that he wants a GBC, and he wants them to act in accordance with his DOM.
As stated in yesterday's analysis of the DOM, one could consider the language of the DOM to be somewhat ambiguous with respect to whether or not the 12 individuals appointed by Srila Prabhupada to act as his direct representatives, zonal secretaries and executors of his Will were simultaneously considered by him to be his initial 12 appointed GBC men.
In this Amendment document, however, we find the qualifying statement that the GBC are to act as 'instrument[s] for the execution of the will' of Srila Prabhupada. The document does not say whether or not this is a clarification of the DOM language, or whether it is an amendment of that language. It simply states the instruction.
We also note that in this document the word "will" is in small case, whereas in the DOM it is capitalized, indicating "Last Will". Further, the term "execution" is used rather than "Executor", the latter being a term commonly used in conjunction with Wills.
The above signature lines can be seen as validating the fact that Srila Prabhupada considered his Zonal Secretaries to also be GBC's at least in the case of these two individuals.
It would help us to better understand this "Topmost Urgency" Amendment document if we could accurately place it in historical context. What specific events preceded Srila Prabhupada's execution of this document? He is obviously very concerned about asserting his position of absolute authority. What events was he reacting to? We can assume that his senior men were doing some nonsense but of all the many forms of nonsense they engaged in, which specific ones motivated this Amendment document? Srila Prabhupada mentions the issue of real estate being bought or sold, so that might have been the motivating factor.
It's also interesting to consider why Srila Prabhupada felt it necessary at this particular time to reiterate that the GBC were to act as the instrument for the execution of his will. Was he actually referring to his "small case will" his desires and instructions rather than to his Last Will and Testament? In comparison to this Amendment document, the capitalization of "Will" in the original DOM, used in conjunction with "Executors" creates some confusion.
Srila Prabhupada did not specify in this Amendment document the specific roles and activities that the GBC were supposed to be engaged in, but weren't taking proper care of. Given the statement in paragraph #1 of the Amendment document, it seems clear that the leaders were not conducting themselves in a way pleasing to Srila Prabhupada. It would make sense, therefore, for Srila Prabhupada to again memorialize the instruction in a mood of topmost urgency that his GBC were expected to act as instruments for the execution of his will, meaning his desires.
Re-emphasizing the GBC's role as Executors of his Last Will seems incongruous in the context of this Amendments document, unless there was some other historical event taking place that influenced this statement. But given the fact that the 'Topmost Urgency' Amendments document is being interpreted as a document directly connected to the DOM, this would seem to be a significant question.
