Further Comments on the DOM
BY: SUN STAFF
Dec 23, 2010 — CANADA (SUN) — Our thanks to Roupa Manjari devi dasi and her husband, Nara Narayana das Viswakarma, for their replies to the recent articles on the Direction of Management submitted by Sun Staff. In her article, "Conditions on Donations", Roupa Manjari devi notes that we have pointed out the obvious by asking:
"…how could a transition to the DOM model be made to work in the milieu of GBC's or gurus in charge of local temples, where their power is clearly leveraged by installing temple presidents, who would then vote?"
She suggests the solution to this problem:
"Therefore the only course of action is to replace the present illegal GBC by the election of a new, legal GBC, and the power to do this is in the money. The current GBC/gurus/Temple presidents are utterly dependent on the money given by wealthy Indian donors."
As we have pointed out many times in the past, dealing with the GBC alone is not a solution. As ISKCON itself admits in their 'lines of parallel authority' discussions, there is now an environment of conflicting agendas between the GBC body and the individual Gurus. While it's true that many temple presidents are dependent on Indian donations, the assets controlled by the current regime of Zonal Acarya Gurus like Radhanath Swami, Gopal Krishna Swami, Bhakti Caru Swami, etc. are also key to the money streams that keep temple presidents and temples in business. Simply cleaning house at the GBC level does not deal with the maha-guru phenomenon, and their leverage at the local level.
Many wealthy Indian donors are tied by sentiment to their Gurus, and this loyalty is much stronger than their loyalty to a local GBC representative. Even if compromised temple presidents are driven out by tightening up the purse strings, and no GBC or maha-guru comes to their aid, a DOM-instituted vote might still come down to a local congregation whose individual sentiments lie with one of the very same GBC/Gurus who controlled the previous temple president. This reality has been slowly developing in North American temples for many years, and it is now a prevalent phenomenon, here and elsewhere in the world. The reality is that the loyalty of many individual members is tied to their loving sentiments for Guru, not simply to their sentiments for Srila Prabhupada or the philosophy, what to speak of the GBC. Of course, good preaching can change hearts and minds, even in this regard.
Another dynamic on the horizon not mentioned by Roupa Manjari devi is the new mundane corporate model for ISKCON management being evangelized by Gopal Bhatta dasa & Company, which the GBC and Guru's appear to be embracing wholeheartedly. As it's been described thus far, this model would put a new bureaucratic firewall between the GBC members and Gurus and the rest of ISKCON's members. Adopting the scheme under the guise of "improving ISKCON", we can only assume that the individual leaders believe this new centralization of management will somehow or other make their lives easier. We think they are sadly mistaken in that regard.
Whoever the GBC men/women in charge are at the time administrative power is turned over to a group of paid mundane managers in a bureaucratic scheme that expressly disobeys Srila Prabhupada instructions – those leaders will go down in ISKCON history as traitors and offenders of the worst kind. They will never be free of the stigma of having sold out Srila Prabhupada's spiritual society.
It's easy to imagine how such an arrangement was sold to the GBC members… with flow charts and Powerpoint presentations touting the benefits of a scheme in which GBC/Gurus are no longer responsible for dealing with every problem that arises in ISKCON. Instead, they are being sold on the notion of having a buffer zone of managerial directors who will handle the problems for them, navigating the society through the many sticky wickets that mark the field, thus leaving the GBC/Gurus "free to preach".
If we speculate on the future of that scheme, however, we see a number of possible scenarios that are not so rosy. Aside from the fact that Srila Prabhupada emphatically instructed against centralization in his society (which the GBC and their committees unabashedly acknowledge and admit they are transgressing) there are some archetypal problems inherent in such a model. One of the most obvious is that ISKCON will have a new focal point for taking problems, complaints and lawsuits to.
In the past, there has been much confusion about the GBC's legal persona as a global ecclesiastical body, a corporate body registered in West Bengal, and a functional unincorporated body operating in countries around the world. We know of numerous prospective litigants over the years who have been left scratching their heads about who, what and how to sue. So a new body of directors would, it seems, come out of the starting gate with a big target painted on their backs. This group will presumably be more geographically stationary than the GBC members, and will be the new public face for executive level management of the global society, and may have some fiduciary responsible to the Society. This would seem to create at least the appearance, if not the reality of a much more defined target for lawsuits.
We hear rumblings about the very substantial budget being negotiated for the new office of directors, which will apparently be funded out of the coffers of the GBC members and Gurus. Surely it has dawned on these leaders that bureaucrats are always good at one thing – coming back to the trough for more money. And while the deep-pockets Gurus/GBC might be resigned to having to cough up a yearly budget – at least until self-funding money-making schemes can be kicked into action – we wonder if the GBC/Gurus who are funding this managerial phantasmagoria have considered what it will be like when their Office of Directors comes begging for even more money to refresh the legal defense fund, hire lawyers, pay retainers and court costs, etc. -- all the burdens of duty one would expect to come along for such a visible, stationary, legally empowered public face of a global organization.
In the context of our discussion on the DOM, how this new cadre of bureaucratic directors will impact funding at the local temple level remains to be seen. At the least, we can expect it to add a new layer of bureaucratic 'noise' that will take some time to get a handle on and eventually filter out. At the worst, it will add a new level of politicians who must be dealt with before significant change -- such as the program of change suggested by Roupa Manjari devi -- can be brought about.
In her article, Roupa Manjari suggests that the GBC have been:
"…misleading the donors with the lie that Srila Prabhupada entrusted and ordered them to do as they are doing, that is, running ISKCON as a topdown corporation, meanwhile siphoning off funds, properties and resources for personal luxury."
While that's certainly true, it's also true that in some cases, temple assets are being siphoned off, diverted and put under the control of wealthy members of the Indian community, who are turning the temples in Hindu cultural centers, with the support of the GBC. We see numerous examples in North America where temples that were once Srila Prabhupada's now bear no resemblance to his original temples. Instead, they are called by names other than ISKCON, they have regular programs of demigod worship, and their fundamental mission is to serve as a local community center for Indian congregants.
So while we agree with many aspects of Roupa Manjari prabhu's strategy for effecting change locally by voting with one's feet and wallet – a strategy we have advocated for many years – one should not assume that simply by preaching to the wealthy Indian donors, control of local temple management can be taken back so the DOM can be instituted.
Regarding the language in the DOM about the "ballot of Temple Presidents", Roupa Manjari devi has given us her conclusion, and we think she's correct. Our point was simply that to the degree one wants to consider the DOM to be a legalistic document, they'll have to deal with language that is somewhat ambiguous, e.g. regarding how the system of ballots is to work.
In our article on the DOM, Part 1, we wrote:
"Srila Prabhupada also states that he will "choose to retain" four commissioners. These four, plus the 8 elected, form the 12-person GBC. Because he does not provide any distinction in this document between the roles of the 8 GBC members compared to the select group of four commissioners, the reader must ask whether he meant for there to be a functional difference between these roles, or whether he simply meant to have a small hand-picked group with greater longevity. [ ] To our knowledge, Srila Prabhupada never actually chose these four commissioners. Perhaps someone can confirm this, and tell us if the reason is known?"
To which Roupa Manjari devi replied:
"This is explained by Srila Prabhupada's Statement, "In the event of Srila Prabhupada's absence, the retiring members will decide which four will remain." The four commissioners are to be kept for the duration of one tenure, 3 years, so that the 8 new GBC members will have experienced GBCs from the previous term to guide them in their new roles and to balance the former GBC with the new GBC. At the next election these 4 commissioners will "retire", e.g., finish their term as GBC, and 4 new commissioners will stay on for the same purpose. In this way there will never be a completely new group, a clause affording multiple degrees of integrity and protection for ISKCON."
We would have to disagree with this response. The question was, among an initial 12 GBC members, did Srila Prabhupada ever name four to be retained commissioners, and if not, why not? The answer she points to is a reference as to how these retained commissioners would be keep in office in succeeding years. She offers a speculative rationale for the arrangement Srila Prabhupada refers to in the DOM, but we see none of this actually stated in the DOM by His Divine Grace.
This question is perhaps one of the most important ones that comes to mind in relationship to the DOM, because it deals directly with whether or not, or the degree to which Srila Prabhupada himself engaged in the process recommended by the DOM. In other words, what do Srila Prabhupada's own actions indicate with respect to his wishes that the DOM be instituted? As Roupa Manjari herself acknowledges:
"Srila Prabhupada did not enforce elections by the DOM during His Manifest Lila as He personally selected the GBC, as He states in the DOM that He has the right to do. After He went into Samadhi however, this clause, along with the entire election process elucidated in the DOM, and reiterated strongly in the 1974 Topmost Urgency Letter was to be immediately enacted."
It seems the many DOM adherents make an effort to de-emphasize the apparent fact that Srila Prabhupada himself did not institute and/or enforce the DOM as a functional process in ISKCON. Roupa Manjari devi sidesteps the issue by saying that Srila Prabhupada didn't enforce elections during his lila because he personally selected the GBC. But she doesn't answer the question, did he select four commissioners? Because if he did not, that would appear to make two significant ways in which he himself did not execute the DOM. This, of course, raises questions about whether or not he changed his mind about instituting the DOM, in whole or in part, for whatever reason.
Roupa Manjari devi tells us that Srila Prabhupada strongly reiterated the entire DOM election process four years later, in his Topmost Urgency letter. But we do not find that to be the case. The Topmost Urgency letter states that it particularly deals with the handling of real estate. It also says:
"There shall be a Governing Board Committee of trustees appointed by the Founder-Acharya His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad according to the document Direction of Management dated July 28, 1970."
As mentioned in our analysis of the Topmost Urgency document:
"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."
We know that the GBC was originally put in place before, not after, the date of the Topmost Urgency letter, so the language is somewhat open to interpretation. Furthermore, the Topmost Urgency refers to (or as Roupa Manjari devi says, 'strongly reiterates') the appointment of the GBC – not the re-election of them. And again, it does not mention the four retained commissioners.
So if Srila Prabhupada meant the Topmost Urgency amendments letter to be an emphatic reiteration of the DOM, why did he not enforce it, either following the DOM's issuance in 1970, or during the four years between the release of the 1974 Topmost Urgency letter and his departure lila? If he was intent on seeing the DOM enacted, why did he not, during this seven year period, retain the four commissioners who are central to the elections process described in the DOM?
Roupa Manjari's point of clarification on the election of a GBC chairman for each meeting, not for a year, is well taken.
We hope that this further clarifies the points we attempted to make in our first two articles on the DOM, and we thank Roupa Manjari devi for her analysis in response.
