BY: ROUPA MANJARI DEVI DASI
Dec 21, 2010 — TIMBUKTU (SUN) — A Response to “The Direction of Management (DOM) Part I”.
Thanks to the Sampradaya Sun for publishing the recent article, “The Direction of Management (DOM)” and its step by step analysis of the language and indications written by Srila Prabhupada in the Direction of Management. There are a number of points in the DOM article that I would like to address and clarify. The Sampradaya Sun’s comments are indented to distinguish them from my response.
The Sun Staff wrote:
“For example, 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? It seems unlikely that this particular problem would be solved by just waiting out a three-year election cycle, hoping to install new temple presidents who are neutral and independent of GBC influence.”
There is no power in artificially holding an election in a given temple while the current regime of self-appointed, non-elected GBC still stands. You point out the obvious, that even if the election did take place, it would be for show only, as the people voted in would be planted by the regime serving only to reinforce the regime for their three year tenure.
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. Until now the present non-elected “GBC Society of West Bengal” has managed to suppress and distort the Direction of Management, 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.
Now that the DOM has been revealed, our duty is to spread the word through a grassroots movement, with people learning about and “signing on” to “Prabhupada’s ISKCON”. Through this effort, the donors will realize how they have been cheated out of their God Given Right to vote for their GBC, their Right for independent temples, their Right to decide who represents them (the Temple Presidents), and their Right to live as “independent philosophers” upholding the standards of Srila Prabhupada – and they will suspend their donations until these Rights are guaranteed.
Once there are conditions on the donations, and the donations suspended until each condition is met — viz., Direction of Management in place, TP must be voted in, GBC must be elected every 3 years, and temples must be independent — all of the functions of ISKCON will grind to a thunderous halt.
No more trips to the flower markets, bhoga markets or gas stations, no way to pay the water or power bills or property taxes, no salaries for TPs/secretaries/pujaris/workers etc. This means there will be no more offerings to the Deity, no facility maintenance and therefore no reason for people to even visit the temple. Within a rapid span of time the TPs will concede to the demands of the donors simply because they will have no other choice. The broken TPs will step down and the congregations will select their own TP with their interests at heart and then resume donations.
Instead of the TP’s voice being spoken for by the GBC, the TP will speak on behalf of the congregation as an independent entity under the banner of ISKCON. In this way new enterprise and industry can be initiated, money will begin to flow in and each temple will swell in number and new temples will begin to emerge. This is all clearly laid out in the Direction of Management, which is not only a Direct Order, but a vision for ISKCON for the next 10,000 years.
“The sentence also states “…from a ballot of all Temple presidents, which may also include any secretary who is in charge of a Temple.” This phrase might be interpreted in one of two ways:
1) those persons named on the ballot must be either Temple presidents or secretaries in charge of a Temple; or
2) “from a ballot of” meaning the ballot was created by all Temple Presidents or Secretaries, in which case GBC candidates might not themselves be serving as Temple Presidents or Secretaries at the time of the election.”
The salient point of the Direction of Management is that the chief leader of each temple, namely the Temple President, representing the desires of his congregation, is voting for a GBC candidate in accordance with the desires of his congregation, from the ballot of all ISKCON TPs.
If there is only a Secretary in charge with no Temple President, then he will vote because currently he is in the top representative position for the temple. Therefore your point #1 is correct by this understanding and your point #2 is incorrect. The voter must be representing the congregation and that person representing is the Temple President or Secretary, and the candidates for GBC must also be individuals representing their respective congregations, namely the Temple Presidents or Secretary.
“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.”
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.
“To our knowledge, Srila Prabhupada never actually chose these four commissioners. Perhaps someone can confirm this, and tell us if the reason is known?”
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.
“4. The chairman is elected by the GBC for each meeting. He has no veto power, but in event of a vote tie, his vote will decide. The same will apply for votes cast by mail between regular meetings.” Here Srila Prabhupada adds further definition to the roles of GBC members. Each elected class of GBC, along with the four retained commissioners, appoints a Chairman who holds that position for a year.”
The language in the DOM states that “The chairman is elected by the GBC for each meeting”, not for a year, and that he will remain Chairman between meetings “by mail” until the next meeting when a new chairman is elected for the new meeting.
“Consequently, it seems fair to assume that he meant “ISKCON of _________, Inc.”, since corporation law in most states would prevent two temple, being two independent incorporated entities, to have exactly the same name, “ISKCON, INC.”
ISKCON, Inc. was the original ISKCON charted in 1966 by Srila Prabhupada, and it is ISKCON, Inc. that has Srila Prabhupada’s Mission Statement and all of the other statements that He made concerning His new Movement, ISKCON. After that time, ISKCON was incorporated in many many different places, such as ISKCON Bay Area, ISKCON California, and although they did not use ISKCON, INC, they were indeed ISKCON. (ISKCON California, for instance, has quite a number of temples that are independent of one another.)
We must always remember that Srila Prabhupada was not pursuing ISKCON from a legalistic point of view, and were He to have done so, He would have used language which was intended to hold up in court, rather than language that was intended to uplift the heart of His individual disciples, and give them the impetus and desire to obey His Orders, without the need for legislative or common law to enforce them.
On any level, love cannot be enforced. Love is the outcome of genuine attraction, and Srila Prabhupada said that our Krishna Conscious activities should be based on attraction, not promotion. With such loving exchanges as spoken in the Nectar of Instruction by Srila Rupa Goswami, this Krishna Consciousness Movement is a “popular Movement” — a movement of the people, by the people, and for the people.
For this reason the important factor is that the temples must be independent, as stated in the body of the Direction of Management itself.
Because various temples may be in different districts or jurisdictions, they may take the same name, unless there is some objection in that regard by another temple of that name. One of the few legitimate duties of the elected GBC is to make sure that any temple calling itself ISKCON actually follows the Instructions and Vani of Srila Prabhupada, and that His Melodies, His Teachings, His Arcana Worship, are presented, undiluted, by the influence of other beliefs or practices from outside sources.
I hope that the explanation above will help to clarify any misunderstanding that might be there in this very direct and simple document.
Your eternal servant,
Roupa Manjari devi dasi
Speak Your Mind