 | ISKCON Resolve (IR)
|
| ISKCON is blessed with an excellent mediation program, ISKCON Resolve (IR), led by highly trained devotees. Throughout ISKCON, IR has facilitated peace and cooperation where there was strife and conflict.
|
| Yet as IR explains on their website, mediation works within strict and limited boundaries.
|
| I will list these in IR’s own words:
- 1. “Mediation is a voluntary process that helps two or more people in conflict clarify their issues and goals... and try to reach a constructive resolution.”
|
| Thus if an ISKCON member believes that he or she has been mistreated or denied justice by a leader, the leader may simply refuse to enter into mediation, which is voluntary on both sides. Result: there is no mediation.
- 2. “Mediators do not make decisions about who is right or wrong or how things should be resolved—all decisions are made by the parties.”
|
| Thus a mediator cannot rule that an ISKCON leader acted improperly no matter what the circumstances.
- 3. “The Mediator is not a judge and will not impose a solution on either party.”
|
| The mediator cannot enforce justice.
|
| Conclusion: IR is a valuable program that does much good within ISKCON. But by its own rules, and the very nature of mediation, IR cannot ensure justice, including fair process, to those who feel they have been treated unfairly in ISKCON.
|
| IDRO ISKCON Dispute Resolution Office
|
| The GBC Resolution establishing IDRO admits that ISKCON’s justice ministry was long defunct:
|
| “Whereas previous attempts to create a judicial process in ISKCON never took hold...” There is clear evidence that though allowing IDRO to exist, the GBC made no serious commitment to justice in ISKCON, as shown by the following:
|
| - 1. A senior non-GBC devotee lobbied for IDRO.
- 2. After authorizing IDRO, the GBC took three years to appoint a director.
- 3. To enable IDRO to promote justice in nearly a thousand ISKCON projects in over a hundred countries, a task requiring a competent staff, global communications, international investigative travel etc., the GBC provides IDRO about $250 per month. This amount provides for about $20 per year per country, or one dollar and sixty cents per month, per country. ISKCON spend tens of millions of dollars on opulent temples and, literally, pennies on justice.
- 4. Having taken three years to appoint an IDRO director, and having provided almost no funding for IDRO, the GBC did virtually nothing to let ISKCON devotees know of IDRO’s existence. A search of the official GBC website produced no information of its existence. A search of Iskconnews.com produced no information. A search of Dandavats.com shows one brief article on IDRO posted over a year ago.
|
| Still, IDRO does exist, and it could provide hope for ISKCON justice. In that spirit, I point out here what I see as IDRO’s main structural problems. All quotations below are from IDRO’s own documents.
|
| - 1. IDRO will only accept a case that “concerns a violation of ISKCON law.” I showed earlier the grave inadequacy of ISKCON law in regard to justice for individual devotees. Andwithout adequate law, many, probably most, cases of injustice will not qualify for resolution by IDRO. Indeed, there are so few laws protecting basic devotee rights, that many forms of injustice in ISKCON are consistent with ISKCON law. IDRO cannot act in those cases of legal injustice.
- 2. IDRO does not accept a case “when the substance of the complaint is theological.” I discussed this in detail in my review of UILA’s claim that the GBC is to manage philosophy in ISKCON. At times, theological views sanctioned by Prabhupada are forbidden by local ISKCON authorities, including GBCs. IDRO could not act in such a case.
- 3. IDRO states that in a case of dispute, “Individual parties pay for arbitration.” In the past, the high cost of justice ruined the Justice Ministry, which essentially could only offer justice to the rich. This same danger stalks the IDRO, unless the GBC funds justice. Presently, this is not the case.
- 3. IDRO also rejects a case as inappropriate “when the matter requires an ISKCON authority’s decision. This system does not circumvent standard managerial decisions by ISKCON leadership nor is it meant to allow leaders to neglect their duties.”
|
| This rather opaque rule seems to allow the GBC, or lesser authorities, to declare a matter to be a managerial decision, and thus outside IDRO jurisdiction. Of course a complainant could allege that the managerial decision was abusive, unfair etc., but we have no clear guidelines for such cases, assuming ISKCON law, which is weak on justice, is not violated.
|
| The intersection of managerial responsibility and justice is not clear. This rule requires explication.
|
| IDRO could be a significant step toward ISKCON justice. Yet to fulfill its potential, IDRO must receive much more GBC support. Years ago, the GBC invited senior, learned devotees to form a Śāstra Advisory Council (SAC) to counsel the GBC on theological matters. But the GBC later ignored key findings of the SAC, such as their conclusion that a qualified Vaiṣṇavī has the right to accept disciples. This and other GBC neglect of the SAC demoralized several important members who then resigned. The SAC at present plays a very limited role in ISKCON.
|
| We can expect something similar with IDRO, unless the GBC takes justice in ISKCON far more seriously.
|
English
Español
Pусский
Português