 | Summary of ISKCON’s GBC
|
| I began this essay explaining that although the GBC is ISKCON’s ultimate managing authority, there have been crucial moments in ISKCON’s history when non-GBC devotees provided the impetus and logic for urgent action taken by the GBC.
|
| Further, Prabhupada wanted us all to work together, as he made clear when he first convoked the annual GBC meeting in Mayapura.
|
| Using the word political in its neutral sense to indicate the exercise of authority in a society, I described the political pendulum effect, whereby one administrative extreme, be it anarchy or tyranny, produces its opposite extreme. This should caution us to avoid administrative extremes in ISKCON.
|
| I showed how Prabhupada wanted us to engage all fields of advanced knowledge, including social sciences, in the Lord’s service, and in that spirit I engage scholarship in my attempt to analyze ISKCON governance.
|
| I began with standard sociology of religion, which speaks of the three forms of authority in a religious movement: charismatic, traditional, and legal-rational.
|
| We saw that to survive and flourish, a religious movement must channel the spiritual power and authority of its charismatic founder into sustainable institutional traditions and rational laws. Indeed, the Gauḍīya Maṭha disintegrated because it failed to perform that process.
|
| I then analyzed a GBC self-description from the official GBC website and concluded that at least in this statement, the GBC had mistakenly concluded that in his will, Prabhupada had appointed them the successor ācārya of, and heir to, ISKCON.
|
| I argued that in fact, Prabhupada did exactly what he said he was doing: naming the GBC as the ultimate managing authority of ISKCON, not as a successor Ācārya that stands above ISKCON law. The GBC failed to provide historical evidence for their argument that Prabhupada implicitly named as his full heir and successor, simply naming them in the first clause of his will.
|
| I then discussed the dangers to ISKCON of this mistaken self-understanding, in which imperfect souls claim the authority of a perfect soul. Imperfect souls suffer loss of empathy in proportion to their increase of power. Also, the GBC is an oligarchy and the iron law of oligarchy explains the tendency of ruling groups to increase their power at the expense of the citizens; and the tendency of power to fall into ever fewer hands.
|
| The tendency of saintly GBCs to avoid heavy management adds to this problem.
|
| We then saw that history is replete with cases of austere, pious tyrants who acted cruelly. The GBC is not cruel but its members who are not fully pure will be affected to some extent by general human tendencies.
|
| Perhaps the most significant manifestation of this error is the GBC’s tendency to act above and outside the rules of justice, such as fair process. I argued by obeying reasonable laws, the GBC follows Prabhupada. To act outside those laws is to imitate Prabhupada.
|
| I then discussed Western and Vedic notions of justice and showed that both traditions link justice to the equality of souls, and the need to govern in a way that maximizes human freedom.
|
| Kṛṣṇa Himself teaches justice and equality in the Bhagavad-gītā.
|
| I explained that Kṛṣṇa also teaches hierarchy in terms of the varṇāśrama system He created, and that a virtuous society must balance the spiritual equality of all souls with the needfor functional hierarchy. This concern finds close echoes in Western philosophy, as in the ideas of Mill and Durkheim.
|
| I then surveyed the categories of justice, and the special importance of fair process.
|
| A study of GBC/ISKCON law showed that the very language of justice—words like equality, justice, fair process, rights etc.—is missing from ISKCON law. Also the GBC allowed the Justice Ministry to lapse into total dysfunction, and did not take the initiative to revive or replace it.
|
| I then showed that restraint and punishment in GBC law is heaviest on those with little or no power and lightest on those with ultimate power. This has obvious implications and perils.
|
| I gave special attention to the dramatic disparity in the rules, restraints, and punishments placed on ISKCON’s two most powerful groups: GBC and Gurus.
|
| An examination of the appeal process in GBC law showed it to be seriously deficient.
|
| This matters, since the right to fair appeal is a pillar of justice.
|
| I next examined the important GBC paper titled Understanding ISKCON Lines of Authority. The essay aims to define and clarify the relationship between ISKCON managers, such as GBCs and Temple Presidents, and ISKCON Gurus and Sannyāsīs.
|
| I appreciated the intention of the paper, to persuade devotees that the GBC is reasonable and justified in its policies. However, I pointed out a number of serious problems in UILA, such as the tendency to exaggerate GBC power and minimize the role of other ISKCON authorities. We saw this in UILA’s virtual exclusion of gurus and sannyāsīs from the planning of preaching strategy.
|
| UILA also tends to strongly subordinate all devotees to ISKCON’s ultimate managers. Prabhupada stressed cooperation. The GBC stress subordination. Prabhupada also stressed the importance of individual freedom and dignity among the Lord’s servants. There is little of such language in UILA.
|
| UILA quotes Prabhupada saying that the GBC will be ISKCON’s primary teacher when he is gone. I then suggested what the GBC must do, and not do, to fulfill this mandate. For example, GBCs must not use political power to exclude ideas they cannot objectively refute, nor to impose ideas that they cannot reasonably show to be exclusively valid. This has been a problem in ISKCON.
|
| Since Prabhupada urged the GBC to write a constitution, I next examine the latest constitution draft. I showed that this draft is well-intentioned, and wise on some points, but that it ultimately fails to inspire, mandate, or explain justice in ISKCON. Thus it does not fulfill its stated purpose — to protect our rights, and establish a constitutional foundation for a rational, just ISKCON.
|
| Finally, I show that ISKCON Resolve, an effective mediation program, and the more recent ISKCON Dispute Resolution Office, cannot, by their own charters and rules, ensure justice to ISKCON devotees.
|
| Why Justice?
|
| Without justice, any managing authority will rule within a culture of impunity, in which mediocrity, tyranny, and injustice go unaddressed.
|
| The more devotees are convinced that the GBC governs with justice, compassion, and strategic ingenuity, the more devotees now estranged from ISKCON bureaucracy and hierarchy will consider more direct involvement in ISKCON’s mission. Only thus can the GBC fulfill their obligation to Prabhupada — to unite ISKCON and dynamically spread his movement.
|
| There exists between GBC and non-GBC devotees a relationship of mutual obligation, mutual duty. The GBC receives its authority from Kṛṣṇa through Prabhupada. That authority requires them to treat devotees with respect and fairness.
|
| It is the GBC’s duty to do what is right, fair, and beneficial for ISKCON. And they must persuade the devotees that they are doing so.
|
| Hierarchy and equality must be kept in balance. The GBC must not overemphasize hierarchy so that it obscures our ultimate equality. Nor can we overemphasize equality so that it obscures legitimate hierarchies. Extreme equality and extreme hierarchy both threaten Prabhupada’s balanced vision for ISKCON. We must avoid the political pendulum effect.
|
| Ultimately, ISKCON needs a strong, wise, inspiring GBC if we are to flourish as a society and fulfill the brilliant, ambitious hopes and prophecies of our Founder-Ācārya.
|
| I wrote this paper as a sincere attempt to address needed reforms in ISKCON governance. I hope the GBC and other ISKCON devotees will accept it in that spirit. To all those who read these words, may we work together to fulfill Prabhupada’s vision for his movement, ISKCON. The world depends on us.
|
English
Español
Pусский
Português