 | Law and Language
|
| In his Preface to the published body of ISKCON Law, the late, lamented Suhotra Swami, who was then [1997-98] the 2nd Vice Chairman of the GBC, wrote, “there are undoubtedly areas that our laws do not cover sufficiently.”
|
| He was certainly correct. A perusal of ISKCON law shows few if any laws guaranteeing justice to regular ISKCON devotees, who constitute most of our movement.
|
| On its current website, the GBC hedges Suhotra Swami’s statement by declaring that “…there may be some areas that our laws do not cover sufficiently.”
|
| I begin my analysis of published ISKCON/GBC law by studying its language. Does ISKCON law contain the very language of justice? Read and judge for yourself.
|
| Equality
|
| Equality is a key concept in the Bhagavad-gītā, and it stands at the core of justice. Yet the word equality does not appear in ISKCON Law. Equality cannot be taken as a merely Western concern. Indeed, Prabhupada uses the word many hundreds of times in Vedabase, often with a philosophical and moral sense similar to the Western sense.
|
| The word equal appears once in forty years of GBC law, in this sentence: “The devotional service of the women is considered equal by Lord Kṛṣṇa and the spiritual master.” Given the status of women in ISKCON, and the wording of this sentence, and the absence of any ISKCON law guaranteeing equal justice to women, this one use of the word equal in ISKCON law can only refer to the internal pleasure of Kṛṣṇa and guru. It guarantees Vaiṣṇavīs no equal justice in the visible world.
|
| Other Key Words
|
| Published ISKCON law does mention rights of devotees, but only as follows:- 1. Law 7.1.1 Disciples have a right to worship their guru, to accept instruction and initiation, to associate with other gurus, and to aspire for shelter and initiation.
|
| But what if a leader mistreats them in some way? In that case, ISKCON law gives disciples no right to justice or compensation.- 2. Law 3.4.1.4.d states that Regional Governing Bodies must define the rights and responsibilities of RGB members. ISKCON law does not define those rights, nor do those undefined rights apply to non-RGB members.
- 3. Law 15.4.2.3: Congregational programs must negotiate sankirtana rights with local temples.
|
| Conclusion: ISKCON law says nothing about the rights of regular devotees to be treated with justice by their superiors.
|
| Are rights a purely Western idea? No. Kṛṣṇa states in Bhagavad-gītā 2.47, “You have a right to your duty.” Kṛṣṇa teaches that our duty is born of our nature [3.33, 18.41-44], and that we achieve perfection by working according to our own nature [18.45-46], and that we must not perform another’s duty [18.47], for it is dangerous to do so [3.35].
|
| We may therefore conclude that this vital right to perform the service or duty born of our nature entails a clear right within ISKCON: the right, the necessity, to perform service according to one’s nature.
|
| Any leader who denies a devotee, man or woman, the right to serve Kṛṣṇa according to his or her nature is preventing that devotee from obeying Kṛṣṇa’s order, and is forcing that devotee, man or woman, into a spiritually dangerous situation. [3.35]
|
| Thus Kṛṣṇa’s declaration of our right to serve Him according to our nature has serious social consequences, and is ultimately the foundation of all our other rights. So the notion of rights comes from Kṛṣṇa Himself. But the word does not appear in forty years of GBC law.
|
| The word fair occurs once in ISKCON law, in the phrase, “the fair market value for such property.” The word fair is not used in ISKCON law to express ethical, moral, or spiritual concern for the treatment of devotees.
|
| The word fairness does not occur in ISKCON law.
|
| The word just, as a synonym of fair occurs once in ISKCON law, to say that a GBC’s annual report should include: “…debts which with just cause could not be avoided…” The word just is not used in ISKCON law to express ethical, moral, or spiritual concern for devotees.
|
| The word impartial occurs once in ISKCON law, to describe an investigation into whether a property should be sold or not. GBC law does not use the word impartial to express ethical, moral, or spiritual concern in the treatment of devotees.
|
| ISKCON law uses the terms fair, just, and impartial only to describe management concerns, never to speak of the treatment of devotees. Equality and fairness do not appear in ISKCON law. And the word rights is used in ways that offer devotees no significant protection from mistreatment.
|
| The terms due process and fair process do not appear in ISKCON law.
|
| What about the word justice itself? Here too, those seeking guarantees of justice in ISKCON law will be disappointed.
|
| Justice in GBC Law
|
| Published ISKCON law has two sections on justice:
- 1. Section 4.4.2 establishes and defines the so-called Justice Ministry.
- 2. Section 17 defines ISKCON justice itself.
|
| GBC Law 4.4.2 Justice Ministry
|
| The 2011 GBC resolution establishing the ISKCON Dispute Resolution Office (IDRO, to be discussed later) contains this telling phrase, “Whereas previous attempts to create a judicial process in ISKCON never took hold…”
|
| “...never took hold...” is a polite way of saying that the GBC’s Justice Ministry has been essentially defunct for many years. And nothing substantial has been done to replace it. Nonetheless, we should examine what ISKCON law says about the Justice Ministry to better understand the GBC theory of justice.
|
| In 2002, the GBC authorized, and then supported, ISKCON Resolve, an often effective mediation program. More recently, in 2011, the GBC established IDRO, as stated above.
|
| However, neither program provides a system of justice for ISKCON, as I will show later. For now, let us examine what GBC law says, and does not say, about the phantom Justice Ministry.
|
| I begin with the unsaid: no GBC Resolutions—that is, no ISKCON law—dealing with the Justice Ministry says anything about individual devotee rights, nor makes any reference to any other text, including GBC papers, that guarantees the rights of regular devotees to justice in ISKCON.
|
| Moreover, as stated above, for decades none of the GBC resolutions about the Justice Ministry have been executed. Thus for decades the GBC knowingly allowed a situation in which ISKCON has no program dedicated to justice.
|
| It is sad and ironic that the first ISKCON law about the Justice Ministry states:
|
| “4.4.2.1 Definition: The Ministry of Justice is…fully authorized by the GBC, …given assurance of the participatory support of each GBC member which will be necessary to successfully execute the mandate described herein, and given sufficient resources to efficiently and effectively deal with grievances and complaints which arise within ISKCON.”
|
| Of course, apart from mediation, none of this has really taken place for decades. Also this section of GBC law does not give guidelines, definitions, or descriptions of what justice actually is within ISKCON.
|
| GBC Law 17.1-2 Justice
|
| One might hope that section 17 of ISKCON law, titled Justice, would explain what justice is for devotees in general. But that hope would be in vain.
|
| ISKCON law’s tiny section 17 on Justice basically states that a devotee with grievance against a temple president may appeal to the GBC zonal secretary, and meanwhile follow orders.
|
| Note that according to this Justice section of ISKCON law, a devotee cannot appeal a decision of a GBC zonal secretary. Only a temple president can do that. Nothing has been added to this section on Justice in twenty-three years.
|
| Besides resolutions establishing the phantom Justice Ministry, and a tiny section telling us how to appeal the actions of a temple president, the word justice does not appear in published ISKCON law.
|
| In all published ISKCON law, there is no description of justice itself, nor a clear declaration of the rights of individual devotees.
|
| Yet though GBC law does not efficiently protect devotees from injustice, it does efficiently punish them. To use the preferred GBC word, the laws discipline the devotees.
|
| Sadly, however, GBC law lacks both the language and spirit of equal justice based on the equality of souls, a concept taught in Bhagavad-gītā, and in the West. Thus it is not surprising that GBC law presents a system of hierarchical justice: heavier on the powerless, and those with limited power; heaviest on those with competing power: and most lenient with those who make the laws.
|
| I will first list the ranks in this hierarchy, and then survey the hierarchical justice system by citing GBC law.
|
| The ISKCON power hierarchy is as follows:
- 1. The powerless tend to be devotees in general who hold no position in ISKCON, and have little influence on decisions that shape Prabhupada’s mission.
- 2. Those with limited power are what GBC law 5.5. calls ISKCON officials, with the titles of President, Vice-President, Treasurer, Temple Management Council Member, Project Director, Congregational Preaching Director etc. Law 5.5 stipulates that this group does not include Regional Secretaries, gurus, or GBCs.
- 3. Those with competing power are gurus. As I will show, the GBC goes to extraordinary lengths to control this potentially dangerous group. More than managers, gurus tend to be charismatic leaders. And sociologists point out that charisma by nature threatens bureaucratic authority.
- 4. At the hierarchical summit is the ruling GBC, with their closest colleagues: regional secretaries, and members of regional governing boards whose members include some GBC representatives.
|
| Next, a study of GBC law, especially those laws that set standards, and punish deviation, reveals the hierarchical, unequal, nature of justice for various groups. Beginning with the powerless, devotees in general, we will proceed through the four groups till we reach the legal pinnacle: GBC members, the lawmakers themselves.
|
English
Español
Pусский
Português