 | Recourse and Appeal for Ordinary devotees?
|
| An important principle of justice is the right of appeal. For ISKCON devotees, this means that a devotee who believes that he or she has suffered injustice has the right to present their case to an appropriate ISKCON authority, with full confidence that the case will be handled strictly according to fair process. Clearly, this right of appeal is needed to help eliminate injustice based on poor adjudication, or simple tyranny.
|
| I will review here the forms of appeal offered by ISKCON law.
- 4.4.2.4.3.2: The GBC, at its discretion, may accept appeals of decisions made by the (defunct) Justice Ministry, with no guarantee of fair process.
- 5.5: A disciplined “ISKCON Official” may appeal a ruling to an RGB, or if there is none, to the GBC, with no guarantee of fair process.
- 7.4.2: Similarly, diksa-guru candidates may appeal their rejection by a Local Area Council, with no guarantee of fair process.
- 7.4.6: Disciplined, i.e. punished, gurus may appeal, with no guarantee of fair process.
- 8.4: An “ISKCON participant” not allowed to participate may also appeal, with no guarantee of fair process.
- 17.1-2: Generally, decisions of lower authorities may be appealed to higher authorities, the process ending of course with the GBC body, with no guarantee of fair process.
|
| All the above appeals involve alleged misconduct by an ISKCON leader below the GBC. What if you believe that a GBC member acted badly? What can you do? We find two GBC laws to guide us:
|
| 3.5.5.1.4. Guidelines for evaluating GBC Zonal Secretary “That if a Temple President or local Temple Council thinks that an assigned GBC Zonal Secretary is not fulfilling the responsibilities of that position, he should communicate with the GBC Executive Committee.”
|
| If you are not a temple president, nor member of a temple council, or if you are a council member but cannot convince the other members to join you, then even if you are sure that a GBC zonal secretary is acting badly, you have no clear recourse in ISKCON law. And even if you are a temple president or council member with council support, you have no guarantee of fair process.
|
| 8.2.2 Difficulties with a GBC member “When there are significant difficulties with a GBC member, one should state his problem in writing and forward to the GBC Executive Committee for necessary consideration.”
|
| Needless to say, neither GBC law 3.5.5.1.4, nor 8.2.2., guarantees that the GBC Executive Committee will read your communication, act upon it, or give you timely justice. The GBC here as everywhere in GBC law, does not commit to fair process, whether you are the appellant, or the accused.
|
| Further, if the GBC body allows one of its members to seriously harm a temple or project, the GBC body is not responsible for the damage it permitted, according to GBC law:
|
| “3.1.4.2 If it is demonstrated that the GBC Body did not function in a timely manner to rectify one of its representatives, and as a result, an individual ISKCON temple or project suffers inordinately, then the GBC Body is to consider how to help the local temple or project overcome its difficulties, but the GBC Body cannot be held liable in any way.”
|
| Note that this law only covers harm to an ISKCON temple or project. The law does not consider a case where the GBC Body allows one of its members to seriously harm you as an individual. GBC law does not concern itself with that. Indeed, the GBC is not even required to “consider how to help” a devotee damaged by the actions of a GBC member.
|
| Moreover, if you have been harmed by the GBC body, or if you believe the GBC body caused serious harm to other individuals or projects, then ISKCON law forbids you to privately discuss your concerns with a member of the GBC, as stated here: “3.5.4.1.6 [A] GBC member shouldn’t indulge with non-GBC men in criticizing the GBC Body.”
|
| Sadly, it seems that whatever the good intentions of some GBCs may be, GBC law recognizes two distinct levels of devotees:
- 1. Above: GBC members (and their RGB and Regional Secretary colleagues.)
- 2. Below: Everyone else.
|
| GBC Does Not Publish Self-disciplinary Rules
|
| On their website, the GBC acknowledges the need to update their laws, “to address laws that may be outdated, unneeded, ambiguous or unclearly worded.”
|
| Based on that statement, one might argue that I have unfairly cited laws that the GBC itself sees as outdated or unclearly worded. However, I believe that I have been reasonable in my citations for two reasons:
- 1. I have quoted laws that reflect the way that many, GBC members behave in the real world. These laws may seem outdated or unneeded to some saintly GBCs, but those laws are implicitly deployed by other members to stifle opposition and impose their will.
- 2. Ultimately, law is law. Until those laws are repealed or changed, present and future GBCs may impose those laws at their pleasure.
|
| Stifling Debate Through Outdated Law
|
| I will give a practical example of a GBC law which is clearly outdated in one sense, but is still deployed in another dangerous sense, and therefore needs to be cited here. I refer to GBC law 8.2.2, titled, Support and Adjust to GBC Decisions. It states: “The authorized forum for GBC policy is the annual GBC meeting, annual ISKCON Leaders meeting, annual sannyasis assembly, and similar official meetings held after the Gaura-purnima festival at Sri Mayapur. Outside of these meetings it is the duty of all ISKCON members and leaders to support and adjust to GBC decisions. Srila Prabhupada’s principle was to meet once a year, make decisions, and follow them during the year. Activities contrary to this, shall be considered as a serious breach of etiquette and discipline.”
|
| This law is both outdated and dangerous.
- 1. Outdated: This 1986 law claims that Prabhupada’s “principle” was for the GBC to meet once per year, and that to do otherwise is “a serious breach of etiquette and discipline.”
|
| The GBC now has at least two annual meetings, and no one considers this “a serious breach.”
|
| Also, the law states that the GBC meets after the Gaura-pūrṇimā, festival when in fact they now meet before it. So those parts of the resolution are outdated.
|
| - 2. Dangerous: The real point of this law is its title, the command to Support and Adjust to GBC Decisions. The intention is clear: the real serious breach of etiquette and discipline is to question or criticize GBC decisions outside of these meetings. Since inside the meetings, it is very hard for devotees in general to gain admittance, and nearly impossible to get quality time to speak, this GBC law effectively criminalizes free speech and open debate in ISKCON regarding the laws that control our lives.
|
| This is perfectly clear from the opening words of this GBC law: “The authorized forum for GBC policy…” A forum is “a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.” Thus according to this law, outside of GBC related meetings, there is no authorized place, meeting, or medium (including email, personal conversation etc.) to exchange ideas on GBC policy. This does sound rather totalitarian, based on the literal meaning of the words in GBC law 8.2.2.
|
| GBC resolution 3.5.4.1 has a similar message: “A GBC member shouldn’t indulge with non-GBC men in criticizing the GBC Body.” This means:
- 1. In the company of non-GBC devotees, a GBC member can never admit any fault on the GBC’s part.
- 2. Thus non-GBC members can never discuss GBC problems with a GBC member, at least not if the GBC member agrees with the criticism.
|
| GBC Does Not Publish Self-disciplinary Rules
|
| The GBC also discourages possible challenges to GBC conduct by concealing GBC laws that speak in detail of possible GBC misconduct.
|
| For example, at the 1988 Mayapur meetings, on February 26, the GBC passed a resolution explicitly stating under what circumstances a GBC member may be censured, put on probation, suspended, or removed. But this resolution was not published in ISKCON Law.
|
| Rather, in ISKCON Law 5.5, the word GBC has been everywhere deleted from this elaborate text, and replaced with the words, “an ISKCON official.” GBC published law thus refers only indirectly to a GBC member.
|
| Although technically, “an ISKCON official” could be a GBC member, the GBC is shy to ever publish laws that explicitly spell out possible GBC misconduct.
|
| The GBC is not shy about explicitly mentioning other leaders, especially dīkṣā gurus. Basically, the same rules to censure, put on probation, suspend, or remove a dīkṣā guru, by name, are found in section 84 of ISKCON law. The GBC did not soften the laws on dīkṣā gurus by, for example, replacing the word dīkṣā guru with spiritual authorities. But they did remove the name GBC from all detailed disciplinary laws.
|
| We have already seen much of this in our study of ISKCON Law, and we will see more in the next section, in our analysis of the major GBC paper, Understanding ISKCON Lines of Authority.
|
English
Español
Pусский
Português