His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

Supporting Brief 
For Case Against GBC 

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami (hereinafter referred to by his spiritual title, Srila Prabhupada) founded the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (hereinafter referred to as ISKCON) in 1966. He physically expired on November 14^th, 1977, at the age of 81. Hereinafter the period of time within ISKCON before his departure (1966-77) will be referred to as 'pre-departure' and the period thereafter for the rest of ISKCON's duration shall be known as 'post-departure'.

To assist with the management of ISKCON Srila Prabhupada also set up a Governing Body Commission (hereinafter referred to as the GBC) as early as 1970. The exact parameters for how this management should be carried out by the GBC was set down in the official terms of reference for the GBC, that were approved by Srila Prabhupada himself at the 1975 annual general meeting of ISKCON, which is held every year by the GBC at the ISKCON headquarters in Mayapura, West Bengal. These are set out below:

It is clear from the above that management by the GBC was to be carried out under very strict parameters, with the GBC being responsible for only executing the instructions directly originating from Srila Prabhupada, and to 'preserve' whatever he has given. There is no scope whatsoever for the GBC to deviate from these principles, and introduce or teach anything not expressly taught by Srila Prabhupada.

Thus if the GBC are found to have either failed to execute any instruction given by Srila Prabhupada, or introduce anything not directly given by Srila Prabhupada, then they would clearly be in breach of their authority, and the management of ISKCON would be brought into disrepute.

To summarise, in running ISKCON, the GBC:

1. Can ONLY implement instructions directly issued by Srila Prabhupada:

'The GBC has no other function or purpose than to execute the instructions so kindly given by His Divine Grace'

2. The GBC must keep intact and apply ONLY whatever Srila Prabhupada has taught:

'and preserve and spread His Teachings to the world in their pure form.'

Thus unless Srila Prabhupada specifically issued a different set of instructions for how the GBC must govern the society post-departure, there would be a natural continuity in the way ISKCON was managed both before and after Srila Prabhupada's physical demise, since management could only be conducted under teachings and instructions which were already in place for running the society whilst Srila Prabhupada was present. The GBC would have no mandate to change these instructions or introduce their own instructions, simply because we had now entered the post-departure time period.

Evidence From The Last Will and Testament

That the GBC will also have the ultimate authority for managing ISKCON post-departure in precisely the manner given above, is further set out very clearly in Srila Prabhupada's 'Last Will and Testament', copy enclosed. The first 2 statements both go to confirm that the GBC body must continue to manage ISKCON post-departure, in exactly the same manner that was established by Srila Prabhupada pre-departure. These key defining opening statements are given below:

 
Statement 1 makes it clear that the GBC mandate for managing ISKCON will continue for the rest of ISKCON's duration. We have already established above that this mandate can only be exercised within the 'No Change' paradigm, i.e. whatever teachings and instructions had already been given by Srila Prabhupada pre-departure, shall alone guide the management of ISKCON. And this in turn will effectively mean whatever management was already in place pre-departure will continue post-departure, unless separate instructions had been issued to apply only and specifically post-departure. The second statement confirms this explicitly:

'The system of management will continue as it is now and there is no need of any change. '

There have been attempts made to state that this statement is not generic in nature, and instead is limited in scope by linking its application only to the facet of temple management set out in the sentence immediately preceding it i.e. 'The need for 3 executive directors and each temple to be an ISKCON property.' Though the above sentence of statement 2 better placed as a stand-alone statement, nevertheless, the will does not actually STATE the above restriction since the term used is 'The system of management' i.e. it IS generic; and is without any restrictions or referents. Indeed to support the above contention, a term such as 'This system of management', etc would be required.

Further Evidence For 'No Change' Paradigm

We have so far established that management by the GBC is to be carried out on a 'no change' basis, which is that there is to be a continuity in the management carried out between pre and post-departure time periods i.e. the GBC can only manage by implementing the instructions directly issued by Srila Prabhupada. The GBC have no right to change any management directive issued by Srila Prabhupada unless express authority for this is granted.

Further confirmation for this 'no change' model is given by the way the teachings of Srila Prabhupada have been communicated. The GBC definition above referred to the need to 'preserve' the 'teachings' of Srila Prabhupada. Now the bulk of these teachings were written down by Srila Prabhupada in his many books. Yet significantly these teachings were given as a standard for the ISKCON institution as a whole, for all time, since separate books were not written for different time periods:

This means that:

1) The books are definitely applicable for the post-departure time period just as much as the pre-departure time period.

2) Thus the books will detail all the teachings and standards that were personally established by Srila Prabhupada during the pre-departure.

It follows therefore that the 'teachings' and instructions' of Srila Prabhupada supported an ISKCON that operated without change during the transition between the pre and post-departure period. Thus there is a complete continuity in the application of Srila Prabhupada's instructions and teachings - whatever was in place pre-departure must also be in place post-departure. This is just further confirmation that the GBC were supposed to manage on a 'no change' basis, and not change management directives issued by Srila Prabhupada simply because we may have moved into the post-departure time period.

Specific Management Directive On Initiation

We have established irrevocably that management by the GBC could only be carried out under certain strict guidelines, which effectively meant that whatever had been put in place by Srila Prabhupada pre-departure, would remain so even post-departure, unless expressly stated otherwise, and it was not the GBC's role to interfere with these arrangements, but to simply manage them.

We are particularly concerned with one very key directive issued to the GBC by Srila Prabhupada, shortly before his departure, whose unauthorised termination by the GBC on Srila Prabhupada's departure, has fundamentally altered the whole history and course of ISKCON for over the last 20 years, with disastrous consequences. It is this directive that we are appealing to the court to compel the GBC to immediately re-institute.

July 9^th Directive

On July 9^th , 1977, Srila Prabhupada issued an institutional directive to all the GBC's and temple presidents of ISKCON, setting out a policy to be implemented in ISKCON from that point onwards. Please find this directive enclosed. The policy sets out the process by which the ceremonial formalities of initiation (diksa) would now be conducted in ISKCON through the agency of an initial list of 11 named representatives, who were the disciples of Srila Prabhupada. In effect it simply formalised, with some amendments, the practice that had been common in ISKCON for many years anyway. Only now the amendment meant that the practice could continue in ISKCON without the need at all, of any involvement from Srila Prabhupada, and it became enshrined as the official policy for the whole movement to follow under the management of the GBC.

This directive was very important since sometimes in religious institutions, the acarya or head issues a document shortly before his departure detailing how the Guru succession of the institution would now be handed over to a certain named individual. However with this directive, Srila Prabhupada made it clear to the whole movement that the arrangements which were already in place, with him as the sole initiating (diksa) guru for the whole movement, would continue. The directive states that all new recruits to the movement would be 'initiated disciples' of Srila Prabhupada only, with the named representatives, acting only as that, representatives. This point is made 3 times, in a directive which is itself very short (2 paragraphs) and to the point.

This directive was the final communication on this issue, and was issued only 120 days before Srila Prabhupada's departure, and after the 'Last Will and Testament' had already been registered.

Unfortunately the directive was terminated by the GBC immediately upon Srila Prabhupada's departure. Instead a new policy was instituted whereby the 11 named representatives in the directive, now suddenly became the Guru/acarya successors to Srila Prabhupada. At the time no specific document from Srila Prabhupada authorising this change was ever produced. To this date they have been unable to produce such a document, having been challenged repeatedly.

Consequently there is no reason why this directive is not applicable even today in ISKCON. We have already demonstrated above how the management of such a directive by the GBC would need to be done, even post-departure, in such a way that there should be 'no change' to the directive, and that it must be 'executed' in whole, and its contents 'preserved'. The following characteristics of the directive merely reinforce this point, establishing it as a permanent management directive for the institution, applicable both pre- and post-departure equally to the institution.

1.   This directive was issued specifically with two signatures, one of the secretary who sent it out, and one from Srila Prabhupada who approved it. This presence of two signatures gives the directive the status of a legal document. Indeed though the directive was issued on July 9^th, 1977, it was sent out to the all GBC members physically on July 21^st, in a letter written by another GBC, Ramesvara Swami. In this letter the directive is referred specifically to as a 'document' along with Last Will and Testament, which was also sent out at the same time. (This letter is enclosed). Thus the legal validity of this directive is beyond question.

2.   The RECIPIENT of the directive is an institution (via the trustees/managing officers of the institution), that was set up SPECIFICALLY to exist after the departure of the Founder.

3.   The nature of the directive relates to activities to be conducted ONLY by the institution's managing officers in the future.

4.   The PURPOSE of the directive as given at the outset of the document, is given in GENERIC not SPECIFIC terms - "the purpose of performing initiations, both first initiation and second initiation." Though the rest of the document makes it clear that those initiated will definitely belong to the Founder only, and specific officers are named to assist in the process, the fact that the purpose is stated generically, establishes that the need for the instruction would therefore remain in force in that institution for as long as that PURPOSE needs to be fulfilled. In this case that purpose would be the need for 'performing initiations, both first initiation and second initiation'. This purpose of course will need to be fulfilled as long as the institution exists.

Thus the recipient, the nature, the executors and purpose of the directive all tie its applicability to the institution. In such a circumstance only the demise of the INSTITUTION would have any legal or logical effect in determining the longevity of the system set out in the directive, not the demise of the Founder who assented to the instruction. Thus the system set out in the directive will remain in force as the system for the institution, as long as the institution remains.

Supporting Evidence

In addition to this directive, Srila Prabhupada also had his secretary send a further letter to one of the GBC's and 11 representatives named in the directive, whereby he encouraged him to 'continue' with the duties set out in the directive. Again there is no instruction to terminate the directive, and under the parameters for how the GBC should operate, the GBC concerned would need to 'continue' with the implementation of the directive as instructed. (See enclosed)

Also in the last will and testament, having seen the evidence from statements 1 and 2 above, we can turn to statement 3, whereby the following instruction regarding the appointment of future executive directors for certain ISKCON properties in India is given:

Here we see a post-departure arrangement for the institution, that is consistent with the directive in question, using the same language as the directive, and which could only be implemented if the directive was implemented. This is because in the absence of the directive there would be no arrangement for the production of future 'INITIATED DISCIPLES' of Srila Prabhupada, and thus the pool of potential, executive directors would soon be exhausted.

The books of Srila Prabhupada which as we have seen contain the main 'teachings' and 'instructions' that need to be 'executed and 'preserved' by the GBC body, also make specific reference to the system set out in the directive, as given below:

This is the system of initiation, that was in place in ISKCON pre-departure, and which was formalised in the directive. As demonstrated earlier, the books are equally applicable post-departure, and thus there can never be any change between pre and post-departure systems in ISKCON mentioned in the books, unless otherwise specifically specified.

Thus the directive is re-confirmed by other instructions, and in particular we have now seen all the first 3 items of the Last Will and Testament support the permanent implementation of the July 9^th directive in ISKCON.

Summary

1. A directive was issued by Srila Prabhupada for implementation in ISKCON by the GBC on July 9^th, 1977.
2. The directive was terminated on November 15^th, 1977 and another system put in its place.
3. Neither the termination of the directive or the system which replaced it, were authorised by Srila Prabhupada, as required by the terms of reference for the management of ISKCON.
4. The nature of the directive, the GBC terms of reference for managing this directive, the Last Will and Testament of Srila Prabhupada, as well as other supporting evidences, all prove that the directive must be in place in ISKCON now. 

Therefore unless the GBC are able to produce express authority from Srila Prabhupada, as required by their terms of reference for managing ISKCON, terminating the directive's application within ISKCON, and since the Last Will and Testament and the GBC body are both registered within India, we ask the court to immediately compel the GBC to re-institute this directive within ISKCON as a matter of extreme urgency.

Appendix 1 - The Importance of the Directive

This directive is the key defining principle to how ISKCON should be operated since it determines where the power of the institution lies. With the directive in place, the founder's position would be re-instated as the supreme authority and the sole Guru for the movement. As a result of the directive being terminated, ISKCON is instead run by over 60, largely American Gurus, who have hijacked the movement and divided it into their own fiefdoms. They have been able to do this because all the power in the movement comes from ownership of the disciples. Pre-departure all the disciples were owned by Srila Prabhupada. The directive makes it clear that such ownership was to continue post-departure also. Having usurped the position of Srila Prabhupada as the sole owner of disciples, these gurus have been able to claim future disciples for themselves. Along with this comes all the Guru daksina, allegiance and power, which formerly, and under the directive, would go solely for the benefit of the institution. The results of this abuse of power are very clear to be seen. ISKCON's new gurus, and those under their charge have perpetrated a level of immorality and corruption that is unmatched in history by any other religious institution operating for such a small time period. Large scale homosexuality, paedophilia, abuse of funds, etc, all in the name of religion have ensued. We can provide the court with the documented evidence for such immorality as and when required. Consequently the reputation of a once great society, and its saintly founder, whom the 'Times of India' called 'India's Greatest Spiritual Ambassador to the world', has been dragged into the gutter. The re-implementation of this directive by returning the power back to the institution, and away from the new gurus, as requested by its Founder and supreme authority will immediately assist in stopping the rot, and the restoration of glory back to the institution, its saintly founder, and thus India.

The linkage between all these degraded activities and the directive can be seen directly in that the 11 representatives who abandoned their duties as disciples and representatives as set out in the directive, and instead transformed themselves into the Guru/Acarya successors, the activity which resulted in the termination of the directive in the first place, have themselves subsequently gone onto be some of the key perpetrators of this large scale immorality, that is unbefitting of any institution, what to speak of one supposedly dedicated to religion. Out of the 11:

 2 were caught engaging in sex with children and men.

1 was caught dating a 14 year old girl, supposedly in his care.

2 were caught having sex with disciples and taking drugs.

1 was caught having sex with his disciples and taking drugs, and subsequently had his head chopped off by one of his disciples during one of their drug-taking sessions.

1 was caught wanting to marry a masseur, who he claimed was a incarnation of Radharani 

Of the 4 which remain: 

1 is under investigation for having poisoned the Founder.

1 is currently engaged with a power struggle to maintain his worship and benefits, which even the current GBC feel is too excessive.

1 is rarely seen in public due to constant sickness, and has effectively stopped taking disciples and has resigned from his GBC duties.

1 is also suspected of too much association with women, and has also resigned from the GBC, and leads a semi-secular life having taken up a job as a lecturer.

Out of the 50 other gurus who were subsequently authorised by the GBC, many have also fallen prey to the same deviations given above, with one who assisted our very own Prime Minister in the opening of the society's temple in Delhi recently, having molested an 11 year old girl.

Clearly these activities are a source of embarrassment and a disgrace for the society founded by Srila Prabhupada, and we thus request that the directive is re-instituted without delay.

Appendix 2 - Why the Time-Delay in Filing this Case

It may be remarked that over 20 years have passed since this directive was terminated, and why only now is this case being filed.? The main reason is that some of the key evidence listed above, only became public many years after the directive was issued. The GBC resolutions and the Will were not available publicly at first. Also the society accepted after the passing of Srila Prabhupada that the 11 representatives named in the directive, who were also GBC's, were supposed to terminate the directive by transforming themselves into guru/acarya successors, due to the existence of such an instruction from the founder, which was supposedly recorded on a tape. This lie was propagated by the GBC themselves. However this tape was not widely circulated, and some of the society largely accepted the word of the GBC mainly on faith. Those who did not, which was the majority of the society, either left or were expelled. Subsequently a few years later, when the abuses of the original 11 representatives mentioned in Appendix 1 began to surface, a reform movement began, and for the first time the tape was widely heard, and the other evidence mentioned in the brief discovered, and the word of the GBC began to be questioned by those still in the society.

Even the GBC at the time, which had now changed, after hearing the tape, no longer accepted the initial version of events. Rather the tape itself seemed to clearly re-confirm the directive. However the GBC did not go this far and instead gave another interpretation to the tape and constructed another Guru system, that still kept the directive terminated, the 11 original gurus in place, but simply reduced the power of the original 11 by authorising many more gurus. This all happened from 1984-1987. However from this point onwards, with the tape now heard by many, and the other documents such as the will etc, becoming widely available, the GBC was constantly challenged. This led in 1989, to a serious challenge being mounted by a group based in America, who published a magazine called Vedic Village Review, which set out partly the case given above. This led to a pubic debate held with GBC members. At the end of the meeting it was agreed that the matter would be seriously investigated by the GBC. However this never happened, and this reform movement itself fizzled out due to the 2 of the reform leaders themselves engaging in the immorality that they had accused the new gurus of. Subsequent reform attempts continued but much more progress was not made mainly because those protesting had been expelled from the society and thus had very little clout. Also the case was presented mainly based on emotion, rather than hard facts. The big breakthrough came when around 1994, one of the members from the 1989 reform group in America, who had continued with his reform attempts, presented for the first time all the evidence completely, and also exposed the weaknesses in the GBC arguments. Crucially this got the support of members who were within the ISKCON power infrastructure. Since that time negotiations and dialogue have been continued with the GBC, culminating in a formal complete position paper on the case for re-instituting the directive being commissioned by the GBC themselves. This paper was called the 'Final Order'. Negotiations have continued until the current impasse, whereby the GBC have now voted unanimously to reject our case, and made it very clear that a reconciliation is now impossible. They have also at the same time made strenuous attempts at retaining a Guru, who even though he had taken the vow of celibacy, and was supposed to be a sanyassi, was caught recently attempting to seduce a young male under his charge. With such an atmosphere, we have been forced with no recourse but to go to the courts, and let the will of Srila Prabhupada, and hence justice, prevail.

ENCLOSURES:

The Last Will and Testament

The July 9^th Directive

Letter from Ramesvara, July 21^st

Letter to Hansaduta, July 31^st