© 2001 VNN
|
EDITORIAL  Authoritarianism And ISKCON BY NAROTTAMA DASA EDITORIAL, Jan 16 (VNN) — What is authoritarianism? A dictionary definition is: "favoring rule by absolute authority; an advocate of such rule." It is the opposite of humanitarianism, or the unconcerned attitude towards human nature. Generally authoritarianism plagues institutions of one type or another. The International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) is one such institution, and hopefully this presentation will open more eyes to the misgivings of ISKCON's leaders. This is important because the members of ISKCON know the potential this movement has if it operates on the platform of purity. Having understood how ISKCON is being misled, I hope to create one of two reactions in the reader: Either take up the flag of reform, or at least abandon support of authoritarian leadership. Within an authoritarian dynamic, there must be someone to rule and someone to be ruled. In fact, authoritarianism can take place even in the family unit. We've all experienced authoritarianism directly or indirectly, and we may not even be aware of it ISKCON is a religious organization that promulgates the philosophy and culture of Vaishnavism. Vaishnavism is a pure monotheistic doctrine, rich with literature that dates back at least 5,000 years. Vaishnavism emphasizes servitude and surrender unto God or Krishna. There are many facets to this ancient doctrine, which has a vast library of scriptural books written primarily in Sanskrit and Bengali languages. It isn't that all institutions are corrupt; in fact, most develop impurities through the benefits that influence the leaders to take advantage of their subordinates. Initially ISKCON was lead by one man, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami. The swami, known as Srila Prabhupada, was a pure living example of the teachings of Vaishnavism. He was charismatic, scholarly, humble and specifically he treated others with humanitarianism. A lot of ISKCON's members were attracted by Prabhupada's persona, whether one heard of him or factually met him. When Prabhupada passed on, ISKCON's leadership fell to his fledgling disciples, Factually, some of his students acquired a taste for the material facilities provided by being a leader of ISKCON before Prabhupada left. Despite initial bits of schism, Prabhupada deflected the majority of problems until his physical death. After his departure, ISKCON's problems multiplied like a disease plagues one in absence of a cure. The root disease was authoritarianism. Prabhupada's leading disciples created a mood that they were the leaders, they were to be served, while Prabhupada's mood was that he was a servant of his subordinates. One may argue that once Prabhupada had left, mistakes were made in accident. However, as the common sayings go, 'good intention isn't good enough' and 'the path to hell is paved with good intentions.' The first eleven gurus after Prabhupada, i.e. the 'zonal acaryas', practically demanded subordination from all, while they fought amongst themselves. Even though in time they were disbanded and new gurus were allowed, still the mood of the leadership was that they would serve as everyone's intelligence. This is another sign of authoritarianism. An authoritarian leader does not want his subordinates to think, to discern good from bad, or to analyze various phenomena. The authoritarian leaders do not want this primarily because there is a good chance that the disciple may realize that they are being misled. So the leaders want yes-men, or people who are ready to obey their every command. Yes-men are in fact, very valuable because if one were to question the irrational leader then there are the masses of yes-men to defend the leader and thus attempt to silence the questioner. Prabhupada did not want such leaders, in fact he wrote a letter stating, "Krishna Consciousness Movement is for training men to be independently thoughtful and competent in all types of departments of knowledge and action, not for making bureaucracy. Once there is bureaucracy the whole thing will be spoiled. There must be always individual striving and work and responsibility, competitive spirit, not that one shall dominate and distribute benefits to the others and they do nothing but beg from you and you provide. No." (Bhaktivedanta, par. 4) Clearly Prabhupada did not approve of authoritarian leadership. If he did, he would've set the example himself. There are many other examples proving that ISKCON's leaders are off the mark. For example, we have the jiva issue, which was handled in such a scheming and underhanded way. We also have the current system of approving gurus, which has never been the standard for Vaishnavism. For further example one can read Jayadvaita Swami's paper, "Several Grievances Against the Members of the GBC." Bhakti Vikasa Swami has also written that, "The status of the GBC in the eyes of the general devotees is rock bottom and could hardly go lower. A far cry from the Prabhupada days [É] Those who are responsible for this demise should kindly accept moral responsibility, or be forced to do so. Unless punishment for abuse is extended beyond that of child abusers, injustice will be done in the name of justice and reform will not go to the roots." (Bhakti Vikasa, par. 1) Essentially, authoritarianism is a position of fear, and a position wherein you suppress any growth beneath you so that the subordinates may not surpass you. It is synonymous with a cutthroat business or corporation where everyone is for him or herself. To the contrary, Vaishnavism is or should be, as Prabhupada put it, based on love and trust. Since authoritarianism is quite a widespread problem, we have many scholars who have various writings about the syndrome. C.S. Lewis writes, "If we are any good, we must always be working towards the moment at which our pupils are fit to become our critics and rivals. We should be delighted when it arrives, as the fencing master is delighted when his pupil can pink him and disarm him." (47) The effects of authoritarianism are many and here are some examples of how it is currently affecting ISKCON. When you have such absurd leaders, there is only one way to communicate with them and that is to obey them, i.e. brown nose or what have you. If you want to work your way into a position of leadership yourself, you become a yes-man. This is due to the unwritten law of 'my way or the highway' by such leaders. So one effect is the production of blind followers on the one hand, which leads to the next situation. When you have an incompetent leader, the only people who can be sane working under them are those who are less competent than the leader. This leads to a rapid degeneration of leadership, causing any intelligent people to disregard the leaders and thus leave the organization. This degeneration has been nicely described by authors Laurence Peter and Raymond Hull in their book, The Peter Principle. All in all we see that ISKCON's leadership needs a major renovation, beginning by dealing with ISKCON's members, as well as other Vaishnava organizations with humanitarianism and integrity. Another view is that many people believe that the current leaders of ISKCON are incapable of such change; as a result, these leaders should retire or step down and have proper leadership re-established. Works Cited Swami, Bhaktivedanta. Letter to Karandhara. 22 December. 1972 Swami, Jayadvaita. "Several Grievances Against the Members of the GBC." VNN.org 5 March, 1987. http://www.vnn.org/world/WD9809/WD26-2277.html. Swami, Bhakti Vikasa. "Corruption at the Highest Levels of ISKCON." VNN.org 22 July, 1997. http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0007/ET22-6104.html. Lewis, C.S. The Four Loves. Orlando: Harcourt, Brace and Co. 1991. Peter, Dr. Laurence J. and Raymond Hull. The Peter Principle. New York: Bantam Books, 1969. I am very happy to receive any comments, questions or critique. Please contact me at narottam@onebox.com and I'll do my best to get back to you ASAP. Haribol.  Comment on this storyContact VNN about this storySend this story to a friend
NEWS DESK | EDITORIALS | TOP |
