rocana prabhu publishes a series of editorials about ISKCON's Direction of Management (DOM) on his sampradaya sun website. this DOM has been a contentious issue in ISKCON for a long time, with different camps stating different things.
rocana prabhu, even though persona non grata in ISKCON, is in my opinion an intelligent devotee who cares about srila prabhupdada's ISKCON. i don't say he is right in all he says or writes, but neither is anybody else.
Direction of Management, Part 4
BY: SUN STAFF
Jul 18, 2019 — CANADA (SUN) —
In his presentation of the DOM, Nara Narayana Viswakarma das emphasizes various historical events, all slanted towards a GBC conspiracy to prevent elections of the governing body. For example, he has stated that the first GBC meeting took place at New Vrindaban in 1971 with 12 GBC's present. He claimed that at that meeting, the DOM was personally presented to him, and him alone, by Rupanuga das, who referred to it as the "Constitution of Iskcon". But in his February 9, 2001 letter to Srirama das  Nara Narayana wrote:
"Rupanuga prabhu served as the first chair of the GBC. During that meeting the DOM was circulated to the congregational members, and was described at that time as the "Iskcon Charter"."
"We are all aware that no such elections were held. None of the temple presidents knew that they not only had the right but the DUTY to elect new GBC members. (None of them had ever seen the Direction of Management)."
We asked Nara Narayana what substantiated his assumption that at the first GBC meeting at New Vrindaban, the Temple President of New Vrindaban wasn't also shown a copy of the DOM along with all the congregational members he says it was circulated to? And obviously, it's a contradiction to say Rupanuga showed it to him alone, yet it was circulated to the congregational members. And what about the numerous other Temple Presidents who were at New Vrindaban for the meeting? According to Nara Narayana, the DOM was kept hidden from them, even as early as 1971, as part of a conspiracy against GBC elections.
Nara Narayana responded to our questions by admitting that his historical statements in this regard were erroneous. He reaffirmed that Rupanuga das had shown him the DOM at that meeting, but said that in fact, the DOM had not been shown to the congregational members. He could not explain why Rupanuga would show the DOM to him alone, and not to the more than twelve Temple Presidents who were in attendance. Nor could he explain how he knew it to be a fact that he was the only one Rupanuga showed the document to.
Rupanuga prabhu does not recall having ever shown him the DOM, and finds it highly unlikely that he would have done so at New Vrindaban in 1971, given his prior experience of Nara Narayana in Buffalo. And although Nara Narayana states as part of his version of the 1971 New Vrindaban story that Rupanuga served as the first chair of the GBC, Rupanuga was not elected as Chairman of the GBC until 1982.
In "Chronology of the DOM" , Nara Narayana writes:
"According to the schedule set down in the DOM, Spring of 1974 would have been the first GBC election following the formation of the GBC in 1971. The GBC made no move to hold elections. Later in 1974, Srila Prabhupada sent out the "TOPMOST URGENCY" statement. There were two main points in the letter: the first was followed impeccably by all temples, the second point concerning elections was disobeyed completely."
Nara Narayan has the dates wrong here. In fact, the DOM was issued in July 1970 (not 1971), and it comprised the formation of the GBC. According to the three-year schedule specified in the DOM, GBC elections were to have been held in July 1973 -- not in the Spring of 1974, as Nara Nararyana claims. The DOM does not say elections are to be held at an Annual Meeting three years hence, but rather states that the appointed commissioners will serve for a period of three years, with elections at the end of this period.
In other words, Nara Narayana's historical presentation about the distribution or disclosure of the DOM in 1971 has been unsubstantiated and incorrect, and he has misrepresented the elections schedule stated in the DOM. It appears that neither of these misstatements were simply inadvertent mistakes. As the picture continues to unfold, the reader will see a pattern of 'errors' and misstatements that all lead to a particular conclusion being painted by Nara Narayana and other DOM adherents. Unfortunately, that conclusion is based on contrived bits of information, and is therefore a very flawed conclusion.
FOOTNOTES (Current Segment):
FOOTNOTES (Previous Segments):