Leadership's Response to Criticism: An Analysis
BY: KURMA RUPA DASA
Feb 9, VRINDAVAN, INDIA (SUN) — In my short post called "Criticism of Leadership", I contrasted the attitudes of ISKCON leaders with those of the Yadu Dynasty in the matter of addressing the grievances and criticism of their subjects (not their enemies). I want to
share my latest thoughts and observances with those interested.
Just as there is constructive and destructive criticism, there is also constructive and destructive response to it. I want to focus this discussion on the methodology applied by leadership toward constructive criticism, as I propose that is what Yadu Prabhu is offering in the Preserve the Farm Campaign. Leadership's response to destructive criticism is a related topic, no doubt, but it will not be discussed here.
One way leadership responds to criticism is by attempting to destroy, banish, punish, isolate, discredit, neglect, silence or ignore the critic. This orientation can be further divided into two categories: aggressive and passive. For the sake of brevity this orientation will hereinafter be referred to as the Destructive Response.
A second way leadership responds to constructive criticism is by a careful evaluation of the criticism or grievance and the development of a plan to satisfy the critic. Hereinafter this orientation will be referred to as the Constructive Response.
The Destructive Response has a disempowering effect on the constructive critic and a dividing effect on the social body; the Constructive Response has an empowering effect on the constructive critic and a unifying effect on the social body.
It should be noted that the Destructive Response by supporters and followers is often inspired by the accused leaders' clever application of The Woman's Weapon. The accused leader slams the door, throws himself face-down on the bed and kicking up his heels begins to pout, his feelings crushed by the harsh words of his critics. The slamming of the door and the muffled sobbing are the covert signals that marshal all devout supporters to attack the critics in all the ways mentioned above. Thus the application of silence or ignoring the critic, which is generally considered passive, can be said to have an aggressive aspect.
At this stage in the Preserve the Farm Issue it seems that a passive Destructive Response is being applied in regard to Yadu Prabhu's criticism as is evidenced by the leadership's silence. The criticized leaders are ignoring him. In contrast, a Constructive Response is being applied in regard to the brahmana's criticism of King Urgrasena as evidenced by Arjuna hatching a plan to retrieve the brahmana's son.
The first time I became aware of ISKCON leadership employing the Destructive Response toward subjects who criticized them and their policies was in March of 1978 after Srila Prabhupada entered samadhi. Srila Prabhupada's secretary, Pradyumna Prabhu, had written a mild and gentlemanly letter to the GBC suggesting that it might not be appropriate for the Zonal Acaryas (ZA) to have such large vyasasanas and elaborate puja.
Around the same time Gurukripa and Yasodanandana Swamis also voiced concern and
disapproval. In short order all three were cast in the role of enemies and driven out of the society in the midst of cheers. This drastic act silenced all opposition for some time.
Seven months later, in November of 1978 a similar predicament fell on Rocana Prabhu and me when we truthfully reported to the chairman of the GBC that Hansadutta was taking downers, talking about starting his own movement, and traveling with a loaded German Luger and US$20,000 cash as he toured America. We were told by the chairman to never make public this information and wait patiently for the GBC to complete an investigation.
We strictly complied and after the investigation four GBC's informed us that we were "envious of the gurus" and announced that if we could not submit to Hansadutta, the four directions were open to us. The ultimatum was: submit, change zones, or leave. I know for a fact that many other godbrothers had to face this same dilemma.
It is common knowledge now that after Srila Prabhupada's samadhi, the system adopted by the GBC was faulty and detrimental to both leaders and subjects as it required the ZA to posture as something they proved not to be. It was artificial. Imitation of Srila Prabhupada was implemented rather than following in his footsteps.
I suspect the Destructive Response to grievances and criticism was substantially reinforced after the fall of the first ZA. Thereafter the Destructive Response was viewed as a necessary measure to keep the artificial system afloat. In the attempt to preserve the faith of the flock in the "elevated" eleven, the GBC reinforced this poisonous protocol to ensure that all who criticized the ZA would be systematically and unanimously discredited, silenced, isolated or driven out. Line up, or pack up was the policy.
Criticism was termed fault-finding or blasphemy and could never be constructive. During those Dark Days, ISKCON leadership was bent on hosting only tyrants and syncophants.
As Jayatirtha, Bhagavan, Bhavananda and the others fell, devastating the faith in the hearts of their disciples, the ZA system disintegrated. Unfortunately, the Destructive Response towards criticism had taken such strong roots and was so thoroughly accepted as the norm that it not only survived but continued to flourish. It became the accepted standard and anyone who resisted it was either driven out or fled in despair. This is the history, threadbare.
Today, THIRTY YEARS LATER, the Destructive Response is still in place despite the fact that the Bhagavatam, Ramayana and Mahabharata are filled with examples of leaders who sacrifice their very lives to protect and serve their subjects rather than attack them for voicing protest or opposition. Lord Rama, King Yuddhisthira, Pariksit Maharaja, King Sibi, King Rantideva, King Prithu and so many others demonstrate that the leaders' responsibility is to protect his subjects and attend to their grievances at all cost.
In fact, protecting their subjects and attending to their grievances is such an essential qualification that if an administrator does not demonstrate this, it can be said he is not fit to lead. The leader's dedication to his dependents is the water that makes the seed of unalloyed dedication sprout in the heart of his subjects.
If the leader demonstrates the quality of self-sacrifice, the subjects will naturally and happily make sacrifices to cooperate with and serve him. Good subjects are by-products of good leaders; bad subjects are by-products of bad leaders. The deviant behavior found in a society ruled by a great man belongs to the minority who are outright rebels or those who offer lip service rather than dedicated following.
If the common devotees relax their vows, embrace new-age concepts, neglect their dependents, thumb their noses at their seniors, assume critics are wrong by default; if they are duplicitous, unruly, deceitful, uncooperative, lethargic and so on, it simply announces the orientation of those they have chosen to follow.
If we reject this, we defy Sri Krsna's yad yad acarati sresthas principle (Bhagavad-gita 3.21).
***
If the Destructive Response to constructive criticism is so detrimental, the question arises, "Why is it preferred?"
It is preferred because it relieves the leader of his responsibility to demonstrate self-sacrifice and simultaneously underscores the subjects responsibility to follow and cooperate without question or complaint.
When this disease is in place Administrative Titles become the substitute for Magnanimous Character and since titles are much easier to achieve, there is a scramble to ascend the administrative ladder, NOT because of the service opportunity, NOT for the sake of attending to the needs of the subjects or fulfilling other responsibilities, but to have power over the rest and enjoy the privileges of those posts.
If one covets a leadership position for the wrong reason, he chooses the path of preyas rather than sreyas, which basically means his focus shifts to
climbing the corporate ladder (Temple Commander, Treasurer, Temple President, Regional Secretary, etc.) rather than the spiritual ladder (adau sraddha tatah sadhu-sangh tha bhajana-kriyah... )
Thus he no longer sees an administrative post as a service opportunity but as his very means of livelihood. Thus when he is criticised, he retaliates by defending himself to protect his position rather than attending to the complaint of his subject which is his actual responsibility. He orients himself to remove the complainer rather than attend to the complaint and this is the core of the Destructive Response.
Unfortunately this orientation precisely follows the course Krsna explains in Bhagavad-gita Chapter Two verses 62-63. Contemplating the objects of the senses manifests in coveting a title bestowing power, puja and prestige; attachment manifests by those actions performed to preserve the coveted titles and posts; lust manifests by enjoying the privileges of the posts without fulfilling the responsibilities; anger manifests in a Destructive Response toward the damn critics; delusion manifests as a result of being surrounded by only yes-men and smitten followers; bewilderment of memory manifests in forgetting that our original purpose was to climb the spiritual ladder rather than the corporate one; loss of intelligence manifests in a variety of ways to include: having homosex in Vrindavan on the occasion of Vyasa Puja; considering the son of a karmi therapist to be an incarnation of Srila Prabhupada; by seducing another's wife; by convincing their female disciples that having sex with them is guru-seva; etcetera.
And they fall to again become mice... How many more times will we stand by and watch this repeated pattern before we correct ourselves by applying preventative measures?
What prevents us from addressing this problem?
What prevents us is the concept that it is taboo to discuss this embarrassing phenomena. It is such an ugly thing that we should keep it as we do an unspoken family secret. Whenever anyone brings up the distasteful topic they are drowned in a deluge of disapproval.
This taboo masquerades as the virtue of protecting the newcomers from knowing our dark side so their faith in the movement can bloom, but actually the taboo acts as a built-in mechanism to assure, empower and perpetuate the survival of the poisonous protocol. If we don't talk about it, we won't think about it, and if we don't think about, it lives on...
In the atmosphere resulting from consistent Destructive Response to criticism, fear is instilled in the subjects in gross and subtle ways, and while there may be some semblance of order and cooperation, it is inspired by fear, not love, and thus the relationships between the subjects and leaders become hollow, stale and artificial.
One downtrodden god-nephew once asked me, "I sat down to write my Vasa puja offering and found I have absolutely nothing to say. Is this an offense Prabhu?"
He had nothing to say because his subjective experience of guru-seva had left him empty, full of fear and doubt. Contrast his state with that of Arjuna after hearing the song of his Guru.
This disease directly undermines love and trust and the dadati pratigrinati princple (Upadesamrta 4). The Destructive Response to constructive criticism leads to despondency, rebellion, and anarchy. It is the root cause of social disintegration. And it is taboo to talk about it!
This poisonous protocol is still alive in ISKCON today and the rampant lack of leadership accountability is but one symptom that our society is still infected with this paralyzing virus.
Examine one sentence of a recent letter I received: "If you do not like life inside ISKCON, then please retire and make your own movement as so many have done in the past."
Does this attitude reflect that of His Divine Grace? If not, who? It is obviously symptomatic of those who created the Line-up or Pack-up policy employed during the Dark Days.
Sadly, what adds to my conviction that this heinous disease is still choking our society today are the responses from the well-meaning members of the Prabhupada Disciple Conference towards Yadu Prabhu's campaign to preserve the farm in Costa Rica. If you examine the posts on this topic you will see that all but one attack, discredit, or minimize the critic in some way. Only one addresses the grievance!
I am surprised and especially disappointed in the response of one senior sannyasi. I clearly remember during the Dark Days when His Holiness and another sannyasi came to Toronto to rally support from other godbrothers to protest the GBC's policy that all of us had to go through the "elevated" eleven to get to Srila Prabhupada and thus we had to jump for cookies at their daily guru pujas. He roared like a lion when the GBC labeled him as a disgruntled sannyasi who was envious of the gurus. But today, when his younger brother protests an obvious injustice, His Holiness places the accused leader in the right and the accuser in the wrong by default! Alas! Alas! How this saddens my heart.
Only Nrisimhananda Prabhu's post addresses the constructive critic's grievance and thus I offer my prostrated obeisances unto him for giving me some solace. He doesn't attack the accusers but offers to HELP THEM achieve their goal. That hero addresses the grievance of the downtrodden! Bravo! Or as they say in Costa Rica, "Pura Vida!"
One could argue, however, that his proposal is not free from self-interest as he only offers to advance the ITV media for fund-raising purposes to the farm devotees at wholesale instead of cost prices. But nevertheless he is at least facing in the right direction and his post comes closest to resembling the Constructive Response of the Yadavas. Because of that great soul, there is hope.
***
In closing I want to declare my purpose in offering this analysis lest it be misunderstood. I have a great hope to serve by improving the subjective experience of those who practice Krsna consciousness within and without of the institution. To accomplish this it is essential that one follow leaders of integrity. Eight years ago I vowed only to follow leaders of integrity and have found it to be a faith-building experience. I strongly encourage all readers to take this vow.
At present both our leaders and subjects are suffering. The exodus of followers from Srila Prabhupada's movement continues while our leaders require regular health retreats. Some have died and many have become incapacitated or debilitated by anxiety related diseases before reaching the age of His Divine Grace when he BEGAN his preaching mission! There is clearly something wrong and it is our responsibility to understand the problems and fashion solutions so future generations don't have to go through what we did.
We should all approach this ugly boil on the ISKCON body and lance it with joint hands holding a sharp knife. Yes, it will hurt but until we squeeze all the pus out healing will not take place.
Those who respond to this post by saying it is in bad taste, or that this topic should not be discussed should know that they are part of the problem of perpetuating the poisonous protocol which is paralyzing Srila Prabhupada's mission.
I speak out on the authority of the letter His Divine Grace issued chastising his senior disciples for not informing him about the inappropriate behavior of Bali Mardan back in Brooklyn. I speak out on the authority of the Bhagavatam 10.44.10 which states: "A wise person should not enter an assembly if he knows the participants there are committing acts of impropriety. And if, having entered such an assembly, he fails to speak the truth, speaks falsely or pleads ignorance, he will certainly incur sin."
That being said, I propose we do some joint research. I beg that all of you search our scriptures to find an example of a qualified leader applying the Destructive Response to the constructive criticism of his own subjects. I hope you can find a convincing example. If not, I leave you with this question:
Can we conclude from the examples of the Yadavas and the other great Kings I have mentioned that qualified leaders always apply the Constructive Response when addressing the constructive criticism of their subjects and that unqualified leaders and their supporters always apply the Destructive Response?
The same question phrased differently: Is an orientation toward the Destructive Response a definitive characteristic of unqualified leadership?
If the answer is in the affirmative, we have fashioned a practical yardstick for the future generations to use in measuring those they plan to follow. If people are equipped with practical wisdom they can more accurately determine who is fit or unfit to be followed and thus suffer fewer slips and stumbles as they walk the razor's edge.
Standing alone, barefoot and hungry in the cooling sands of Raman Reti with warm cow dung between my toes, I gently place my right hand on the warm velvet-like coat of that great-horned Padayatra ox and rest my forehead on the side of his hump desiring his forbearance and dedication to duty. After filling my lungs with his sweet fragrance, I raise my head, dig my toes firmly into the sand, my fingertips firmly into his back and reinforce my vow to follow only leaders with integrity despite all negative consequences.
Their servant,
Kurma Rupa dasa
Not the famous chef,
nor the writer who always signs (not the chef),
the one who aspires to serve his Guru by uprooting abusive leadership.
the one who aspires to serve the downtrodden.
the one who assists Yadu Prabhu in his campaign to Preserve the Farm in
Costa Rica.
