On ISKCON Membership

Sankirtan das, in his post Membership?, continues the conversation in response to Kaunteya's post ISKCON Membership - What I wrote to "GBC Discussions".

Sankirtan makes good points and raises good questions.

He makes an argument against the use of citizenship of a country as an analogy for ISKCON membership, and raises the fundamental question: "(W)hy now is there a need to define membership? What is the purpose?"

Without answering that question, it is difficult to really adress the membership issue.

At the risk of going a little off-topic, one area where I think we can work within concretely defined boundaries, and where it is useful to do so, is in the issue of full-time staff of ISKCON. It is easier to define who is a full-time staff member than it is to define who is a member.

Sankirtan asks about the rights and responsibilities of members, and talks about the rights and responsibilities of citizens to show that the citizenship analogy falls down.

On the question of full-time staff members, the analogy with employees of a corporation has more points of congruence than the analogy of citizens of a country to members of ISKCON does.

In the case of a full-time staff member, a person is surrendering their time and energy to the organisation, just as an employee of a corporation does.

Modern labour laws have evolved over time to formalise the reciprocation between the two parties involved in the labour transaction. There is a duty of care on the part of the employer toward the employee. Since the employee is giving their energy to the cause of the employer, the employer becomes responsible for providing reasonable means of subsistence to the employee, and there are legally guaranteed minimums. Many countries also have compulsory superannuation schemes that employers contribute to on behalf of the employees, in order to provide economic support for retirement of the population.

In the case of ISKCON, some people choose to give a few years in their youth as volunteer service. It is easier to define who is a full-time volunteer than the more ambiguous "member". It is even easier to define who is an official staff member, for example a Temple President, a head pujari, a cook, etc. Some of these people will not just give a few years of their life, but a large section, and even most or all of their adult working life.

Modern Western societies have evolved mechanisms, enshrined in labour laws, to deal with issues such as retirement, career advancement, retrenchment, extent and limit of responsibility and duty of care. ISKCON has none of this. One of the problems that comes from this is that career ISKCON staff have no retirement prospects. They have given all their adult life to the organisation, but there is no superannuation. In many cases they are stuck in a position where they need to hold on to the post, and more or less effectively execute it operationally, merely in order to continue subsisting. Hardly an ideal situation, and hardly protection of the elder members of society.

Here are some of my thoughts on the matter.

I think that full-time volunteer staff should have some money put aside for them in a trust account, and this money should be disbursed when they leave. So a young man enters into the ashram and stays there for two or three years. In that time the organisation draws on his energy, and intelligent managers should put him into play such that he develops personally, and so that his activities benefit the community. If the situation is structured correctly then either through standard economic reciprocation (for example, public buying meals in a restaurant) or through volunteer contribution (for example, congregational donations) the organisation should capitalise on his contribution at the same time. Some of that capital should be stored on his behalf, and given when he leaves.

In this way the organisation discharges its spiritual duty of engaging him in a way that is beneficial for his personal development, and for the spiritual upliftment of society; and the organisation discharges it duty of taking responsibility for his physical maintenance in exchange for his service.

In the case of full-time staff members and what are effectively career professionals such as Temple Presidents and other management staff, there should be a clear economic arrangement that takes into account all of the factors that modern labour laws have evolved to support. It is irresponsible to accept full-time service, especially over years and decades, without having a system in place for the maintenance of the person. Modern labour systems divide whole-life maintenance of the person into portions and make the entity utilising the service of the individual liable for the corresponding portion of that cost.

If you don't encode economic concerns such as this explicitly and clearly, then each person will be left to fend for themselves, and the inevitable result will be that people who are able to seize access to economic resources will hold on to them for dear life. As well, unclear economic arrangements will arise.

In conclusion, two points:

• It is the logic of half a hen to talk about the contribution of a person without considering the economic maintenance of the whole person.
• If there is no legitimate means of economic existence, the only available ones are illegitimate.

Apologies for the lack of editing. Just jotting some thoughts before heading off to the tour rehearsal for Madhava's Australian Kirtan Tour. See you there!