29 April – 3 May 2003
ISKCON, Nava Jiyada Nrsimha Ksetra, Germany
Lal Krsna Dasa

Every year ISKCON Communications Europe (ICE) holds its Leadership Team (ICELT) meetings. These meetings are an opportunity for its members to associate with those who share a mission. It’s an opportunity to reflect on their service in the company of those who share many of the same challenges, to draw on the experience of others and to share their own experiences. It’s an opportunity to recharge batteries and to discuss challenging issues in a conservative, devotional atmosphere.

In April this year, twenty-three devotees joined together at Nava Jiyada Nrsimha Ksetra, in the Bavarian Forest, for the thirteenth of these annual meetings.

Looking at secularism

A key theme running through this year’s meeting was secularism and its impact upon ISKCON. Merudevi Dasi, this year’s director of ICE, laid the groundwork for discussions on this topic by leading the group through a history of secularism in Western Europe since the seventeenth century, when John Locke asserted that you can’t trust a Catholic because he is ruled by a foreigner and you can’t trust an atheist because he has no moral reference point.

Merudevi outlined some of the current thinking on secularism, the different types of secular states that exist, and the principles that underlie their approaches. Specifically examined were: neutral secularism, where the state is expressly not religious and does not support religion; positive secularism, where the state, while not favouring any particular tradition, does attempt to create an atmosphere favourable to all religions; and negative secularism where the state, while careful not to support religion, is careful not to discriminate against or inhibit valid religious expression.

This led to some probing questions: Are secular states value-free? Is secularism ideology-free? Is the secular notion that ‘nothing is right/nothing is wrong’ itself a statement of faith?

With some theoretical background established, the group was taken on a tour of the situation in modern Europe, particularly the EU (European Union), probably the most vital force in establishing Europe’s identity in the coming century. The EU and its future members comprise some interesting blocs when it comes to secularism. At the danger of over-simplifying, we have a core of states such as France, Germany, and Sweden, all of which are essentially secularised (although to different degrees of neutral, positive, and negative secularism). Contrasting with this we have states that, at least historically, have been firmly non-secular, such as Italy and Ireland. Into this mix are being invited states such as Poland that are firmly religious and then there is the Vatican with its vision of an essentially-Christian Europe.

This is the Europe in which ISKCON members are preaching. How it develops will profoundly affect ISKCON. The reality is that Europe is becoming increasingly secularised; God is no longer perceived as the ‘glue that holds Europe together’. How will ISKCON develop in a secular state? Is it a help or a hindrance to ISKCON’s activities? How do ISKCON and its members relate to a secular state? And, closer to home, to what extent does ISKCON secularise itself; that is to say, how does ISKCON distinguish between ‘spiritual’ and ‘managerial’ roles and relationships?

The role of ISKCON Communications in this Europe was discussed and a need to help redefine and reshape secularism was identified. It was felt that in order to develop a truly secular state — one that allows different values to exist within it, that doesn’t ‘banish’ God — the assumption that secularism is entirely neutral needs to be examined. In Europe. current models of secularism tend to place secular humanist ideals at the centre of public life while relegating religion to the periphery. A truly secular state would allow humanism and religion to exist equally as valid philosophies for those who choose to follow them. True secularism allows religion to exist in public, with rights and responsibilities, just as it allows humanism to exist in public.

These messages could be assimilated into ICE’s ongoing communications with government and advanced by working with other faith traditions to create a shared vision and shared influence.

Secularism in practice: Should God be in the EU Constitution?

Having been grounded in the issues surrounding secularism it was time for some practical application. At the time of the meetings, the EU was involved in debate over whether God should have a place in its Constitution. Krsna-lila Dasi, from ISKCON Communications Hungary, led a thorough and enlightening discussion that enabled an informed debate. One of the highlights of this year’s meetings was the skilfulness of the preparation and presentation of the issues.

The group was invited to look at the main approaches to the discussion; to analyse the relevant sections of the draft constitution; to compose an alternative draft; and to propose a plan of action by which their concerns could be shared.

The first question underlying the discussion was whether Europe is a Christian or multi-faith continent. ISKCON’s own presence as well as the influx of people of previously ‘unheard of’ faiths, and the millennia long presence of Judaism, Islam, and other traditions in Europe would seem to provide an obvious answer to that question.

The second question, carrying over from Merudevi’s discussion, was whether Europe is a religious or a secular continent. This is a very thorny question and one without a clear answer. However, it soon became clear just how much the answer affects the perception of Europe’s identity, values, and structure, and thus how much it would affect the debate.

Is European culture based on Christianity, as the Vatican maintains, or is it based on ancient Greek and Roman cultures, as well as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, humanism, and all the other philosophies that have found a home there?

What of Europe’s values? Is the ‘soul’ of Europe Christian? Or is it more humanist in nature? Should Europe’s institutions reflect its Christian heritage or should they reflect a more broadly religious heritage? Should Europe’s institutions mix temporal and sacral values or should they remain firmly secular?

This was obviously not a discussion in search of knee-jerk responses. There was much to consider before looking at the draft Constitution.

The sections of the Constitution examined were ‘Article 37: Status of churches and non-confessional organisations’ (it was interesting to observe just how much of the argument is couched in Christian terms) and the preamble to the Constitution. The decision to be made was whether to put energy into a campaign on this issue, and, if so, which parts to concentrate on, and, of course, how such a campaign would look.

The discussion was lively and, at times, passionate. This was where the value of open discussion in a conservative and protective environment would be revealed. It was a place where responses needed to be clearly thought through and explained before being accepted and where the relationship-building that is so vital a part of these meetings was tested.

The consensus view was that, although it may have been a little late in the day, it was worth the effort to use this issue as an opportunity to build relationships across faiths by presenting a rational argument for change; change that would include God in a way that was neither sectarian nor heavy-handed. It was felt that the real changes needed to be made to Article 37 rather than the preamble.

The next step in the meetings was to formulate a few guiding principles for any redraft. These included the need to reflect the reality that most people are religious and would like to see God in the constitution; that terminology should be acceptable to all faiths as well as to atheists and humanists; and, that if Europe seeks unity, it needs to be inclusive of those of all faiths (and none). These principles led the group to suggest only slight modifications to the draft of the relevant parts of the Constitution; for example, it was suggested that the title of Section 37, ‘Status of churches and non-confessional organisations’, be replaced with something more inclusive such as ‘Status of religious, philosophical, and ethical organisations’.

Pragmatism or principle

Pragmatism or principle: Does ISKCON favour models that will best allow it to advance its aims or does it favour models that will most closely reflect its aims?

To what extent are ISKCON policy decisions based on principle? This was the question that emerged from Anuttama Dasa’s presentation. Anuttama, the GBC (Governing Body Commissioner) for ISKCON Communications, tested the group’s adherence to principles by turning the tables on the discussion. Till now the discussion had been about how Europe, a continent in which ISKCON still faces difficulties, should develop. Anuttama took the models that were favoured for Europe and transposed them to India, a country where ISKCON has traditionally been very well received.

Would the group recommend the same approach to secularism in India as it did for Europe? Should ISKCON develop a principled stand on an issue and stand by it, or should it adjust according to practical considerations? If it is a bit of both, then how is the balance to be decided? To what extent is the Society ruled by pragmatism, and to what extent is it ruled by principle?

This led to a discussion of the principles that ISKCON clearly should value in its attempts to cultivate a God-centred society: the type of characteristics that need to be developed as a society and individually if people are to be attracted to Prabhupada’s ISKCON. There was also discussion of the obstacles and opportunities faced in expanding ISKCON’s mission.

Present and future direction

Towards the end of the meetings, Saunaka ¬si Dasa, stepping aside as ICE director, and Anuttama Dasa did what they do so well: they gave their personal vision and direction.

They stressed the need for ICE to broaden the circle, share its experience, and train more people to participate. The ICELT model of simultaneous building of relationships and consensus can be expanded, if protégés are established and trained. One of the best ways to achieve this kind of growth is to continue to expand the teaching of the ISKCON Communications course that Anuttama and Hanuman Dasa have so successfully carried to six continents.

As well as internal growth, they expressed the need for ICE members to become more deeply involved in outreach programmes: get involved in interfaith dialogue now or be left behind; form or join local Hindu organisations; form, or be instrumental in the formation of, a Europe-wide Hindu organisation.

Saunaka’s main messages on his retirement as director were the need to maintain a reflective sanga (spiritual gathering); to be proactive; to maintain an educational ethos in ICE; and to regard preaching as an occupation, or, at the very least, a major commitment.

Reflection

As is appropriate for a group of aspiring preachers, the meetings went beyond the cares of the world and into the cares of the soul. Over the last few years more and more time has been spent on developing the participants’ introspective natures at these meetings.

This year, most of these reflective sessions were led by Hanuman Dasa (Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, Spain) and Yadunandana Dasa (Principal of the Bhaktivedanta College in Radhadesh, Belgium). Interspersed between discussions of secularism and other concerns, were opportunities to examine, as a group and individually, topics such as what makes us happy? Where are we now? Where do we want to be in ten years and how do we get from here to there? The depth of the meditation and discovery in these sessions alone brings some devotees to these meetings.

Flavour

Each year’s meetings carry their own flavour; some sweet, some serious. This year the atmosphere was very jolly. This was helped greatly by the care received from the dedicated Vaisnavas that hosted us at Nrsimha Ksetra. Due to their gracious hospitality we could be carefree, even when absorbed in the intricacies of constitutional language.