Sahaj Marg(tm) and SRCM Dictatorship - A Guide on How to Circumvent Democracy!!

From an original French article by Alexis: "Comment Contourner La Démocratie", translated by 4d-Don.

See French article: "Un Guide Pour Créer Une SRCM Locale", on Elodie's Blog in Europe: "Pour Que Vive Le Sahaj Marg". The document in Question: A Guide for Creating a Local Organization can be seen at:

Registering a Local Organization: *
http://www.sahajmarg.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=57279&folderId=628266&name=DLFE-12905.pdf

* A password is now required to read the above file ... Hmmm!! Dictatorship (unlike democracy) seems to need to remain "secret" ... Maybe our national "Charities Taxation Agency" would find this interesting ... (for study and preparing a response (before the fact) ;-)


SRCM-Canada Board of Directors (2012):
http://www.sahajmarg.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=57279&folderId=743115&name=DLFE-14315.pdf



From the original (1945) SRCM Constitution of SRCM: (Appendix A, Resolution 1)
http://www.geocities.ws/cult_sahaj_marg/original.pdf

"This although looks like a sort of dictatorship on the part of the Founder (henceforth to be called the President) ... "




How to Circumvent Democracy (Dictatorship?)

A Guide for Creating a Local Organization


Creating a local structure becomes necessary when the number of abhyasis increases, and when it perhaps becomes necessary to buy and/or lease property (ashrams and meditation centers), and to open bank accounts to collect the organization's "voluntary contributions".

But the democratic character of all the different types of organizations offered by all the States on the planet really adapts itself quite badly with the operation of a spiritualist and totally un-democratic mission such as the SRCM of Chari.

Reconciling the two can be compared to the work of a watch-maker.

Hence, the implementation by the SRCM of a guide to create an ad hoc local structure.

This internal 19-page memo, dated 2008, recapitulates the main questions to be asked so as to determine the most relevant type of organization, the key steps to respect, and it also offers some models of pre-written statutes.

Usually in a democracy, the general assembly of the adherent members of an organization is plenipotentiary. Chari's (and this note's) main objective is to remove all the general assembly's power.

SRCM is based on the adhesion of its members, but it is directed (guided?) by a leader. No election of its directors is predicated. The President, because of his role as the spiritual guide, is the supreme authority. His authoritarianism can not be questioned. Unfortunately, it must also conform to the laws of the home country, wherein lies the difficulty in selecting the best type of organization.

The President must definitely keep a general control of the organization, but with limited responsability and if possible, the least legal risks. The organization must allow the transfer of financial surpluses to other structures in and outside the country. The President must also be able to set a maximum limit of withdrawal from the bank accounts of the local structure for its expenses.


“The Mission in India is a membership-based organization but it is leader-driven. It does not provide for elected officers or elected working committees/supervisory commissions. There are officers and there is an advisory body but these are appointed by the President. The President (by the nature of his role as a spiritual guide) is supreme and his authority cannot be questioned. All this is of course in compliance with the laws of the land where the Mission is active.

(…)

It is also common practice for surpluses to be transferred to the Mission or an entity designated by the Mission so that they may be applied in another country where local voluntary contributions are not enough to support the local organization. Thus contributions may flow both ways into and out of a given country.

(…)

Is it a body corporate, and is the liability of the founders/owners limited? What are the legal risks that the President and the office-bearers face under law?

(…)

Can we provide safeguards within the constitutional documentation?"



The statutes of the local organization must allow the recognition of the supreme authority of the Master, an omnipotent President, and of a foreign nationality.

In this case, the recommended managerial scheme is composed of three levels: the Board, the Executive Comittee and the membership. The Board includes Chari and his successor as the President, as well as the region-in-charge, both designated by Chari. The Executive Committee includes a vice-president (or a "center-in-charge"), a Treasurer and a Secretary, all selected by Chari who also retains, by the way, a veto power over all their decisions. The members constitute the lowest level, these are the abhyasis.

This managerial scheme therefore corresponds to the ideal organizational structure imagined by Chari. The countries where such organizational structure is possible are called by the SRCM: Catetegory A (or Option A). Unfortunately, most countries do not allow such a denial of democracy. Whereby, the scenarios (or Options) B and C in which one must avoid (overturn, hijack) and/or go around the statutes to allow one to arrive at the same result.

(...)

“The supreme authority of the local legal entity must be our Master in his capacity as President, SRCM India. This is implemented in countries where the law so allows (“Category A Countries”) by defining the highest ranking position in the organization, the office of the President, as being occupied by the then current President of SRCM India.

(…)

The President, being our Master, must also be in a position to exercise overall authority over the organization including the right to veto decisions of the management council or other governing body.

(…)

It is our approach to adopt a membership-based form of organization where possible.

However, laws governing membership-based organizations in many countries do not permit any other body or person to have greater control over the affairs of an organization than its general members in assembly. While this is reasonable as a principle it poses some hurdles for a spiritual organization such as ours which cannot give way to procedures such as voting and election of officers. Thus, Master’s position as President although set forth in the Governing Documents, may not be secure because the general membership typically has the power to amend the Governing Documents. For this reason, it may also be difficult to enshrine the President’s veto rights in the Governing Documents. Furthermore, there are countries where foreign nationals or non-residents cannot be founders or members or officers (“Category B Countries”). Despite such restrictions we may approach this with the object that every effort must be made to reflect Master's real authority in the organizational rules and operational structure to the extent possible and in accordance with the law.

(...)

While Master must be the supreme authority, it is prudent that a separate body remains responsible (under law and the rules of the organization) for day-to-day affairs since this is likely to buffer Master from the immediate risk of any liabilities that may arise under contract or law due to the acts or omissions of functionaries. Where Master is the President of the membership-based organization, we can have a supervisory body and an executive body as depicted in the figure below.

(…)

A list of key officers (Step 1b – See Section 5 on Management) must be prepared and kept ready for Master’s review and approval while the type of legal entity is considered and decided upon. It is preferable that more than one name be proposed for key positions such as the Chief Financial Officer and Compliance Officer. A record of their background, work experience and photographs may also be kept on file. The volunteers who agree to act as officers must be clear that there are no restrictions under contract or otherwise on their ability to serve as officers of our organization.”



Having treated with the case of the easiest countries, those in Category A, one has to begin to trick and/or to cheat the law (or the spirit of the law). SRCM therefore proposes an Option B for countries where it is not possible for Chari to hold the presidency. Unlike the previous Option (A), the first level no longer exists. The "center-in-charge" is now the president by force of circumstance, and is also a member of the management committee, along with the treasurer and the secretary.

In this case, they will play with the lowest level, that of the members, the active abhyasis. To do this, SRCM distinguishes them from the preceptors (designated by Chari), from among which he will appoint "delegated member", the only ones entitled to vote. All other active members are called "general members", and they do not have the right to vote (unless the President decides otherwise), they are not counted in the quorum, and they have no more than an advisory role. The President may also determine whether a member is "active" or not. In the U.S., SRCM applies this scheme (Option) of 2 groups to the letter; one group of non-voting "general members" and one group of voting "delegate members" ...

Finally, Chari must be able to exercise his veto power over the "Management Committee". So they will have to play with the founding documents of incorporation of the organization. They are often of two types: the founding statutes on the one hand, and the subsidiary operational document, on the other hand. And only in the latter will be indicated the actual category of the un-democratic structure of the operation. This is the type of scheme that was chosen in France, with the founding statutes of the association as per law 1901, on the one hand, and a totally dictatorial rules of procedure, of the other hand. (see on this (France) subject) :

French:
http://lorganisationsrcmsm.blogspot.fr/2007/11/16.html

English:
http://organizationsrcmsm.blogspot.ca/2007/12/organization-of-shri-ram-chandra.html



"(...)

“Option B :

Where the laws do not permit Master to occupy the office of President, the need for two separate bodies within the governing structure is dispensed with. So we can have a single Managing Committee (consisting of the three main functionaries at the least and any additional members if the law so requires).

In such a case we still need to provide for a manner in which Master can secure the direction in which the organization proceeds. This may be done by providing for the power of the President, SRCM India to designate a class of voting members from the general membership. Alternately it may also be provided that this class of members, the Delegate Members, will need to be prefects certified by the President, SRCM in order to be so chosen.

(…)

“Prefects” means spiritual trainers of the Sahaj Marg system of meditation as authorized and certified by the President, SRCM India.

General Membership. Active practitioners of the Sahaj Marg system of meditation, practising under the guidance of the spiritual Master being the President [replace with - President, SRCM India – for Category B Country] SRCM may be admitted as “General Members” by Prefects. Active practitioners are those who: (i) regularly practice morning meditation, evening cleaning, nightly prayer; (ii) are given regular individual sittings by Prefects; (iii) regularly participate in group meditations; and (iv) show interest in progressing spiritually in the Sahaj Marg system. The President may, from time to time, determine whether a practitioner is active or non-active. It being understood that this is a spiritual determination the decision of the President on this matter shall be final and not open for examination or review by the [Board of Directors/Executive Committee/Committee of Management] or the members (in general meeting or otherwise) or any office bearers.

Delegate Members. General Members may be designated and appointed as “Delegate Members” by the President at his discretion. On such appointment Delegate Members shall be entitled to vote at annual general meetings and special meetings.

For the purpose of abundant clarity, General Members shall not have voting rights and shall not (unless the President otherwise directs) be included for the purposes of notices or constitution of quorum in connection with meetings of the members (including annual general meetings and special meetings); Preceptors shall have no legal status or entitlements in the Mission other than the duty to facilitate the admission of General Members; the issuance of an identity card to any practitioner shall in no way be construed as a proof of membership in the Mission; the authoritative record of General Membership and Delegate Membership shall be the Register of Members; the President may at any time instruct the Vice President to re-designate a Delegate Member as a General Member in the Register of Members and such a member shall lose his Delegate Member status with effect from the date of such instruction by the President.

The Mission shall keep in written form or any form capable of being converted into written form a current register of members (“Register of Members”) of the Mission containing the name, address, and occupation of each member, together with the date on which the person became a member and the class of each member. The Register of Members shall be maintained and updated by the Vice President under directions from the President, shall be kept at the principal office of the Mission and shall be subject to the rights of inspection required by law.

Members Are Not Agents. The management of the Mission is vested in the Board and its authorized officers acting with the approval of the President. No Member, acting solely in the capacity of a Member, is an agent of the Mission nor can any Member in such capacity bind nor execute any instrument on behalf of the Mission.


(…)

Governing documents refer to the documents by which an organization is run. They are usually prepared and executed by the founders of the organization and thereafter by members of the organization. They are referred to variously as charter documents, constitutional documents or statutes. In many countries there are two sets of charter documents (a) a founding document (such as a memorandum of association in UK or a declaration in France) (b) a subsidiary operational document (such as articles of association in UK or internal regulations in France).

Typically, the subsidiary document is meant to be more flexible and detailed and the bar for amending it is much lower than with a founding document. In other countries and/or for certain types of organizations, there is a single governing document such as a charter (#1091, #1089; #1090, #1072, #1074) in the former Soviet Republics or a trust deed in the UK, India and other commonwealth countries. Many of the suggestions in this note relate to the Governing body"


Unfortunately there still remains many countries where the election rules are too strict, or where other aspects of democratic principles are particularly disturbing. Whereby, the Option C proposed by the SRCM, where it is simply intended to separate ownership of the assets from the other activities of the Mission.

In this case, one must create an additional structure, foundation type, solely under the name of Chari for holding and managing the assets of the Mission. This Mission then makes available (to him) the assets of the local organization, which is too democratic in the eyes of Chari.

Note that following the release of this internal memo in 2008, there were very few non-profit associations among the recent local organizations created, with the exception of SRCM UK, Ireland, Nepal or the States of Jammu and Kashmir in India ... (and Canada?).

Conversely, a Sahaj Marg Spirituality Foundation (SMSF), a non-profit organization was registered with the Department of Economic Development in Dubai on May 31, 2004. After the foundation of SMSF Dubai, a new Sahaj Marg Spirituality Foundation was officially created on March 5, 2012 in Singapore. Similarly in Hong Kong, the new bridgehead of the development of the Mission in China.


"(...)

"Option C:

An option to be considered in countries that are particular about elections and other democratic aspects of an organization, is to separate the asset holding functions from other activities in the following manner:

Where it is structurally difficult to avoid elections and other aspects of democratic functioning in the membership organization the properties of the Mission may be held by a foundation, trust, institution or other similar single founder organization. This organization may then make available its premises to the membership organization for its activities.”


After this long decryption of the internal memorandum of SRCM, the conclusion is not more simple: Chari and his spiritualist organization do not agree particularly well with modern democratic principles and they do not hide it. Their sole purpose is to circumvent them, to give all powers to Chari, without limitation.

The idealized relationship of Master to disciple collapses, there is only power of appointment, designation and therefore segregation or veto ...

One would be tempted to imagine that this is because of the special role of a spiritual teacher, who is the one and only possible dictatorial guide in this religion or in this Spiritualist Group. But the attention paid to the material in this paper proves the property (right to use and abuse) of the assets of the Mission is as important as the all-powerful master. Infallible (as the Pope), Chari would be happy to lead a single-member foundation to manage all these assets. The only thing is that he does not want to incur any legal risks. He seems ready to raise (create) and take all the powers, but he is not ready to take responsibility ...


Source: * Guidance note - Registering a local organization - 19 pages - SRCM, 12/08/2008

http://www.sahajmarg.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=57279&folderId=628266&name=DLFE-12905.pdf



Note by 4d-don:

In Canada, directors of a non-profit organization (including Charities) are responsible for the claims and the contracts of the society.

Sahaj Marg is SPIRITUALISM (Anonymous Medium, egregore, messages (or whispers) from the spirits of the dead are sold as SPIRITUALITY ... A Scam?? Their major fund-raiser is the annual release of a series of "spiritualist" Whispers from the Brighter World.

Where is this "certification board" which guarantees that these spritualist messages channeled from the "spirits" by an anonymous French Lady Medium are actually from a "divine source", or from a "Brighter" world? Do the compilation and sale of these "WHISPERS" really constitute "charity"?? Do the sale of these Whispers really deserve to be "tax exempt" according to our national "Standards and Regulations" for charities?

See here: Improper and Evil Practice - Stoppage of. Note on page 14, section 11: "... cause and Standards of Spiritualism"... )
http://www.geocities.ws/cult_sahaj_marg/fake.pdf .

That is not Raja Yoga, nor is it spirituality!!

Whispers from the Brighter World can be called SPIRITUALISM and can also be called a scam and a fraud ?? ... but according to most, it is not Spirituality!!
.
.
.
.