The IRM consider their position correct since it is based on signed, legal documents that were directed to the whole Movement. On the other hand, the GBC have presented at least three completely contradictory official positions (none of which are supported by legal documents) and thus do not technically have a position, not to speak of a correct one. We should point out that not only do these various accounts contradict each other, but on occasion contradict themselves too. For example, if we just take the simple question of when Srila Prabhupada was meant to have authorised his replacement as diksa guru for ISKCON, we get the following answer from the following three official GBC papers:

a) On My Order Understood (GBC, 1995): Srila Prabhupada gave the order for gurus at the same time as the order for devotees to act on his behalf, and this occurred on July 7th, 1977 (p. 28 in Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON, GBC 1995)
b) Disciple Of My Disciple (HH Umapati Swami, 1997): Eleven diksa gurus were all set up and ready on May 28th, 1977 since “ritvik” means “officiating acarya” which means “diksa guru”.
c) Prabhupada’s Order (Badrinarayan das, 1998): On July 9th, 1977 the eleven were fully functioning as gurus but simply observing the etiquette in Srila Prabhupada’s presence.

Above we see the GBC have given three different dates for when Srila Prabhupada allegedly sanctioned his replacement.

a) refers to a garden conversation,
b) refers to a meeting between Srila Prabhupada and some of his senior disciples,
whilst c) refers to the signed directive on initiation after which this booklet is named.

Thus each GBC position paper tells a very different tale. To make matters worse: In March 2004, at their annual meeting in Mayapur, the GBC officially withdrew the paper On My Order Understood, privately admitting it contained “lies” and “stretched the truth“. It was this very paper that The Final Order set out originally to challenge (please see The Final Order’s Introduction) and the fact it has now been withdrawn so ignominiously can only further vindicate the IRM’s position.

Quite clearly the GBC are confused over when successor diksa gurus were authorised. The IRM argues that this is inevitable since Srila Prabhupada never created any replacement diksa gurus, only ritviks; and it was this ritvik system he left running with no order for it to be stopped. On this basis we argue that the GBC must first decide on a position, and only then will we be able to judge its efficacy.

The sad thing is that, even to this day, anyone who questions the GBC’s miasma of discordant testimony is ruthlessly hounded from the Society.