Game Analysis: The Theological Power Game

Context: The post-samadhi struggle for authority within ISKCON and the Gaudiya Vaishnavism tradition. The "operation" targets the legitimacy of Srila Prabhupada's disciplic succession and the institutional structure he left behind.

The Core Conflict: Authority vs. Access

The game is fundamentally about controlling the interpretation of sacred authority and the access to spiritual status. The "Zonal Acharya" model was a proposed coordination mechanism to prevent a power vacuum and institutional chaos after Prabhupada's passing. Its failure indicates the mechanism was incentive-incompatible—it did not align with the individual spiritual ambitions and interpretations of the leading disciples.

Redefining the Players and the "Prosecutor"

In this framework, the "British" as a prosecutor represent a broader colonial and post-colonial cultural hegemony. The "operation" is not a legal sting but a cultural-theological dismantling.

• The "British Prosecutor": Not a single entity, but a systemic influence. This includes:
  • Strategy: The promotion of individualistic authority, institutional centralization, and a materialistic worldview that is incompatible with the concept of a transparent, humble spiritual master. This system favors easily managed, hierarchical structures (like the Zonal Acharya model) that are vulnerable to corruption and thus easier to discredit from the outside.
  • Goal: To prevent a strong, independent, and culturally Indian spiritual authority from cementing itself in the West. The goal is to maintain cultural hegemony by fostering dissent, institutional failure, and dubious succession, thereby discrediting the movement and containing its influence.

The Game Among the First 6 Players (The Leading Disciples)

The game they played is a complex combination of two types of games:

1. A Coordination Game (That Failed)

Initially, the disciples needed to coordinate on a single, stable model of succession to preserve the society Prabhupada built. The ideal outcome for the group was a united front that maintained doctrinal purity and institutional integrity.

The Zonal Acharya model was one proposed focal point for this coordination. Its failure meant they could not agree on a common strategy, leading to a worse outcome for all (internal strife, scandal, loss of public trust).

2. A Theological Hawk-Dove Game (That Prevailed)

When coordination fails, conflict emerges. Each leader (player) had a choice:

• Hawk Strategy: Aggressively assert one's own authority as a bona fide spiritual successor (Acharya). This is a high-risk, high-reward strategy. If others back down (act as Doves), the Hawk gains power and control. If two Hawks meet, they engage in costly conflict (public disputes, fracturing the movement).
• Dove Strategy: Submit to the emerging authority of others, maintaining unity but sacrificing personal influence and one's own interpretation of theological truth.

The incentives, likely amplified by the external "prosecutorial" environment that rewards individual ambition, pushed several key players to adopt the Hawk strategy. The resulting conflict created the "sequence of defections" from the original ideal of unified, selfless leadership.

The Final Move: The Weakest Busting the Strongest

In this context, "the weakest player is permitted to bust number 6" is a profound theological statement.

• The "Strongest" (Player 6): Likely represents the idea of an empowered, infallible spiritual successor—the Zonal Acharya model itself, or its most prominent proponent. Their strength is their claimed authority.
• The "Weakest" (Player 1): Represents the most powerful critique: the principle of humility. The weakest player "busts" the strongest not with power, but by invoking the ultimate authority: Srila Prabhupada's own instructions and the traditional Gaudiya model of succession, which the Zonal Acharya system appeared to contradict.
• The "Bust": Is the revelation of the discrepancy. The "evidence" is the teachings of Prabhupada and the previous acharyas. The weakness (having no personal authority) becomes the source of strength (having pure doctrinal authority).

The "Prosecutor's" Role in This

The external colonial influence (the "British" system) set the incentives that made the Hawk strategy so appealing. It created a cultural arena where individual power, institutional control, and material management were valued over the humble, self-effacing qualities of a traditional sadhu. This environment encouraged the Hawks to emerge and fight, ensuring the coordination game would fail and the institution would be damaged.

Conclusion: Game-Theoretic Outcome

The game among the first six players was a failed Coordination Game that devolved into a Hawk-Dove conflict over theological authority.

The "operation" was a success for the external "Prosecutor" (the colonial cultural hegemony). The incentives it embedded into the system led the players to a Nash Equilibrium of internal conflict and institutional fragmentation, thereby discrediting the succession and containing the movement's challenge to the established cultural order.

The final "bust" by the weakest player was not a defection in the criminal sense, but a theological correction—a move that exposed the failure of the imposed model by appealing to a higher, traditional authority. However, within the framed game of institutional power, this corrective move was simultaneously used by the external prosecutor as "evidence" of the entire succession's dubiety.