Open meeting on the multiversity concept

Here is a summarised selection (not direct quotes) of what was expressed:

• The draft proposal is not in resonance with the field of experience which Auroville offers. The 150th anniversary calls for new forms which are an organic expression of the world spirit, so let’s not cast the future in conventional ones like this. 

• Why are we saying ‘no’ to those Aurovilians who want a certificate so that they can go to college? The question is, is Auroville only for those who reject certificates and qualifications, or is it for everyone?

• Will the multiversity provide land protection against speculation as an Institute of national importance? Answer: No. The multiversity act is not a tool for protecting the land of Auroville.

• It’s important that the next stage integrates the views and knowledge of people who have been involved in integral education in Auroville the last forty years or so.  

• As Auroville is a research and development department of novel ideas for the world, there comes a moment when these novel ideas have to be transferred and applied elsewhere. 

• This transfer is difficult and needs the right instruments. But I think the way this multiversity concept has been presented doesn’t compromise the aims of education as laid down by The Mother and Sri Aurobindo. 

• Our kids succeed very well outside. We don’t need this structure.

• Mother stood for an education that was not subject to a utilitarian world. The superstructure of this multiversity would inevitably suppress the creativity and spontaneity of education in Auroville.  

• The proposed structure of this multiversity is very top-down and very top-heavy, which is old-fashioned and not aligned with Auroville’s approach to governance. When one looks at the proposed constitution of the governing committee, of the 40 committee members, only four will be from Auroville. 

• If we are talking about not wanting the multiversity to give credits or qualifications, we are being hypocritical because most of our schools are preparing students for examinations.

• The Sri Aurobindo Ashram School has an evaluation programme but issues no certificates. When I left the Ashram School, all I got was something that said I had spent 14 years there and studied certain subjects. This is recognized to the level of a BA by Indian Universities and even by some abroad. We should explore this route.

• In Auroville it is the unique experience, which no other school in the world gives, which has value. Why do we want to recreate the old world by educating for certificates? 

• Even if only certain activities affiliate to the multiversity, I think it will have an impact on Auroville because resources allocated by the Government to help Auroville education would inevitably be diverted to this multiversity.

• This multiversity proposal is commonplace and backward and we should reject it. It’s been formulated by people who do not have the experience of Auroville. There is something unique about growing up in Auroville, regardless of the school attended. In the end what we want is an inner awakening. As Mother said, we want living souls, not brilliant students. I think that experiments like Auroville are meant to offer the solution to the problems that Mother saw concentrated in India as representative of the whole world. So let us be the cutting edge, let’s not create one more institution.

• A lot of people here feel that we are not in control anymore. There’s a feeling that things are being imposed on us, and if the Indian government wants to do something, they will simply do it. After the recent Governing Board meeting, there is deep concern that the government feels that Auroville is a failure and now they want to do a better job. 

• One point in the draft Act says the Central Government shall have powers to issue directions for compliance for provisions of certain documents, and the Multiversity shall comply. This seems like a clear interference of the Government in Auroville. Are we really free to decide?

• How do we translate a ‘no, thank you’ into something constructive? We are facing a crisis, but a crisis is also an opportunity. Let’s stick to our aims. Let’s give a strong message in the next month that these are our objectives, that we have this proposal and let’s implement it quickly. 

• Let’s say, all residents are researchers in a lab, and then let this lab be recognised by bodies outside Auroville.

• The Indian Government is celebrating Sri Aurobindo, paying homage to him, so we shouldn’t just say ‘no’ to this proposal. It looks small minded. Instead we should say, ‘Let’s do it together, but in the right way’.

• Are we really free to say no? Can it happen that we say we don’t want to be a direct stakeholder, but then we end up with an Act of Parliament that mentions Auroville? Answer: If we say at this stage, we don’t want this, and if in the next draft our name doesn’t appear as a founding affiliate, there is nobody who can impose it on us. The only other scenario is if the Governing Board decides it wants this to happen, and then we would have to oppose it. But I don’t think this will happen. 

At the end of the meeting, the facilitator said that the Residents Assembly Service will meet with the Working Committee to see how best to compile all the elements raised in this meeting and communicate it to the wider community. The community would be informed of the next steps, which could involve more meetings as well as other ways of harvesting feedback from residents.