Revised Entry Policy ratified

The Entry Task Group (ETG), which was formed to draft the policy, had engaged with the community through an intensive participatory process. The draft policy was published for feedback between July 2 and July 21. Feedback was incorporated and a General Meeting called on August 26. In this meeting, the ETG presented the new policy that would be the basis for decision making in the community. There were changes suggested in that meeting, and the ETG was flexible enough to accommodate those changes at that late stage in the process. Many of the comments in the General Meeting were related to the terminology used in the policy document, such as the Admission Committee and Termination Committee. Several participants felt that such terms did not resonate with the spirit of Auroville.

The new Entry Policy, written in a 27-page document, does a good job of clarifying the eligibility criteria for Mentors, the Entry Process to be followed by different groups of aspirants, such as Newcomers, Children of Aurovilians, and Students, and how the Entry Policy works for different relationship levels, such as Friend of Auroville and Associate of Auroville. Perhaps an executive summary could have helped readers who do not want to wade through the details.

Main differences

The two main differences between the new policy and the earlier one are related to the structure of the Entry Service and regulations related to Mentors. The Entry Service is now made up of three layers: The Entry Board, which is the decision-making body, the Entry Secretariat, which coordinates all activities, and the Mentors, who help Newcomers navigate through their first year in Auroville.

The Entry Board is to be made up of nine Aurovilians, of whom six must have lived in Auroville for at least five years. Considering how critical this group is, the policy requires that the Entry Board be selected through the Participatory Working Groups process, which involves the entire community.

The other significant change from the earlier policy is the set of regulations related to the Mentors. In the new policy, each Newcomer is to be assigned two Mentors, as opposed to the earlier guideline of three Mentors for each Newcomer. This is a practical step keeping in mind the shortage of active and motivated Mentors. Also, in the earlier policy, an Aurovilian could mentor an unlimited number of Newcomers. Clearly, this was ineffective, and the new policy limits the number of Newcomers to five for each Mentor.

Mentors now have eligibility criteria. Only those Aurovilians who have been residents for at least three years are eligible to be Mentors. Employers and relatives of a Newcomer are not permitted to mentor him or her.

Duration of Newcomer period

Another notable change is the duration of the Newcomer period. In the earlier policy, a Newcomer could, with the support of her Mentors, take as little or as much time as she needed to become an Aurovilian. It was really up to the Newcomer to “feel ready”. There was, in fact, a case of an aspirant becoming an Aurovilian after a three-month Newcomer period, which led to a spirited debate on Auronet.

The new policy specifies a minimum period of 12 months for Newcomers. Interestingly, it also specifies a maximum period of 18 months. So, unless a Newcomer leaves Auroville for several months during the Newcomer process, his case will be resolved within a defined timeframe. This should come as a relief for Newcomers - in the past, some aspirants have been stuck in the process for months on end for a variety of reasons, ranging from team dynamics in the Entry Service to the office being closed during summer.

Criticism

The new Entry Policy is not without its critics. Many of the Residents who have said ‘No’ to the policy have sent their feedback. Some are categorical about “no Mentors necessary”, while others think the new policy is based on “more bureaucracy, reflecting more fear, distrust, and need to control”. A common thread that runs through this feedback is that this is a “reversal to the old policy”. Some Residents are skeptical about the Entry Board, saying that the Board “seems to be the real decision centre, but whose intentions have not been clearly defined. It is more a council of elders, of which little is known about the criteria of decision.”

Any policy change will have its critics, and only time will tell if the new Entry Policy proves to be an effective basis for welcoming Newcomers and helping Auroville move toward future realisations. It’s also important to note that the new policy makes several welcome changes to the entry process, such as a formal three-day programme for people who want to become Newcomers, and education, training and support for Mentors. The Mentoring piece of the puzzle has been refined and is likely to have better outcomes than the previous attempt at Newcomer mentoring.

In terms of actual implementation, the interim Entry Service team will continue to operate till the Entry Board is selected by the community. The Auroville Council and Working Committee, in consultation with the Entry Board, will then appoint the members of the Entry Secretariat. Only after the Secretariat is appointed will the implementation of the new policy come into full force.

Newcomers no doubt are heaving a sigh of relief, now that the prolonged period of uncertainty about the entry process has finally come to an end. Some of us are tempted to say, “all’s well that ends well,” but the larger issue of community participation in decision making continues to be a challenge. 12% “turnout” in decision making is very low by any standard. In his new book Sense and Solidarity, the economist Jean Dreze talks about the need for “public-spiritedness” to achieve meaningful change. What will it take to increase the “public-spiritedness” in Auroville?