Should planning be a participatory process?

The topic of participatory planning has loomed large in recent discussions. Important questions of roles, responsibilities, leadership styles, and power have been raised, with people noting that these had not been adequately addressed in recent weeks, but needed to be clarified before the process goes any further, otherwise “power and hierarchy will be wrong or corrupted within.” Many residents have expressed dismay at the general lack of collaboration between groups, and, more specifically, the seeming lack of a meaningful participatory planning process offered by the TDC. Some have claimed the process has so far been very top-down and hierarchical, and that stakeholders must instead aim for a more inclusive planning approach that aligns with Auroville’s overarching values.

The Residents Assembly Service had invited the Working Committee and the TDC to be present at the General Meeting in Kalabhumi amphitheatre on August 20 to give an update on the progress of the surveys and to answer questions. The Working Committee responded by simply acknowledging receipt of the email, while the TDC responded that they would not speak at meetings until the surveys for the Crown were complete. However, some members of the Working Committee and TDC were present at the meeting, and agreed to answer questions in an individual capacity.

Community members mentioned that a JCB earthmover that had been used two days earlier to clear a wider path as part of the surveying process near Savitri Bhavan, without any advance notification to the community, and wondered how this could have happened. The TDC member apologised. “It shouldn't have happened,” he stated, agreeing that the community should have been informed, and that archaeological burial places should be accommodated in the planning. “We also make mistakes.”

He confirmed that the TDC “does not have a plan” at the present time, but when the current survey concludes, it will present the findings in meetings and publications, and “then the process will start.” “We don’t know yet what will happen after that. We do plan to engage the community.”

But what kind of engagement? One of functions of the TDC is “to prepare and implement communication and consultation processes that encourage an active, constructive and participatory involvement of Auroville residents in the implementation of the Master Plan.” But, as one community member put it, “The TDC has been working in a top-down fashion. Will you work in a participatory manner? There are many alternative solutions to this typical 1980s management approach of a boss above, people below.”

Somebody also wrote that it would be good if the TDC published a glossary of the terminology [used in relation to the Crown] “so the community is actually empowered to be part of the conversation.” Another person actually appealed to the TDC to “start with a clean slate. Involve everybody, and release the creative energy which we all have, and which will unite us.”

One of Auroville’s long-standing architects emphasised the need for clarity around the role of the TDC: “Do they represent the community, or are they professional planners? They are deciding everything. They should be given a brief. Many objected to the TDC and The Secretary setting certain non-negotiables: that the Crown will go ahead, that the corridor will be 16.7 metres wide, that certain homes will be demolished and trees cut down.

Another questioned: “Has the TDC had been tasked with responsibility to implement, as well as to plan?” implying that the TDC had taken on tasks beyond its mandate.

A former TDC member pointed out that the community had approved the new structure of TDC in 2017 (at a RAD), which included the selection of an interface team to bring the voice of the Residents Assembly to the TDC, but this had not happened.

Another acknowledged it is great that the Secretary has brought us to the point of how do we deal with this topic, after so many years, but also felt that the Secretary and Working Committee were “side-stepping” the selection process for the TDC that was approved by the Residents’ Assembly.

It was pointed out that the Standing Order – a 2017 legal document – was originally issued to give the TDC power to use against outside forces (such as property developers etc.), but it was claimed that the TDC was instead using it “against Aurovilians” to gain power and to exclude the community from the planning and development process.

Others noted that the gazetted Master Plan was not created by the community nor through an inclusive community process, and was not ratified by the community.

Another community member clarified that, “We don’t have a governing board, so (the Secretary’s) decisions are not ratified. We need the spark to solve the problem, not to rely on someone else to decide. We need spirit, and elevated consciousness!”

Many people objected to the 24-hour notice given by the TDC about the first installment of the ‘Jewels of the Crown’ series of workshops. The workshop was not widely announced, even though its intention is for community brainstorming for a harmonious manifestation of the structures around the Crown corridor. One person suggested that the TDC was only offering “partial” and “not full participation” in the process. “

To help Aurovilians understand different degrees of citizen engagement in participatory planning, one resident posted Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation on Auronet. Levels 1 and 2 – manipulation and therapy – are considered non-participation. Levels 3, 4 and 5 – informing, consultation and placation – are regarded as degrees of tokenism, conceded to citizens by those in power. Citizens only gain real degrees of power at levels 6, 7 and 8 – when partnership, delegated power and citizen control are attained.

“Why are you organising a separate, last-minute event that is not announced publicly and has the same topic as the GM that you declined to come to?” one resident wrote on social media.

But on social media platforms, many people expressed the need not to get bogged down in details by questioning the processes or the Master Plan, emphasizing that the community should instead implement the plan as “fast and as best as we can. We should not continue an endless discussion that can be very detrimental to the development of the City,” one person wrote. Another expressed: “Some fundamental things cannot be changed by any RAD, like the name Auroville, the Dream, the 50,000 inhabitants the Mother aimed for…” Many regard the Galaxy design as something that should not be questioned: “This rough design was known decades ago, and by settling here we basically signed up for it, including the name Auroville.” And others questioned the point, substance and flavour of online debates: “Everyone is tired of spinning. [The] Auronet debate will last two days, same 10 participants, some mix of 200+ views. Hardly a [productive] debating platform since a while now, especially as few of the working groups participate. They are busy.”

In the General Meeting, two Working Committee members answered questions in their capacity as individuals. They were asked why they were not communicating better on this topic with the larger community. They admitted that the divisions within the Working Committee itself – with members holding different opinions, which are now “calcified” – made it difficult to speak with one voice.” Additionally, attempts to balance pressures from the Secretary and the Residents Assembly made them feel “like being in a crucible”.

The Working Committee members conceded that it was hard to slow down the current speed of events. “We’re still figuring out how to adapt [to Dr Ravi’s pace]”, said one, after likening their work to “jumping on a very fast-moving conveyer belt”. “The processes we have, the participation of the residents, the equal participation, these processes have a long curve and do not align with the push and impatience to get things done. The space for community participation is very compressed.