The entry process: no easy answers

If you see the growth rate of Auroville’s population over the years, you will notice that the rate fluctuates in a consistent pattern. One interpretation of this pattern is that we are not able to define a balanced and sustainable Entry Policy. When growth is slow, we try to open up the process and welcome more Newcomers. This leads to a sudden influx, which we are not able to cope with in terms of housing and economy. Sometimes we have concerns about the “quality” of Newcomers. The result is a tightening of the entry process leading to fewer people coming in. And this pattern seems to repeat itself every two years. Is the current situation a mere repetition of this pattern, or is there more to the story?

The new Entry Policy

The earlier Entry Policy, which was in effect till early 2016, was implemented almost entirely by the Entry Service. They interviewed people, processed applications, and made decisions about change of status. Many Aurovilians and Newcomers felt that this was a difficult and bureaucratic process. Also, it was felt that the decision on whether to invite a Newcomer to be an Aurovilian should be moved to the community rather than be concentrated within a small group of people.

This led to a new policy being drafted. The Entry Policy 2015, which we will call the new Entry Policy, was ratified in April 2016 and came into effect from July 1, 2016. The new policy attempted to bring in a new spirit of being welcoming, non-judgemental and flexible. The policy stated that the Entry Service will “fulfill its task as a welcoming committee”.

In practical terms, the major departure from the earlier policy was in decision making. Earlier, the Entry Service would make the decision to announce and confirm Newcomers and Aurovilians, based on any feedback that might have been received from the community. The aim of the new policy was to “make Auroville more open, more trusting, less judgemental – as was the outcome of the Retreat in March 2015. A person should generally be allowed to make his/her own choice of becoming Aurovilian – or not. The Mentor Pool will effectively offer assistance and support without the necessity of being ‘gatekeepers’ to each applicant.” The policy went on to say that the “responsibility to decide if a person is ready or not for Auroville will be taken out of the hands of a single group and will be shared by the Mentor Pool, Entry Service, the community at large and the applicants.”

A Mentor Pool was set up and more than a hundred Aurovilians signed up to be Mentors. A series of Welcome Talks were conducted to inform Mentors, aspiring Newcomers and Newcomers about the new policy and entry process.

Challenges in implementation

Within a few weeks of the new Entry Policy coming into effect, feedback started pouring into the Auroville Council. By November 2016, the problems in implementation were significant enough for the Council to set up a joint Entry Task Group (ETG) with the Working Committee.

There were three kinds of problems that showed up during the implementation of the new policy. The first was the sheer number of Newcomers who were announced, which led to a severe shortage of Mentors. The second kind of problem was lack of clarity about the exact tasks of a Mentor. In trying to keep the process as flexible as possible, the new policy had ended up with very few practical guidelines. The third kind of problem, which might have been a result of unclear roles, was that several Mentors started dropping off the radar, and the entire mentoring process was called into question.

Soon, allegations were flying around about members of the Entry Service being Mentors (allegedly to more than 20 Newcomers), and relatives and employers becoming Mentors. There were also allegations of special consideration being given to some Newcomers who either skipped the Newcomer period altogether or had a very short Newcomer period.

On November 7, 2016, the Residents’ Assembly Service (RAS) received a petition from 65 Aurovilians, which stated:

“We, the undersigned, request an immediate Residents’ Assembly vote to suspend the current Entry Policy until a review is conducted by an independent group appointed by the Working Committee, and that all processing of entry is suspended until such a review is completed, its recommendations are published, and a Residents’ Assembly vote on any changes to the policy is completed. The reasons for suspension of the policy are as follows:

1) Successful implementation of the policy is dependent upon clear and approved guidelines for Mentors. No such guidelines have been presented to the community.

2) The entry group is processing applications and assigning Mentors without approved mentor guidelines.

3) The community was assured that there would be a training program for Mentors, but no such program has been put into place.

4) The community has been misled into believing that training of Mentors would be a criterion for participation in the mentor pool. This has not been the case.

5) There are inappropriate relationships allowed between Mentors and the newcomers. For example, employers can be mentors of employees, relatives of newcomers can be their Mentors.”

It is important to note that the Petitioners were asking for the implementation of the policy to be strengthened, not for the policy to be changed. Specifically, they wanted clear and approved guidelines for Mentors and a mandatory Mentor training program.

The Entry Task Group

As the challenges with implementing the new policy became visible, the first Entry Task Group (ETG), comprising members of the AV Council and the Working Committee, was expanded in November 2016 to include a resource person, people who were involved in formulating the new policy and a member of the Entry Secretariat. This ETG started looking at the entry process as well as the impact of this process on other aspects of Auroville, specifically housing and economy.

In the meantime, four members of the Entry Secretariat resigned. By this time, Welcome Talks were paused and new applications were not being processed. A General Meeting was called on December 20, 2016, to inform the community about updates and discuss the emerging issues and challenges.

In January 2017, the ETG was further expanded to include some of the Petitioners, bringing the group size to 17. This ETG was organized into three subgroups: structure and roles and responsibilities; criteria and prerequisites for various stages of the entry process; and review of cases. By the time the next General Meeting was called on May 11, 2017, the ETG had lost a few of its members. Perhaps the differences in philosophy and approach were too large to accommodate.

The proposed amendments to the Entry Policy

The ETG in its latest avatar has proposed several amendments to the new Entry Policy. The biggest change is the introduction of the Entry Board, which, along with the Mentors, will decide the status of an applicant. The Entry Board will be made up of seven Aurovilians, who have been residents for at least five years.

The other proposed change is the number of Mentors assigned to a Newcomer. In the new policy, each Newcomer was to be assigned three Mentors. This number is being revised to two, perhaps looking at the shortage of active Mentors. Earlier, an Aurovilian could mentor an unlimited number of Newcomers. Clearly, this is ineffective, and the proposed amendment 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. Also, employers and relatives of a Newcomer are not permitted to mentor him or her.

In terms of process, an applicant will need two letters of recommendation from Aurovilians and will have to attend an Auroville exploration programme. And many of the guidelines for Newcomers are proposed to be changed to mandatory rules, such as living and working in Auroville.

Scope creep

It is not clear how the scope of the ETG changed from strengthening the implementation of the new policy to amending the policy itself. In an announcement in the News & Notes of November 12th, the Council said, “there is a lot to improve and to fine-tune to make the new policy work in the spirit it was written” and that “this is being done in the spirit of bringing about a much needed change”.

In a subsequent announcement on November 26th, the Council said: “It is essential to note that the role of this task group is not to reassess the points of the policy that have been voted and agreed upon, but rather to fill in the gaps which may exist and to make sure that the process does not leave essential questions unanswered.”

Remember that the Petition sent to the RAS also listed improvements in implementing the policy and did not state that the policy itself was flawed. It certainly did not question the “spirit of bringing about a much needed change”.

So, what has changed between the initial days of the ETG in 2016 and now? Because new entry applications have been on hold for several months, it is unlikely that any new information has come forth on ground-level realities. So, is this a case of “the more things change, the more they remain the same”? Or, could it be that the real reason for pausing the process was disagreement with the spirit of the new policy?

If the Residents’ Assembly has voted on a decision, can a task group, such as the ETG, change the “spirit” of that decision? Don’t the proposed changes look surprisingly similar to the entry process as it used to be prior to July 2016? These and similar questions came up in the General Meeting on May 11, 2017.

As General Meetings go, this one was a little light in content and debate. The presenters scrolled through a document, making it hard for anyone to read the text. And an extremely concise summary of the proposed changes was presented.

In the discussion part of the meeting, four kinds of responses emerged. One group of participants felt that we are not ready for an entry process that is self-regulating, and therefore the policy needs the kind of amendments that have been proposed.

A second kind of response was that we need to have consistent guidelines for Newcomers and Aurovilians. In this view, if we live like true Aurovilians, or at least constantly work towards that ideal, Newcomers will not need special rules or guidelines. Those who integrate will stay and those who can’t will leave.

Some participants felt that the proposed amendments were a step back. They felt that it was a rewinding to the past where a few people – members of the Entry Service – made the decisions. It’s just that it has a new name now – the Entry Board.

The broader issue of what it means to have a Residents Assembly decision also came up. Going by the thin turnout of “voters”, it is possible that many Aurovilians will disagree with a ratified decision. In such cases, it might not be difficult to pull together 60 Aurovilians to sign a petition to question, pause or reverse a process.

What next?

In terms of practical next steps, the ETG will seek inputs from the community on a set of open questions. An amended policy is expected to be available in July for community feedback, and a General Meeting is likely towards the end of August. After this meeting, a Residents’ Assembly decision process will be initiated, and the outcome is expected in late September.

But questions remain about the content of the policy and the challenges that might be thrown up. For example, if the community agrees to having an Entry Board, how will we select the members of this critical board? Our recent experience with selection processes – both community-based and working group nominated – has not been entirely satisfactory. And when we do have an Entry Board, will the members be wise enough to rise above their individual biases and prejudices?

Sometimes it is best to remember what The Mother said. On entry criteria, The Mother said in 1969 that “the simple goodwill to make a collective experiment for the progress of humanity is sufficient to gain admittance [to Auroville]”. In 1972, She added that “coming to Auroville does not mean coming to an easy life – it means coming to a gigantic effort for progress.”

Will it be possible for us to inspire future Aurovilians to make this “gigantic effort” if the entry process is mired in controversy and bureaucracy?

There is also the larger question of how we can involve the entire community in an informed decision-making process. Is it apathy that keeps residents away from meetings and “voting”? Or is it a sense of helplessness that their views will not be heard? Is it language? It looks like the Residents’ Assembly Service has some critical issues to address.