Is there discrimination in Auroville?

The Working Committee, the Auroville Council and the Restorative Auroville group have been discussing this particular incident and, it seems, a certain understanding and resolution have been achieved. However, in the process it became evident that perceived discrimination by some in the Tamil Aurovilian community is a much larger issue and that has been churning away beneath the surface for many years. Consequently, the Council decided to launch a year long process, involving meetings, workshops etc., to explore the topic and come up with practical measures to deal with it.

The first step was a cross-cultural dialogue organized by Restorative Auroville (see Auroville Today June-July, 2018). The two day workshop brought together 47 Aurovilians from different cultural backgrounds to express themselves, or to understand more, about the topic. For some of them it was an eye-opener as many Aurovilians from the local area gave examples of feeling discriminated against by Aurovilians from other nationalities and from other parts of India.

One of them said she had never been able to express her experience before and be deeply heard. Such instances of personal catharsis made this cross-cultural dialogue an important first step along the road. However, there was little examination of the causes of discrimination. Without this, it is difficult to come up with practical measures to tackle it at its roots.

What are the roots of discrimination?

Worldwide, there are many forms of discrimination. All involve some form of exclusion, rejection and assumption of superiority by one group over another. They include discrimination against others based upon gender, sexual orientation, religious or political affiliation and age. However, the form which has probably attracted the most attention is that based upon race and culture.

There are many theories about why one race or cultural grouping discriminates against another. They include economic and political motives. But a first step towards discrimination seems to involve the distinguishing of one’s own group or culture from others as a means of defining one’s identity. As the historian Bernard Lewis put it, “Most, probably all, human societies have a way of distinguishing between themselves and others: insider and outsider, in-group and out-group, kinsman or neighbor or foreigner. These definitions not only define the outsider but also, and perhaps more particularly, help to define and illustrate our perception of ourselves.”

However, by distinguishing our grouping from others, we open up the possibility of conflict. Doudou Diene, an ex-member of the Auroville International Advisory Council who was United Nations Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance says that, in his experience, whenever two different communities meet there is always an ‘identity tension’.

Diene noted that this tension may not necessarily result in discrimination or, in its more extreme forms, racism and xenophobia. “It’s the way that this tension is handled that determines whether it translates into hostility and hatred or into attraction and love.”

He concluded, however, that “the lesson of history is that, because of power issues, economic interests or religious ideology, diversity is generally instrumentalized into hostility and hatred rather than understanding and love.”

Is there a solution?

How can we make diversity a means of expansion rather than of fear? How can we avoid turning suspicion or fear of ‘the other’ into discrimination and hatred?

If, as some research suggests, it is hard-wired in us, a possible hangover from a dangerous past when groups had to make quick distinctions between friend and foe, it is no easy matter. Anti-discrimination campaigners suggest that action needs to be taken at different levels: at a personal level, at the level of community and through sustained political activism.

At the national level, for example, the emphasis is upon promoting anti-discriminatory laws, as well as initiatives like affirmative action in areas where discrimination takes place, and supporting political parties that stand for social equity and justice.

This, along with other factors, has had its effect. For example, a multicultural city like London is less discriminatory and racist today than it was in the 1950s and 1960s. Yet discrimination and racism are extremely difficult to stamp out. Just three days after the Brexit vote, where concerns about uncontrolled immigration into the U.K. were a decisive factor in the outcome, there was a 57% rise in racially-motivated hate crimes across the country.

Auroville and discrimination

Auroville is clearly not a racist community. There is no programme to deprive members of one community of equal rights and opportunities or to privilege one community above all others, as was the case in apartheid South Africa or the southern states of America in the first part of the 20th century.

But this does not mean that forms of discrimination do not exist. I have attended a number of cross-cultural dialogues in Auroville in which members of the local Tamil Aurovilian community have described in detail how they feel they have experienced discrimination from other nationalities or those from other parts of India. Rarely is it overt. It happens more in the subtle micro-interactions of everyday life. Those who experience it say it’s like not being seen, heard or related to in quite the same way as people from other cultures, and as if they are viewed through the lens of a cultural stereotype rather than as individuals. “We feel we are treated as second-class Aurovilians”, is how one of them bluntly put it.

As ‘evidence’ of this, they point out that while local Tamils comprise a large percentage of the total population, this is not reflected in their representation on major working groups (16 out of 91 on a recent count). They also complain about being referred to as ‘Tamil Aurovilians’, implying they are part of an undifferentiated group, when other Aurovilians are not demarcated by their nationality.

A further cause of resentment is their sense that Aurovilians from the local area get a bad press. They assert that when an Aurovilian from the local community is guilty of some misdemeanour, it gets widely publicised, often provoking the response that this is ‘typical’ of someone from their community, whereas the misdemeanours of other Aurovilians tend to be brushed under the carpet and not used to smear an entire community.

Finally, there is resentment that so few non-Tamilians have learned their language or explored the local culture. They feel this implies that non-Tamils do not think their language and culture is important enough to be studied and celebrated.

Some of these perceptions need to be treated with caution. It should be noted that they are not always accurate – discrimination can be confused with an innocent judgement about somebody’s unfitness for a task, for example – they are not shared, publicly at least, by all Aurovilians born in the local area, and some of the accusations of discrimination may be politically-motivated. Moreover, as a number of high-profile financial misdemeanours have involved people from the local area it is more understandable, if not excusable, that others from the same community are sometimes tarred with the same brush.

However, the fact remains that, unlike other nationalities, concerns about discrimination are often mentioned by a diverse cross-section of local Aurovilians, and this makes it important that we take them very seriously.

What are the causes?

One of the most obvious factors is ignorance. When one doesn’t understand the language or culture, it’s easy to misread intentions or to judge people on the basis of superficial criteria, like the way they dress or speak. When one doesn’t know somebody personally, it’s easier to view them as a type. Those who have only limited contact with the local Aurovilians are more likely to elevate a negative experience with one of them into a condemnation of all; or to believe in generalisations like, “they all join Auroville only for material advantage”.

Such generalisations are often based upon generalisations made about the villages like, “everybody in the village is only concerned to promote the welfare of themselves or their family”, or “life in the villages is the law of the jungle where the most powerful always get their way”. Those who have little contact with Aurovilians from the local area often tend to see them as villagers, with all the negative traits they associate with the villagers, rather than as individuals who may have taken a difficult decision to ‘cross the road’ because they believe in the Dream.

A personal experienceBut there is another kind of ignorance, and that is caused by the ‘baggage’ that we carry from our upbringing and culture that unconsciously influences our behaviour and perception of others.

I first became aware of my own baggage on a hot summer morning many years ago. I was new to Auroville and cycling on a narrow sand path in the Greenbelt when I met a villager on a cycle coming the other way. One of us would have to give way but we both refused. Soon we were shouting at each other and almost coming to blows. I forget how it ended. I think we were finally separated by other villagers.

Later, I wondered about what had happened. If it had been somebody from another nationality, would I have acted like that? Of course not. In the heat of the moment, I had been taken over by something that I had absorbed unconsciously from my childhood in the U.K. And that was an assumption, based upon books, history, films etc. about colonial India, that I was somehow superior to the ‘natives’ by virtue of my birthright.

And this unconscious assumption was reinforced by my first contact with the local villages which seemed primitive, dirty, uncared for. My Protestant upbringing which equated cleanliness and hard work to ‘godliness’ influenced me to view people who lived in such conditions as lazy, even of low moral status, something which seemed supported by the sporadic violence, alcoholism, and poor treatment of women.

Mother, of course, warned against such generalisations, pointing out, among other things, that the simplest villager is, “in his heart, closer to the divine than the intellectuals of Europe. All those who want to become Aurovilians must know this and behave accordingly; otherwise they are unworthy of Auroville”.

I’m ashamed to admit to this ignorance now, and I hope, I very much hope, that I have outgrown such crude and fallacious assumptions. I’m happy to have many close friends in the Tamil community. But there is a suspicion that even today some form of this prejudice exists among some non-local Aurovilians, particularly those from the West, and that it spills over to the way they relate to Aurovilians who were born in the local area.

For Auroville is, in many ways, a predominantly western culture. Not only is the lingua franca English, but many of the values which determine the way we meet, take decisions etc., and upon which we base our perceptions and judgements of others are western-influenced. For example, as L’aura Joy pointed out in a recent issue, we have a tendency to equate efficiency and effectiveness with computer literacy and the ability to express oneself well in English. But these are only one way of measuring effectiveness. The people skills that enable someone to negotiate, for example, complex relationships in the village is another one, and one that most Westerners lack.

What can be done?

Is Auroville’s situation an advantage or a disadvantage in working upon this complex and very sensitive issue?

On the one hand, as Manas pointed out in the last Auroville Today, the fact that many of us are settlers in a foreign land makes it more likely that discrimination will take place as, historically, settlers invariably discriminate against the local population. Moreover, the fact that this international experiment is situated in rural India means that the possibility of very different cultures coming into conflict through mutual misunderstanding is likely to be amplified.

On the other hand, our Charter enshrines the goal of human unity, and the fact that Auroville has such a rich mixture of races and cultures living and working in proximity means that the opportunity to learn about other cultures and, in the process, realize how relative are the values and assumptions of one’s own, are immensely increased. There is also the potential of the ‘propinquity effect’, a theory that posits that we form closer bonds with those we encounter most often.

Whatever the advantages and disadvantages of our situation, what emerges most strongly from discrimination and racism studies elsewhere is that human unity, at least in the initial stages, has to be worked upon; it doesn’t just happen.

And that work has to begin with the individual. Ultimately, of course, a genuine human unity is based upon each individual’s spiritual realisation of our essential oneness. But until this stage is reached, many of the actions promoted by anti-discrimination groups elsewhere are relevant us here. In other words, honestly examine yourself to see if you have prejudices and negative stereotypes of other cultures (take an implicit-association test to help uncover any bias you may have) and try to ensure that your thoughts, language and actions do not imply or support discrimination; don’t generalise, always relate to people as individuals rather than as undifferentiated members of a group; befriend people from different cultures and learn about their values and perspectives; learn the local language; embrace, celebrate diversity. And learn to be comfortable with yourself rather than needing groups to join or to discriminate against.

At the community level, it involves calling out discrimination whenever one sees it; educating people, particularly at a young age, about different cultures; ensuring that all Aurovilians, regardless of their background, have the opportunity to grow and express themselves fully; and demonstrating respect for the local culture by promoting proficiency in the Tamil language, by attending Tamil cultural events, and by ensuring that there are translations and translators at community meetings and for all documents requiring community input.

And we need many more opportunities, like the Matrimandir concretings of the past and ongoing sports programmes, for different cultures to work and play together. (It is probably this, rather than education, legislation or affirmative action, that has proved most effective in lessening discrimination worldwide.)

Quite a lot of this is already happening, but much more needs to be done. In the process, certain attitudes need to be guarded against. Firstly, of course, there are those who deny that any such problem exists. Conversely, there is the danger that almost everything is seen as discrimination, a tendency of Westerners who feel guilt-ridden about the colonial heritage of the West, as well as those from the local community who play the ‘race card’ for personal or political advantage.

Then there are those who say that by focussing upon the issue we will only make it worse. Finally there is the danger of relativising the situation by saying that since we all suffer discrimination in some form or another, why focus just upon solving it with the local Tamil population? “Aren’t they as guilty as everybody else of discriminating against others and, indeed, even members of their own community when it comes to caste?”, an accusation which, though it contains some truth, ignores the fact that no other nationality in Auroville complains so often and widely about suffering discrimination.

Perhaps the greatest challenge in making progress against discrimination is the need for personal honesty. We all need to relentlessly examine ourselves and our culture to discover any prejudices and preconceptions we may have about others, and then have the courage to own up to them rather than mask them for fear of being termed ‘racist’ or making ourselves unpopular. And we need to call out discrimination in other cultures whenever we think we see it happening. Only then can we get down to the real work of trying to dissolve it.

The scale of this challenge cannot be underestimated, particularly if Doudou Diene is correct when he states that all of us view other cultures through lenses ‘tinted by prejudice’. But if ‘human unity’ is to be more than a tired cliche, it’s a challenge we have to accept. And surmount.