“I strive to pursue what is true, right and just”

AVToday: Gabi, what was your reaction to being appointed to the IAC?

I was really shocked and surprised, although I had been asked if I would be interested in 2019. I said that I was most honoured to be considered suitable for this position but felt that I would be completely underqualified for this role, even though I had been bringing yoga groups to Auroville for many years. Then it went completely out of my head until I heard I’d been nominated.

But I have always lived my life in a way that I don’t chase things to happen. Instead, things seem to evolve and unfold and so I trusted this had happened for a reason, and I opened myself up to the challenges.

The members of the IAC only met through Zoom until a few days ago. Was it challenging to create a group in this way?

It was. I’m used to working in organizations and groups as I’ve been involved with the European Union of Yoga since 2004 and been part of the Irish yoga Association since 1995. I’m also used to working in groups where people have different perspectives, but there was always a kind of structure to them. There would be regular meetings and internal regulations to follow. I presumed that in joining the IAC there would be a similar format to guide us. But it became apparent from the first three or four meetings that we were grappling with understanding our role. Michel and I would say it is spelt out in the Foundation Act that we could advise the Governing Board on any matter relating to the development and management of Auroville. However, it seemed the other members were saying they didn’t want to get involved in the day-to-day running of Auroville; that we had a different role. 

Then, in our first Zoom meeting with the Governing Board, the Secretary told us what her perspective on our role was. This was to spread the word of Sri Aurobindo internationally, to heighten the awareness of Auroville, and to raise funds. But I had understood this to be the role of Auroville International (AVI). Afterwards, I initiated meetings between the AVI and IAC to hear from the AVI people what their role is, so that they and we could see that we have a different role to play. 

Is there now agreement in the IAC regarding your role?

No, we are not there yet. I’m really hoping that after Thursday evening’s meeting with the community [see page one, eds.] that the other IAC members heard that we have a certain responsibility, and I will try my very best to jell us to a point where we can actually make some joint statements. When you meet face-to-face, which is happening for the IAC the first time for now, you get a feel for somebody that you don’t get on Zoom. So I hope that this has made a difference in our relationship to each other.

One way the difference in perspectives seems to be reflected is in Dena’s and H. P. Rama’s statements that they don’t want to pour oil on the fire in regard to the present situation, for this seems like an implicit criticism of the fact that you and Michel have been quite forthright in expressing your concerns to the Governing Board.

If I’m given a role to play, either as a teacher on a yoga course or as a delegate to the European Union of Yoga, I leave my personal stuff out of it. I take on the professionalism which the role requires. So I feel that as a member of the IAC I need to be as honest and open as possible, and if I see something that is not sitting right, I have to say it. I can’t say that’s not my job, that’s not my role. 

But in the meeting with the community you said that when people are not free to express themselves, it particularly touches you – which sounds as if a personal element is involved.

Yes. My partner and I were born in South Africa, we grew up during apartheid and were politically active against it, albeit within the law. So we always try to stand against injustice, and stand for freedom of speech, because these kinds of things we can’t let go of. Then we lived in Ireland where the whole North-South conflict was going on, so it seems that part of my journey is to find myself in these conflict situations.

Can you carry any learnings from those experiences into the present situation in Auroville?

I hope so. I do try to step back and see things in perspective, but in my opinion there are basic human rights that need to be respected. Freedom of speech is definitely one of them and I don’t feel this is being respected in Auroville at present. 

You and Michel Danino have written some quite strong letters to the Governing Board along these lines. Did the other members of the IAC support you in doing this and in what you expressed?

At our very first meeting, which I think was after the Youth Centre demolition episode, we did agree upon certain things. I can’t remember the exact points but it was about certain things not being acceptable and the need for respect, and we put this in a collective letter and sent it in the name of the IAC. But within 24 hours three members withdrew their names, saying it was too confrontational. One member also made it very clear he wanted nothing to do with the day-to-day matters of Auroville.

We have not managed to issue any joint statement since then. But we decided as a group that since we can’t stay silent, and can’t wait for all of us to always agree on something before we express ourselves, then we could speak as individual members of the IAC rather than in the name of the whole group.

Does this mean that you are not aware of how some other members have been communicating with the Secretary and the Governing Board?

No, I’m not aware, and it’s incredibly frustrating. For example, it was only during the AVI/IAC meeting a few months ago that I first heard that Dena was working on the visa issue with the Secretary. 

Did you ever get a response to your letters to the Governing Board? 

Michel and I have written four letters in the last year or so and we never received a response, except to the last letter. And this was on the lines of if you can’t furnish proof of this, then you will have to withdraw that statement. This despite us asking the Governing Board on numerous occasions to furnish proof on certain matters, to which we have never received any response.

In one meeting with the Governing Board, all members of the IAC were asked to write individual emails giving our opinion of what the Board can do to address the current situation. We all did this. But these were never responded to. 

Have you had any direct communication with the Chairman or the Secretary since you’ve been here this time, either as a group or individually?

H.P. Rama, Dena and myself had breakfast with the Chairman and the Secretary. I used it as an opportunity to say to the Chairman that I had spoken to many people and, on the whole, nobody is objecting to the city being built. However, the way they are doing it is not considered appropriate. I could only emphasise that we need to look at how this is being done, because in my opinion it is not being done fairly, with respect.

What was the response?

The Secretary said that they did an audit and all the audited units were found to be fraudulent, and the Chairman spoke of drugs use and fraud. He also said he had heard people say they had been here for 40 or 50 years, which he did not consider as an argument for their right to stay. But I think this is just these Aurovilians’ way of expressing their level of experience and commitment to the project. 

Basically, I didn’t feel they took in what I was saying. I felt they had a preset idea of what the situation is and what had to be done. 

In this connection, after our first meeting with the Governing Board, we got a letter from the Secretary asking for our support. She listed some achievements of Auroville but spent far more time listing what was wrong. However, when we ask for proof of financial mismanagement or drug-taking, we are never given any. And if these allegations are made, people have a basic human right to defend themselves, but that opportunity doesn’t seem to be given at present. 

A phrase you used in the meeting the other day was ‘spiritual superiority’. What were you referring to? 

It’s my opinion, and it comes from meetings that I’ve attended, that some people feel they can judge the spiritual status of others. For example, in one meeting of the Governing Board it was said that Auroville is a place for gnostic beings, with the implication that many of those here now do not qualify. But who can judge somebody else’s spiritual endeavor and progress? When we are called we are not expected to be perfect immediately, but a small step for someone could be a giant leap in their personal evolution. 

What do you feel is the way forward?

I don’t know; I’m still processing all the information and experiences. But, personally, my first priority is to push the IAC to do its job, because that is what the community asked for. 

Dena keeps saying ‘dialogue’ is the answer. I’ve participated in some recent meetings, including Governing Board meetings, and I don’t see any dialogue. But now I do see a few very clear points which can be debated and rationalised, and I’d like to see if there could be dialogue on them. 

For example, during the recent Governing Board meeting, the question was put to us: do we accept that Auroville is an institution for sanatana dharma? I have my own opinion, but this at least gives us something concrete to debate. 

Then there are the inconsistencies. We are told that the reason for not recognizing the Residents Assembly Working Committee is that the Register of Residents needs to be updated. But if this is so, both Working Committees should be null and void. So in my opinion what should happen, once the Secretary finishes updating the Register, is that there should be a new selection process, and the result should be respected.

Another inconsistency is that you want more people to come here, to commit their energies as well as donate substantial amounts of money to this project, but you don’t give them any guarantee that at any moment their visa or membership won’t be terminated and they will be asked to leave: in which case their donations will not be returned. Who would come here on such a basis? These kinds of inconsistencies are really creeping up on me on this trip, and I think they are topics that can be rationally debated.

You assume that in spite of the fact that one side is not listening to the other at the moment, they could be brought together to discuss specific issues rationally. Do you think the present conditions are conducive for this to happen?

My first answer is ‘no’, but these kinds of issue gives us something to debate concretely. And it’s worth trying because I don’t know what else to try. 

With what kind of feeling do you go back home with after this visit?

With a little bit more determination, and a little bit more hope. I like to feel that I have a better feel for the situation now, that I can ask more pertinent questions and ask for an answer.

I also feel there’s more constructive stuff that I can work on now, like challenging the inconsistencies and laying them out more clearly, which I will do my best to do. Whether this works or not is up to The Mother, Divine intervention and Grace. And I feel that this is an opportunity for all to recommit to the Mother’s aspirations of Human Unity and to building not only a City of bricks and mortar but a City built on innovative and just self-governance, based on Human Unity and Spiritual growth, with no specific religious context, no violence or coercion, and respect for all.

Do you fear that your outspokenness may endanger your continued membership of the IAC?

It’s possible (it has even been hinted at recently). But I feel I’ve been very open. I’ve tried to be neutral, I’ve met with both working committees, and I’ve listened to as many sides and to as many people as possible. I certainly haven’t said I will only listen to this group rather than that group. 

Having listened to everyone, I feel I’ve identified aspects and processes that I feel are not right or just, while maintaining respect for everybody.