We need a real Residents Assembly

Auroville Today: Why have you published this now?

Lakshay: Why not now? It’s already too late. I started writing on this topic four years ago, when there was a Residents’ Assembly Decision to remove four people from the Working Committee (WC). I wrote then that every action like this would generate a reaction, and that would take us down a rabbit hole. And that is what has been happening for the last four years. But I feel that the recent Supreme Court judgement is a pivotal point. Whether we like it or not, forthcoming Governing Boards (GBs) will quote it and use it. So, what do we want to do now?

The question is, are we happy as a collective with the way things have turned out in the last four years? Clearly, many of us are not. So, is the solution more resistance? I’ve long felt that this would likely harden the Governing Board’s stance. They are tasked with ‘governing’ Auroville, yet it seems challenging for them to do so without the collectivity of the residents, which ought to be the Residents Assembly (RA) ‘functioning’. I don’t think the Governing Board is entirely satisfied with the present state either, as they are limited in what they can achieve, with just a handful of people working with them.

So what do you suggest we do as residents?

We need to come together as a real Residents’ Assembly. Unfortunately, at the moment, it can’t be called that because the term has been utilised by a large group which is resisting the changes. When RA meetings are called by this particular group – perhaps, a reminiscence of ‘the collective’ of the 70s/80s – only those who agree with them come to hear the things they want to hear. It’s an echo chamber, a happy marriage between 500 or so people. I don’t call this a real collective; it’s a faction.

But these are open meetings. Anybody can attend, including those who want to register their disagreement.

True, but I think there is an aversion in our community to talking about difficult subjects, so we always tend to take the easy path – to be with those who think like us. Also, those who are perceived to hold a different perspective and who’ve tried to attend these meetings will tell you that it is not a welcoming atmosphere. We do need to figure out a new way to organise ourselves because our old organisational structure cannot continue. It is very clear now that democracy is not the way forward. In fact, it was never intended for Auroville, but somehow we arrived at this point – maybe because we thought it was the best available model.

What is the alternative?

I think the only way forward is to resurrect the Residents’ Assembly as a genuine collective. The whole point is to interact, to work with others as aspiring Aurovilians, not as factions. It won’t be easy. As long as we remain under the influence of our egos and our preconditioned emotions, we will continue to wrestle in the quagmire now. At the moment, it seems everybody thinks they are right. Yet, there’s nobody that I know of, who is willingly doing anything to intentionally harm Auroville – and I include here all the people who have filed court cases – but people are not engaging with each other. And, that’s hurting our purpose.

A functioning RA would manage agenda topics, organise meetings, record minutes, and ensure reports are created, and we could very well use the Secretariat to submit these to the GB/IAC/Ministry. The Secretary of the Auroville Foundation is to act as a liaison between the RA, GB, IAC, and other bodies. The RA if it were to work not in opposition to either of the other bodies, may then begin again to establish committees or task forces of residents and experts in the relevant fields to collect data, study issues, and propose solutions in key areas such as policy and organisation, urban development, environment and sustainability, economy and abundance, art and culture, and resource allocation. The outcomes of such study groups could then be presented to an inclusive functioning RA for discussion and refined into actionable policies or advisories to be submitted to the GB, which, of course by definition, would have the final say.

Residents can nominate themselves for these groups.

So these groups would be self-appointed?

The choice of who could be in a group should definitely not be made by voting, because then people will pander to a certain group or interest. Those who have nominated themselves, proposed a clear plan forward, been vetted by a trustworthy body, could then be chosen by lottery, or even by a child picking out their names.

But shouldn’t there be a precondition for somebody who wishes to offer themselves as a candidate for one of these groups?

I agree. It’s important that every member of such a group does not claim something as ‘their’ idea and is not attached to the outcome. And if the Assembly or the chosen trustworthy body feels that somebody who has nominated themselves is representing something totally wrong for Auroville, the latter could be excluded from the selection process. Also, if someone who has not been picked in the lottery has a good idea, he or she could be used as a resource person, or their ideas taken forward.

When I think of how the RA could function on a regular basis, I imagine something like the Retreat, which brought diverse people together in 2015 to discuss the way forward. It could happen every month on a fixed day, when we would pause regular work in Auroville to come together for this.

I’m sure that initially – and perhaps always – it is going to be tough. It is going to be noisy, messy, but we need to try to keep our egos and personal perceptions at home and tell ourselves we are coming for the sake of Auroville. That’s the kind of surrender which is necessary. That’s the kind of Residents’ Assembly I’m talking about.

The important thing is that we get our act together before we present anything to the Governing Board.

But let me take a hypothetical scenario. If one day we have a Governing Board which does not have Auroville’s best interests at heart, what should be the responsibility of the residents? Does legal authority trump Auroville’s spiritual ideal?

Very good question. I would not approach this from a standpoint of fear. If anyone wants to spoil things, they could attempt to do so. Say, 40 years from now, we have no way of knowing who will be in power. Also, it is true that the past four years have amplified these concerns to an extent, but it is important to understand what may have actually happened. Could it be possible that actions which were detrimental to Auroville – such as media maligning, boycotting, and filing court cases – provoked the Governing Board to respond the way they did? Moreover, these actions were not undertaken with the full involvement of the residents; there was no broader debate. Nor does it seem that the group making these decisions fully anticipated the repercussions.

So, to answer your question, of course, the vision is higher than any court judgment. If a Governing Board does not uphold that ‘Vision’, the community should oppose it – but as a full collective, not as a clique. I believe the last Governing Board, which has just completed its tenure, was more supportive of the Vision than some Aurovilians I know.

The question is, did they spoil things on their own, or did we, as a collective, undermine their chances? I think we created a situation where the Governing Board was forced to act as it did because, collectively, we boycotted them, embarrassed them, and inundated them with so many court cases that they were unable to function effectively. In response, they created more posts for Officers on Special Duty and relied on the few people who did not refuse to work with them.

But it didn’t have to be like this. I remember when the Secretary first came – we were very enthusiastic about her. She came with a certain energy, but we didn’t know how to receive a Secretary who wanted to work and who was very hard-working. I was in the ATDC at that time, and she kept wanting action, results. We reacted in our typical way, not expecting anything would happen to the Youth Centre, but when she finally lost patience – and she was very patient for someone so action-oriented – she sent in the JCBs.

We forced the hand of somebody who wanted to help us.

I think she believed in the RA; otherwise, she wouldn’t have volunteered to come to that 15 Dec 2021 meeting, where she was publicly insulted. We may say we didn’t invite her, but from her perspective, I think the way she was treated was an inflection point. She is a high-ranking government official and a human being and a woman.

The trouble is, the more arrogant in our resistance we are, the more reasons the Governing Board has to harden its position. And perhaps, this resistance is based on some people seeking to keep power and retain the status quo.

I think almost everybody accepts that change has to happen. But my perception is that the resistance is largely due to the manner in which the change is being effected at present. Many have lost their jobs, their maintenances, from one day to the next, without any explanation being given, without any conversation or appreciation being expressed by the people in authority for the work they had been doing. It feels inhumane, as if people are not considered as individuals with real needs, but rather as puppets that can be set aside if they are not serving a particular agenda.

I hear you, and I can see how it must have felt, how it must feel. Yet it is what it is. I think the people driving the resistance had not anticipated the consequences, many were very emotional in their response and didn’t take everybody on board, but almost everyone is suffering as collateral damage.

So you see this 12-point peace plan as a possible way forward?

Yes. But I want to emphasise that I don’t want it to be seen as ‘my’ plan – others may change them or come up with further points. However, I think it does provide a basis on which the RA and GB can work together again. I have listened to Kireet’s talk on the Foundation Act many times, and he stresses the importance of ‘mutuality’ in the relationship between the three authorities of the Foundation. I think this is a kind of mutuality which does not demand one’s ‘rights’; it begins with offering oneself. Almost as a responsibility.

But why should we invest our energy in discussing this peace plan if the Secretary and the Governing Board may ignore whatever we come up with?

When I was writing it, I asked myself the same question. But what other options do we have? In four years, we have filed and lost the court cases, we have ended up making the Master Plan more rigid, and we have saturated the media with news that negatively impacts Auroville. Of course, we could continue to ostracise or ridicule the Governing Board and those working for them, but is that really a solution?

However, if we manage to agree on something together, why would they want to veto it? If we advise the next Governing Board that, as residents, we want to beautify the Crown with a zero-budget request, because we can do it ourselves, wouldn’t that be music to their ears? Common sense shows it, and perhaps, the GB members know it well, that government officers and employees cannot replace committed Aurovilians in building Auroville.

For example, what if we as a collective decide to activate the International Zone? Suppose we appoint two of our best minds for each continent, and their job is to connect with people there, reach out to their cultural ministries, organise student exchanges etc as part of Auroville’s larger outreach. Wouldn’t a GB want to support this? I believe that if we can create initiatives like these, the GB would actually look forward to coming here; they would love to meet an RA of a thousand people where such initiatives are presented.

Then there is the question of the messenger, some people may reject this peace plan because of the person who is proposing it. Many people consider you to be a polarising figure because of your postings on Auronet. In fact, many of your postings seem to contradict what you propose in point 11, that there should be non-violence in word and deed. So why should anybody believe you are serious in making this proposal?

I absolutely agree. I get it. I do not particularly enjoy the role I’ve been playing, but sometimes it is necessary to confront the deviations we see. Over the last four years, I have tried to exhaust certain issues by bringing them to light, by aggravating, exaggerating, or ridiculing them, to show that some kinds of behaviour are dead ends. Do I want to continue doing this? No – it is not necessary at all, which is why I put it as a second point. It is understandable that the focus has fallen on me. It would be better for Auroville if all of us stopped engaging in spin-doctoring and planting stories, particularly the Tamil media, which alienate our neighbourhood.

So can we, as a collective, stop this? Absolutely. Would I agree to stop doing this? One hundred percent, yes – if it is a collective decision.

But, crucially, on what basis do you think we can come together to discuss such a plan after what has happened in the past four years?

Mother has given it. Becoming a ‘true Aurovilian’ is the goal, but even for that, we need an instrument – something we can work on together and grow through, progress with. It has to be something larger than us, and what else is there apart from the City? What united Aurovilians in the past was the construction of the Matrimandir, because when you are passing chetties of cement from hand to hand, you are not judging another. I think that today the city can perform the same role.

In other words, can we agree to disagree, and yet work together for the greater possibility of Auroville?

Some people did not want the Crown to be circular. But now that it is, can we come together to plant trees and clean the area, which is now littered? This is why we have to activate a wholesome RA, so we can take up functions like this.

We need to stop the old habit of endless discussion and draw up action points instead. I think that is the only way to go forward.

The first step is to come to terms with the present reality – there is no point in crying about it – and start from there. We need to come together to ensure these things do not happen again and to repair our relationship with the GB. Then we need to reorganise the RA. And then there is the question of alignment. Do we know how many of us truly understand the purpose of Auroville? We need to take responsibility when we see that somebody – a friend or someone who trusts us – is not aligned with the deeper purpose. This is where the older generation can become really active, because there are so many newcomers who need guidance. Can we learn to be true Aurovilians together?

There is no guarantee of success, of course, but by working together on these points we can perhaps attempt to pave a new path.