journal d'une transition

1356

JYL decided to write an open letter to all:

*Open Letter to all, by Jean Yves:

“Dear Friends,

I would like to bring a few points to your attention regarding the meeting that has happened last Sunday with the Chairman.

1. About the meaning.

The Governing Board has established some sort of official ‘truth’ regarding what Aurovilians have to do. Consequence: we don’t need any more to make the effort of harmonising our different approaches, only to follow the official ‘truth’. This is a new and qualitative change in Auroville’s development. By doing so, the Governing Board deprives us of our most central guidelines in our experiment towards human unity: how to go beyond conflict by widening our initial points of view so that we can arrive at a place where not only they can be combined, but appear to be necessary to each other. The whole meaning of the Auroville experiment is thus disregarded and the search for harmonisation is replaced by an administrative imposition of one aspect of the Truth against others. This makes the position of the Governing Board very weak in terms of legitimacy, for it bases its decision on the denying of our most essential law. a) Although the main issue was the taking over of Auroville by the Governing Board, the focus was put on Arjun’s letter along with the one written by the 5 ‘voluntary optimistic’ Aurovilians. If we look at the dates, knowing that Arjun’s letter arrived on the 23 rd , one day before the Governing Board meeting, and that the ‘optimistic’ one was sent on the same day by fax, one feels a bit uncomfortable. Presented as a spontaneous outflow of Aurovilians of goodwill who suddenly felt the need to express their faith and gratitude, it seems to be rather something asked by the Chairman, a purposeful letter with a certain aim. But maybe I am wrong… I would like to hear that I am wrong. b) In his presentation of Arjun’s letter to the community, the Chairman ‘forgot’ to mention that Arjun was asked to write it by the financial committee and that therefore it could not in any case be interpreted as an attempt to present the Community’s point of view, unless one chooses to see it and present it like this. Still the Chairman very heavily gave this interpretation. Thanks to Abha, the truth was restored. c) During the meeting the Chairman got a ‘spontaneous’ feedback from the ‘Community’ to be conveyed to the Governing Board. What this feedback is, I and many others don’t know exactly because all of Sanjeev’s words could not be heard, but something has been proposed and a ‘yes’ that could appear unanimous was uttered. Those who couldn’t hear or didn’t say ‘yes’ were not counted. But the result is that the Chairman can go back to the Governing Board with what seems to be a unanimous, although undefined, support from the Residents Assembly to its Chairman and to the Governing Board’s decision or attitude (it isn’t clear which). 2. About the method.