Sreejan was an idea of an intentional community. The common intention simply put can be ‘living in harmony with nature’. There was sufficient land, money and expertise to begin with. With our coming in about a year back, the community started off. We were welcomed, appreciated and encouraged since we were the only family willing to live in.
As time passed, we realized that a person with an only an idea (of living in harmony with nature) is vastly different from a person who is actually living the idea. The person with only ideas has a number of ideas and theories & models to implement the ideas. Ideas about sustainability, organic farming, non-exploitation, zero carbon footprint, eco-friendly construction, food miles and so on and so forth. He gets very excited with any news on these subjects, newer ways of communicating the same concepts, new people (whom he calls like-minded) and he wastes no time in sharing the excitement over e-mail, in workshops and in discussions. He almost always has a lot to discuss and share. In almost all cases, he has plans to live the ideas after 4-5 years or he has reasons why he cannot live them now. For eg. Wife does not agree or he has to wait till he’s fulfilled his responsibility towards his children, or he has started to move in the direction, but a sudden shift may be unadvisable, etc. This person is a true believer in the idea, but also believes that it is very difficult to execute the idea.
Essentially, there were three persons (of whom one was a couple) apart from the two of us, who were invested in Sreejan. It would be incorrect to call them (founders of Sreejan) people with only ideas. They had taken action, but their action was aimed at someone else living their ideas. Since we were the only resident of the community, we realized that we were looked upon to live their ideas.
It was a triangular relationship. In our relationship with the couple, we sensed that they might have thought that we’re morally obligated to live their ideas, since they had taken the action of making the basic infrastructure available. Also, they were owners of the land. I’d opted not to buy land because there was over 100 acre land available and no one to live in it. Adding my one acre would not have made any material difference to the community and money would have only got wasted. Instead, I donated Rs. one lac to the society. Despite this, I could sense that the relationship was tilted. We were probably seen as beneficiaries, thereby making us morally obligated to reciprocate. Though it wasn’t explicitly stated, we could sense this in a few interactions. We warded off the expectations, which may have annoyed them. Not because we were not interested in the activities, but because we could sense a complete dissonance in the ideas and the actions. People managing common resources of Sreejan were expected to be personal servants, serving them water and tea, cooking food for them, house-keeping their rooms. Most people had to bear with their ill-temper. They were very kind to us and helped us in a big way getting settled. But we found it difficult to subordinate our living to their ideas & expectations.
The other relationship involved a better understanding of our idea of living at Barkheda. But the shelf life of the ideas was too short. This resulted in a complete dissonance between theory and practice. When we first interacted with him, he said that decision making or governance model in Sreejan will be based on the level of consciousness of people rather than a democracy, consensus or strength of voice/logic. We were told that it was agreed that the level of consciousness of a person, who lives on the land is higher than one not living on the land. Quite a remarkable theory! But, during one interaction, we found ourselves begging against a decision, which would threaten access to life essentials like water and electricity. We were the only family living on the land and the decision taken was not in our favour. It is amusing to notice how easily people walk against their own talk. Castles of ideas can be built to dizzying heights.
Another instance of a castle of idea: With some fantastic display of commitment, some land-owners agreed to contribute their land to Sreejan. It was agreed that this understanding does not need to be made legally binding since it involves unnecessary cost. The word of the owners should be sufficient. But, it did not take any thought for some of them to withdraw part of the contribution and later to dissolve Sreejan, withdraw all land contribution and leave the lone resident family stranded.
“Being brave does not mean that you go looking for trouble.” I was reminded of this dialogue from the movie Lion King. We realized that we were on shaky ground and we need to accept the fact that land ownership is critical. Buying land in Barkheda seems quite inappropriate in the wake of the circumstances and considering the availability of life essentials.
No comments:
Post a Comment