Self-Transformation Network for a Just World

With the Australian Nonviolence Network national gathering approaching, it
seemed an appropriate time to review the evolution, structures and processes
of another Network at a similar stage of development.  The Self
Transformation Network for a Just World is an international network of
individuals working for social change.  It has been initiated in India, and
indeed its core membership resides in India.  It is thus one of the few (if
not the only) international nonviolence networks initiated and developing
from the 'South'.  Even though the network arises out of the context and
history of the movement in India, it has a number of interesting
characteristics that make the network worth studying.

The idea arose from the informal network of Daniel and Hansa Mazgaonkar on
one hand and Baboorao Chandawar & Srikumar Poddar on the other.  Daniel and
Hansa had established many contacts from thirty years experience in the
Sarvodaya movement in India and had been receiving international guests at
their Bombay home since the early 70's.  Srikumar lived and worked in the US
as well as Bombay and was supporting through the Charity Trust young social
change workers who were isolated in villages dispersed throughout the
country.  This Trust organised, with voluntary support from Daniel, annual
meetings for these village activists together with Sarvodaya activists.

Daniel Mazgaonkar spoke to me recently about the evolution of the network,
"Our vision was of a network where social change activists could dialogue. 
There was a need to meet and exchange without leaders and without resource
persons, where we could be equal participants on an equal basis.  From my
experience here in India, and my observation of overseas organisations, I had
decided that the leadership pattern of the movement in India was not reliable
and tended to stunt the growth of the movement." (India's Sarvodaya movement
had had three giant leaders; Gandhi, Vinoba and Jayaprakash (JP).  The
tendency was, however, that as the leaders became more inactive, so did their
followers.)

The Name
The network held its first formal meeting in Bombay in September, 1990.  From
the discussion of the group, two important decisions were made.  Firstly, the
name "Self-Transformation Network for a Just World" was proposed and chosen. 
Daniel: "We very sincerely believed that we should change ourselves.  The
history of Indian social change since Gandhi had been this
"Self-Transformation" as a fundamental principle but workers had often
overlooked this aspect and had largely tried to change others.  Slowly our
role had become only as propagandists.  Our message became too much directed
outward for the people. We conveniently forgot that our message is also for
ourselves.  Therefore we decided to consider ourselves first and only then
talk about network.  There was never a chance that the social change aspect
would be lost, because we were all very much social change activists."

Articulating Commonality
Secondly, the group began to clarify exactly their points of commonality. 
This was important as they had not necessarily come with any pre-conceived or
articulated philosophy.  They were diverse activists doing varying sorts of
work.

They asked the question "What are our basic commitments"? And from this
discussion ten values were evolved. 
* Democracy
* Concept of sharing and Simple Living
* Spirituality (all life is one)
* Ethical Conduct
* Decentralisation
* Open Communication
* Sarva Dharma Samabhava (Respect for all religions)
* Environmental Preservation
* Nonviolence in action and thought
* Acceptance of diversity .

These values deeply clarify and guide the network.  Daniel: "The name 'Self
Transformation Network for a Just World' has hidden in it the ten values and
conversely the ten values have hidden in them STNJW.  If you accept the ten
values sincerely, there is no option but to change yourself."

In initiating the network, the organisers had explicitly chosen not to use
the word 'nonviolence' in order to include a much wider range of individuals
than the usual Gandhian and Sarvodaya people who identify themselves or are
identified with nonviolence.  These groups have an increasingly aging
membership.  The long term aim of the network is to knit together activists
and individuals simply living and using the values, whether or not they
identify with the word.

In 1991, the network held its second meeting - a seventeen day "experiment in
living together" at Kasturbagram at Indore.  During this time over seventy
people from India, Germany, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, France and the
U.S. lived and shared in community and explored further the meaning of the
values.  People attending were asked to stay at least fifteen days.

Recently, the Self-Transformation Network held its third meeting.  This time
at Gandhi's Ashram at Sevagram, Wardha.  The process reflected their
commitment to Self-Transformation with each person in turn sharing deeply
about their own transformation in the last year through their personal and
political experience.  This passionate story-telling was a strong base on
which to build the rest of the meeting.

The participants then went on to discuss conflict-resolution processes,
communication and decision making.  There was a strong resistance to forming
too many formal structures.  This, I think, is to some extent in reaction to
people's prior involvment in the Gandhian movement and the Catholic Church! 
Minimal structures were put in place to facilitate communication, future
action and meetings.

There was also a lively pollitical discussion about possibilities for an
action programme.  It was largely agreed that this aspect of the network
would determine whether people would be attracted to it or not.  The
discussion touched on two subjects: 1. The recent communal violence and
tension and possible responses or long term action, and 2. an
anti-multi-national campaign that is starting in the villages focussing on
soap and toothpaste companies.

At this stage in its evolution the group didn't feel pressed to urgent
decisions.  It was felt that the Network is still in its infancy and its
gradual growth through open dialogue will give it healthy foundations.  It is
yet to be seen whether all this thought, experience and process will lead to
the strong links and cohesion of action and planning of a well functioning
Network.
Margaret Pestorius