|
Open Forum
New
Delhi, 4 July 2008
Direction of Human
Progress
arrest
Inequality, Empower People
By Dhurjati Mukherjee
Henry George in his brilliant
treatise Progress and Poverty (1879) has
aptly pointed out that the law of progress throughout human history has been
towards the reduction or removal of the grosser inequalities: slavery,
hereditary privileges, the substitution of parliamentary for absolute
government, the instigation of private judgment in religion for ecclesiastical
despotism, equal justice before the law instead of differential justice and so
forth. The history of modern civilization is the history of various and indeed
bitter struggles of personal, political, economic and social freedom which is
still continuing even in the 21st century.
There remains but one signal which
is ultimately fatal for any human society that is, inequality and this problem
has accentuated during the course of the 20th century. It has
rightly been questioned that why amid all the incontestable evidence of the
progress of mankind does the misery of the poor increase almost in direct
proportion to progress in technology and science and so many spheres of the
social order? What must be done to integrate the concerns and needs of the poor
into the ambit of progress, if it is really intended for the benefit of human
society?
George tried to find the answer
solely in the system of ownership of land that prevailed everywhere in the
world at that time. According to him: “The ownership of land is the great
fundamental factor which ultimately determines the social, political and
consequently the intellectual and the moral condition of a people ….. on the
land we are born, from it we live, to it we return again – children of the soil
as truly as is the blade of the grass or the flower in the field”.
George found the basic and abiding
cause of poverty amid riches and progress to lie in individual rather than
common ownership of land. It is significant to note here that there was not the
slightest question in his mind that all major energies in man and society could
be harmoniously directed towards progress or rather would become possible once
the problem of land ownership was taken care of. Over the years the
availability and utilization of land has become a problem the world over, especially
in the Third World countries, and has
intensified the conflict for its possession and utilization.
The wanton increase in population
during the later part of the 20th century has immensely increased the
need for land, which has become scarce day by day. On the other hand, the over
exploitation of this vital natural resource has raised a hue and cry the world
over on questions of maintaining ecological balance, industrial expansion while
at the same time ensuring food to the hungry billions.
Apart from various disputes and
struggles witnessed on questions of land, there is also an acute
disillusionment and fear that economic growth has led to depletion of the
resources of the earth. It should be remembered that one of the prime
assumptions of the modern idea of progress was the invariability of nature – a
nature that should remain the same tomorrow as it is today though this may not
be practically possible.
During the last century, the prodigious
utilization coupled with destruction of our resources -- -- soil, water, air,
minerals, fuels and nutrients – may lead to a situation where we shall have no
more of these for use and abuse. This has been echoed by most scientists and
environmentalists the world over and particularly since the late 80s and 90s,
urging the need to conserve natural resources and stop over-exploitation of
these, including land. The reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), which were released last year, are an indication of the future
state of affairs which has been recognized and accepted all over the
world.
Closely allied to the fear of
dwindling resources is the fear for the environment and its effect on human
life in the coming years. One may mention here the book of Talbott Page titled The Conservation & Economic Efficiency, which
had about three decades back decried the prodigality of the US, admittedly
the worst offender in the world in respect of environmental profligacy. The
‘modernized’ nations are today enjoying the monopoly of the earth, the sky and
the sea but whether (and when) these benefits would reach the developing
countries, feverishly in the process of modernization remains to be seen. This
is obviously not quite possible and future trends indicate that consumption of
the rich and the powerful has to come down and all forms of conservatism has to
be practiced.
The craving and intense fight for
land resources, specially in the Third World, and the future state of the environment
are the biggest challenges faced by the human society at this critical
juncture. Moreover, in spite of better understanding and implementation of
various human rights concerns, the rich nations are at the helm of affairs
while in every country this class is becoming prosperous day-by-day but the
condition of the poor and the downtrodden is becoming worse. Thus, inequality
both at the international and national levels are increasing.
What then does the meaning of human
progress mean for the suffering humanity who is languishing in squalor and
poverty? The present consumerist trend – the offshoot of materialist culture
prevalent in the West – may sound the death knell to human society. Already,
concerns are being expressed of evolving a new developmental model that curbs
excessive consumption and waste and limiting human requirements to our
needs. But for this to become a reality,
a lot of social transformation and understanding would be needed.
The late Mahbub-ul-Haque, the
creator of the Human Development Report and former finance
minister of Pakistan,
had rightly pointed out: “The basic concept of development is not too much GNP
levels, important though that is, but to create an enabling environment in
which people can enjoy long, healthy and creative lives”. This is obviously the
correct approach but even the Third World
countries are caught in the quagmire of higher growth without caring for the
concerns of the people at the lowest rung of the ladder.
The Western-induced model of development
may only have partial relevance to improve the living conditions of the people.
Though eminent economists, (whose names are better not mentioned) talk of
alternate models of development, they succumb to pressure of the West, when it
comes to implementation of privatization, liberalization that is, making way
for foreign entry into the markets of the developing countries, mechanized
means of production, displacing thousands of labourers and such other measures
that go against the poor and the agrarian community. Even the Western-bred
politicians of the Third World do not
understand the real picture of poverty and squalor whose grooming and education
take them away from the grass-root reality of the rural sector.
One may mention here the Gandhian
concept of development which is specially relevant for Third World countries as
it visualizes self-supporting rural economies and making them economically
strong and independent of its neighbours for its basic wants (like food,
clothing, education, basic needs etc.). Similarly, the Buddhist model of
development places the individual human being, rather than maximization of
economic growth or capital accumulation as the central focus. Though these
theories may seem out of tune with the present-day policies of globalization
and liberalization, propagated by the West, there is need to seriously ponder
with the fact that situations persisting there and in this part of the globe
(in Asia and Africa) are completely different.
The rampant increase in population, the widening divide between the rich and
the poor, between the urban and rural sectors and between the industrial and
agricultural class as also the lack of grass-root development are indeed
insurmountable problems which cannot be allowed to
Real development, as advocated by
Mahatma Gandhi and many other political thinkers and development strategists,
ought to rest on five pillars: it ought to be indigenous, self-reliant,
need-oriented, environment friendly and open to institutional change
(Sachs, 2000). To achieve this, it is necessary to empower the people
and recognize the third sector, represented by the civil society, as a major
emerging sector on the development scene. This sector should be instrumental in
exploring the potential for mobilizing latent human and physical resources for
local developmental projects, initiated and identified at the grass-root level,
with people’s participation. This would go a long way in strengthening the
local economy and closing the inequality gap as also reducing poverty.
This strategy of development has to
be adopted by the Third World in opposition to the wanton neo-liberal agenda of
globalization, which is breaking the very fabric of the lives of ordinary
people all over the world and marginalizing the majority. For a real and
effective transformation based on the premise of right to development for every
human being, an alternative strategy has to involve the people and only the
people, their capacities and liabilities, to move ahead with such development
that goes against exclusion and inequality and reaches out to all sections of
society, specially the majority rural populace who are struggling for survival
in poverty and squalor. How and when this becomes a reality is very difficult
to answer at this juncture though the crusade is expected to be intensified and
carried forward with greater force in the coming days. ---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|
Archives 
