(Sanghnomics is a weekly column that tracks down and demystifies the economic world view of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and organisations inspired by its ideology.)
As India undergoes the polling process for electing a new government for next five years, there is heated debate on the issue on several economic issues such as redistribution of wealth, freebies, unemployment and the like. All major political parties have released their manifestoes also where substantial space has been devoted to the economic issues. One of the key buzzwords in the ongoing political debate is ‘development’ of India where the key emphasis is on ‘economic development’.
This brings us to the fundamental question. What is the basic premise of this debate? Are our political parties blindly following the ‘western paradigm’ when they are talking about the development of India? Is this paradigm relevant or useful for India? Western educated economists and a bureaucracy which has been recruited through a Macaulayan system of recruitment is bound to go for replicating the western model of development in India. Let us have a look at how this paradigm has fared and why?
Gurudev Rabindra Nath Tagore had aptly remarked that God has given different question papers to different countries. Hence, copying the answer paper of another country won’t do any good.
Ivan Illich, the famous author of ‘Towards a History of Needs’ breaks down the myth of development as established by the western paradigm as he observed, “Development means to have started on a road that others know better, to be on the way towards a goal that others have reached, to race up a one-way street. Development means the sacrifice of environments, solidarities, traditional interpretations and customs, to ever-changing expert-advice. Development promises enrichment; and for the overwhelming majority, has always meant the progressive modernisation of their poverty.”
Many western economists and thinkers have also recognised the failure of the western model of development. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the decline of Western Europe and the United States is a testimony to the failure of both the Capitalist and the Marxist model of development.
Alvin Toffler, author of the famous trilogy – Future Shock, Third Wave, Power Shift – drew the conclusion, “We live at a moment when the entire structure of power that held the world together is now disintegrating. A radically different power structure of power is taking form. And this is happening on every level of human society. Power is not just shifting at the pinnacle of corporate life… This crack-up of old style-authority and power in business and daily life is accelerating at the very moment when global power structures are disintegrating as well…”
It is evident that with the emergence of new tech monopolies that are making a deep influence on societal behaviour and choices and are more powerful than the ‘state’ itself, the world is racing towards anarchy and chaos. The volatility in the global economy has now become a permanent feature. An ever-increasing number of countries are facing major economic crises and that includes several western countries as well as China, touted as the greatest economic success story of recent times.
And yet, there is not much debate in India on the need for an alternative economic model. Dattopant Thengadi , an ideological stalwart of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), has lucidly explained in ‘Third Way’ why we need an alternative model of economic development based on Hindu value system. “The western thinking was based upon ‘either-or-ism’; the Hindu on ‘as well-as-ism’. The thinking there was compartmentalised; here integrated. For them, man was a mere material being; for us he was a physical-mental-intellectual-spiritual being… For them society was a club of self-centred individuals ; for us it was a body with all individuals therein as its limbs. There the goal was happiness for oneself; here it was happiness for all. It was a case of acquisitiveness vs ‘aparigraha’ or non-possession; profit motive vs service motive; consumerism vs restrained consumption; exploitation vs ‘antyodaya’(unto the last); rights oriented consciousness of others’ duties vs duty-oriented consciousness of others’ rights; the rape of nature vs the milking of nature; and constant conflict between an individual, the society and the nature, vs the complete harmony between an individual, the society and the nature,” he says.
Incidentally, Swami Vivekananda had also rejected the western model of development way back in 1893 and that had attracted sharp criticism from several ‘western’ educated intellectuals. Interestingly, Margaret Noble, follower of one of the most famous anarchists of late 19th and early 20th century in Europe Prince Kropotkin, arranged the meeting between the latter and Swami Vivekananda. However, after meeting with Swami Vivekananda, she herself became a life-ling proponent of Hindu values and was famously known as Sister Nivedita.
One of the major critiques of the ‘Hindu model of development’ is that there is no structured body of knowledge available regarding this model. Nothing could be farther from the truth. From Rig Veda to Professor MG Bokare, there are thousands of treatises written by Hindu economists that have given shape to ‘Hindu Economics’ which has specific theories on price, demand, supply, welfarism, role of the state, taxation, income and expenditure of nation, foreign trade, employment. These theories and principles of Hindu economics need to find a space in the public space as well as policy making. They would most likely provide permanent solutions to India’s major economic challenges and make the growth both equitable and sustainable.
Arun Anand has authored two books on the RSS. His X handle is @ArunAnandLive. Views are personal, and do not represent the stand of this publication.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
