Material Progress, Ethics & Human Development
A Collection of Articles by
Ratan Lal Basu
Copyright 2011 Ratan Lal Basu
Smashwords Edition
Smashwords Edition, License Notes
This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.
Contents
Part-I: Material Progress and Ethics
1. Eco Ethical Views of Tagore and Amartya Sen
3. Material Progress and Ethics: a Historical Perspective
4. Human Development According to Adam Smith and Karl Marx
5. Human Development in Ancient Indian Texts
6. Theory of Kingship in Ancient India
This book is a collection of six articles on economic topics of current interest. All the articles except the first two have been published in modified forms and under different titles in the Culture Mandala, the Bulletin of the Centre for East-West Cultural and Economic Studies, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Bond University, Australia.
The book is divided into two parts. Part-I consists of three articles on Ethics of Economics and Part-II three articles on Human Development.
Part-I: The first article, ‘Eco Ethical Views of Tagore and Amartya Sen’, is a comparative study of the views on Ethics and Ecology of Rabindranath Tagore and Amartya Sen, the two Bengali Nobel laureates from India. Of the three Bengali Nobel Laureates (the third one is Mahammad Unus of Bangladesh) there are reasons to presume that Rabindranath (awarded Nobel Prize for Literature in 1913) might have considerable influence in shaping the world-outlook of Amarya Sen (awarded Nobel Prize for Economics in 1998). Although Prof. Sen was a mere child when Tagore died, his house is situated in the compound of Shantiniketan, the university founded by Tagore and he was born and brought up in the milieu of Tagore's culture. His name, too, was given by Tagore. But a closer look would unravel the vast difference between the world-outlooks of the two Bengali Nobel Laureates, especially as regards ethics and sustainable development. both of them have considerable contributions in literature pertaining to ethics, ecology and sustainable development but the views are diametrically opposite. This article has endeavored to underpin these differences dispelling the common belief regarding the affinity of their thoughts.
The second article, ‘Poverty and Ethics’, deals with the Ethical background of perpetuation of poverty in spite of material progress in course of human history. The author contests the hackneyed view that poverty is caused by paucity of material resources. The article shows that spectacular material progress over the last few millennia has not been able to eradicate poverty. On the contrary, intensity of poverty and inequality have increased keeping pace with material progress. The author comes to the conclusion that the basic cause of poverty does not lie in material issues, but deeply embedded in the baser aspects of human nature, viz. innate greed and desire to have command over fellow human beings.
The third article, ‘Material Progress and Ethics: a Historical Perspective’, visualizes the propelling force of human society as the conflict between unbridled self-interest and social ethics, contesting the hackneyed Marxian theory of ‘class struggle’.
Part-II: The first article, ‘Human Development According to Adam Smith and Karl Marx’ is a comparative study of the concepts of Human Development embedded in the writings of Adam Smith, the father of modern economics and Karl Marx. It is generally held that ‘Human Development” is purely a very recent concept. But a deeper insight would reveal that the concept has been in existence ever since the origin of science of economics, although not explicitly mentioned as such.
Adam smith divides human sentiments into two categories, viz. nobler and baser, and has come to a pessimistic conclusion that because of predominance of the baser elements, moral and ethical uplift of human beings come to an impasse. Marx, on the other hand, opines that through relentless class struggle it is possible to achieve the blissful stage of communism where human beings are likely to achieve highest moral standards.
The second article, ‘Human Development in Ancient Indian Texts’ takes up the issue of human development embodied in ancient Indian texts, especially, the Samkhya-sutra where human nature is divided into three categories and the transition from the first (lowest moral stage) to the third (highest moral stage) is looked upon as human development in the true sense of the term. this view stresses upon the moral and ethical transition of the human beings.
In this article, the author looks upon the concept of Human Development from a completely different perspective than the modern interpretation of the term. Modern proponents like Amartya Sen, Mahbub Ul Haq etc. emphasize that Human Development means provision of material amenities (education, healthcare, safe drinking water etc.) to the deprived to enable them to develop their inherent capabilities. The United Nations Development Program too endorses the same view while publishing the Human Development Reports. But the author in this article opines that Human Development ought to be related to the ethical advancement of human mind.
The rulers of each country have crucial roles in the social transformation leading to moral uplift of the citizens and, therefore, moral and ethical standards of the rulers themselves ought to be high. The third article, ‘Theory of Kingship in Ancient India’ discusses the process of ensuring a perfect ruler as prescribed in the ancient Indian texts. Although les prescribed for Monarchy, the rules, in a modified form, are relevant also for modern democratic states where advancement of a country with peace, stability and social justice depends a good deal on the honesty, integrity and efficiency of the politicians and ancient Indian rules for the kings, in a modified form, may be utilized to cultivate these attributes among the politicians in a democratic country.
Ratan Lal Basu
21 June 2011
Eco-Ethical Views of Tagore & Amartya Sen
Introduction
Ever since the Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded to Amartya Sen, there has been much endeavor to highlight Sen’s Shantiniketan background and affinity of his world outlook with that of Rabindranath Tagore. A deeper analysis, however , would reveal that Amartya Sen’s views are diametrically opposed to that of Tagore, particularly as regards sustainable development and eco-ethical human living. This article endeavors to highlight these contrasting aspects of the world-outlooks of two Bengali Nobel Laureates.
Tagore on eco-ethical human living
Rabindranath Tagore’s views pertaining to eco-ethical human living and sustainable development, as scattered in various works (a list is given under References at the end of the book), are based on ancient Indian philosophy, especially embedded in the Upanishads. Tagore considers Nature and human life as integral parts of the single entity, the omniscient, omnipresent, ubiquitous, attribute-free Brahman. So Tagore emphasizes symbiosis and balance between man and all other aspects of the mundane world (plants, other living beings, the Earth, atmosphere and the rest of the universe).
In Aranya Devata, (Forest Deity: R. R. Vol.14, P.373), Tagore opines that modern man indulges too much in luxurious and profligate living. So long as he used to live in and around the forest, he had deep love and respect for the forest and therefore he used to live in perfect symbiosis with it and the plants and animals inhabiting it. As soon as he became city-dweller, he lost his love for forest which had been the source of his sustenance. Wanton destruction of forest, in order to supply timber for the city life, brought about curse on human race. Paucity of rainfall endangered human life and rapid spread of deserts started engulfing human habitations in various parts of India. So, Tagore emphasizes, we are to retrieve our love and respect for the forest and restore symbiosis with the forest in order to avert peril.
Tagore’s views on ecological stability and symbiosis between man and Nature have been elaborated in the article Tapavan (R. R. Vol. 7, PP. 690-704). The great philosopher-poet does not confine his analysis to the outward manifestations of ecological imbalance alone. He investigates the inner cause of this malady which springs from the basic vices have their ugly manifestations in commercialism, consumerism and unbridled competition. In the article Bilaser Fans (the Noose of Luxurious Living: R. R. Vol. 6, PP.526-530), Tagore opines that consumerism, which has been eating into the vitals of western societies, is now making inroads into Indian lifestyles vitiating all spheres of Indian life. The motive of insatiable personal consumption has made people in our country lose their social entity and philanthropic attitude and has made most of them mean and self-centered. Pomp and conspicuous consumption is not a new thing in India. At earlier times, however, it was associated with social activities, but now it is centered on purely personal consumption in isolation from the society. Consumerism is not only generating pressure on the purse of the rich but also causing unimaginable hardships to the poor who, being enticed by demonstration effect, are trying to spend beyond their means.
Tagore opines (R. R. Vol. 6, P. 529) that revelation of dazzling riches in some parts of the country is making a false impression that this signifies economic prosperity. In fact, this is not due to prosperity, but due to increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of a few at the cost of the majority.
Tagore unravels the perverse impact of the unbridled competition in Bharat Varsha (R.R. Vol. 2, P. 711): The motive of competition, which forces one into a mad race for outclassing all other persons around him., leads one to an endless struggle for supremacy and deviates him form the path of responsibility and ethical living. The demonic impulse for going farther and farther ahead knows no limit and makes one’s mind ever restless and bereft of stability and peace. Tagore expresses pity for those who consider this mad race as prosperity.
In contrast, Indian society, Tagore holds, was based on universal welfare and symbiosis between man and man, and it had never encouraged this self-destructive competition leading to infighting within human society for individual supremacy. In Samabaya Niti (Cooperative Policy: R. R., Vol. 14, PP. 311-332), Tagore expresses the view that European society is based on the system of exploitation of the majority by the minority, which is one of the major evil outcrops of unbridled competition and the motive of unabashed self-advancement. Tagore, however, admits that motive of self-advancement and competition, within some limit, are necessary for the material progress of human society, but they are perilous for human society if the limit is transgressed.
Thus, according to Tagore, eco-ethical human living should be based on symbiosis between man and Nature, and between man and man. But manifestations of vices through limitless competition, consumerism and commercialism have undermined this symbiosis alarmingly in the modern era. Unless the trend is reversed and objective conditions for eco-ethical human living restored, the consequences would be disastrous.
Tagore on Sustainable Development
Tagore’s concept of sustainable development of India is rooted deep in rural regeneration as majority of the population of India reside in villages. It has two major planks:
i) Cooperatives and
ii) Local Self Government
In both the cases, Tagore calls for revival of the spirit of the rural masses so that they could be self-sufficient and free from dependence on outside assistance (‘to approach the authorities with begging bowls’ so to say) for their economic and social uplift and empowerment. Tagore lays greatest stress on instilling the spirit of self-confidence and unity in the minds of the rural folk (through proper education) so that they could, on their own, fight off the maladies afflicting rural India.
If cooperatives and panchayats1 are thrust on the rural folk from without (say, by the government, political parties or vested interest groups), they would miserably fail to generate and support the process of sustainable development, which is possible, Tagore holds, only by inspiring the rural masses to form cooperatives and panchayats1 by their own efforts.
In Samabaya Niti (ibid.), Tagore attributes agricultural backwardness in India to subdivision and fragmentation of agricultural plots, problems of marketing, storing and mechanization of small farmers, lack of finance and exploitation by money lenders etc. Tagore thinks that all these problems could be solved through cooperatives. He further emphasizes that the root cause of rural destitute is the lack of self-confidence of the rural people, which makes them dependent on outside help, especially from the government. So, our primary task is to make the rural folk aware of their own strength, which lies in unity. Tagore stresses: “For this reason, the most urgent need in our country is not to place begging bowls at their hands, but to make them confident of their own power, to make them realize that a man united with others is a complete entity, whereas an alienated individual is but a powerless fragment.” (R. R. Vol. 14, P.313)
Coming to panchayats1, Tagore, in Atmashakti (self-power: R. R. Vol. 2, P.644), opines that rural panchayat1 system imposed by the government would be a miserable failure. It would breed jealousy and in-fighting among rural masses for the coveted panchayat1 posts and would generate more problems than it would solve. The members of the panchayats1 would be interested in serving more the government officials (to gain favor) than their rural brethren. They would virtually become instruments at the hands of the government to repress rural people. Panchayat1 system, which was a real source of power of the rural people of India in earlier times, would now become a cause of disunity and weakness of the rural masses. So they ought to form panchayats1 on their own.
Tagore always encourages the application of modern technologies for rejuvenation of rural India, but all these should be within the framework of a regenerated rural society based on self-help and freedom from outside interference.
Views of Amartya Sen
Amartya Sen’s world outlook pertaining to eco-ethical human living and sustainable development, notwithstanding his Shantiniketan background, springs from western paradigms. His major works bear testimony to the fact that unlike Tagore he treats ecology and sustainable development as extraneous elements amenable to treatment within the framework of market mechanism. Sen discusses in detail the problems associated with environment and ecology (Sen, 1982, PP.67-68; 1984, PP.95-97; 1995, PP.211-216) in the light of western paradigms associated with market mechanism, individual choice and Game Theory. This would be clear from the following excerpt:
“Suppose it is the case that there are strong environmental reasons for using glass bottles for distributing soft drinks (rather than single-used steel clans) and for persuading the customers to return the bottles to the shops from where they buy these drinks (rather than disposing them off in the dustbin). For a relatively rich country the financial incentives offered for returning the bottles may not be adequate if the consumers neither worry about the environment nor are thrilled by receiving back small change. The environment affects the life of all, true enough, but from the point of view of any individual the harm that he can do to the environment by adding his bottles to those of others will be exceedingly tiny. Being generally interested in the environment but also being lazy about returning bottles, this person may be best of if the others return bottles, next best if none does, and worst of all if he alone returns bottles while others do not. If others feel in a symmetrical way we shall then be in a prisoner’s dilemma type situation in which people will not return bottles but at the same time all would have preferred that all of them should return bottles rather than none. To tackle this problem, suppose now that people are persuaded that non-return is highly irresponsible behavior and while the individuals in question continue to have exactly the same view of their welfare, they fall prey to ethical persuasion, political propaganda or moral rhetoric. The welfare functions and the preference relations are still exactly the same and all that changes is behavior.
“I am not, of course, arguing that a change in the sense of responsibility is the only way of solving this problem, penalizing non-return and highly rewarding return of bottles are other methods of doing this. ………….. The real difficulty arises when the checking of people’s actions is not easy.” (Sen, 1982, PP. 67-68)
Sen’s view regarding cooperatives is:
“In many countries, the main rural institutions set up by the administration and the political system have taken the form of cooperative structures………..It is not exaggeration to say that rural cooperatives, far from being partners of pressure groups with which the government has to negotiate, are in fact the lower elements of the state apparatuses.” (Sen, 1995, P. 536)
Although Sen’s observation is related to Africa, the miserable outcome observed is perfectly in line with predictions made long ago by Tagore in case of Indian cooperatives imposed from above by the government. Unfortunately, Sen fails to unearth the real cause of failure of the cooperatives and attributes it, erroneously, to colonial legacy and technological backwardness. As solution he prescribes:
“More precisely, Africa has no choice but to generate and diffuse technological progress at a rate sufficiently rapid to cause regular increase in land productivity"
“From the above list of factors it is evident that the problems which Africa has to solve in order to trigger off new growth and development impulses in her agricultural sector do not lie wholly in technological sphere. Changes in institutions and in the cultural and political systems will also be required. Moreover, it is worth, stressing that the levels of income and the food security of the small holder majority in Africa will not be improved unless serious attention is paid to equity issues and distributive effects of agricultural growth-promoting strategies.” (ibid. PP. 542-43)
Thus Sen’s way out comes down to technological changes and policy measures from outside. The question of moral regeneration of the rural masses is totally ignored. This is also evident from his technical model building in ‘Resources, Values and Development’ (Sen, 1984, PP. 37-89)
In ‘On Economic Inequality’ (Sen,1973), ‘Poverty and Famines’ (Sen,1981) and ‘Hunger and Public Action’ (Sen, 1989) Amartya Sen has endeavored to investigate the causes of human deprivation (as regards basic amenities like food, nutrition, healthcare, education, women’s rights etc.) and assessed them in terms of ‘entitlements’ and ‘capabilities’. Later on various Human Development Indices (HDIs) have been constructed by the Pakistani economist Mahabub Ul Haq and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) on the basis of concepts of Amartya Sen, who classifies human deprivation into three major categories:
i) Those caused by uncontrollable natural calamities like earthquakes, cyclones etc.
ii) Those caused by the inherent vices of the sufferer.
iii) Those caused by bad governance, social injustice and economic exploitation of the majority by the well-to-do minority.
Amartya Sen emphasizes the third category, whereas Tagore’s stress is on the second. In an exchange based economy, a man collects his basic amenities through the basic capability, i.e. income (‘exchange entitlement’ to use Sen’s jargon). Sen deals with in detail various human deprivations resulting from lack of capabilities and entitlements. These are the basis of all deprivation indices constructed later on by Haq (1997), UNDP etc. The spirit of the viewpoints in this regard of Amartya Sen and his followers is that policies of the governments of different less developed countries and those of the world bodies (World Bank, IMF etc.) are to be reoriented to eradicate human deprivation in various parts of the globe. So, in essence, they propose that these authorities are to fill the begging bowls of the deprived, the approach most abhorred by Tagore.
From the above discussion it becomes clear that the endeavor to trace Tagore’s world outlook in Amartya Sen’s works pertaining to eco-ethical human living and sustainable development, cannot stand close scrutiny. Tagore’s world outlook springs from views embedded in the Upanishads, whereas Sen draws his concepts from the western paradigms.
Notes
1. Rural self-government in India
References
Rabindranath Tagore
Rabindra Rachanavali (R. R.) (collected works of Tagore), 125th Anniversary Edition, 1986, Visva-Bharati Publishers, Calcutta-17
i) Vol. 2: Atmashakti, P. 617; Bharat Varsha, P. 695
ii) Vol. 6: Swadeshi, P. 497; Samaj, P. 517; Bilaser Fans, P. 526; Shiksha, P. 563
iii) Vol. 7: Dharma, P. 447; Shantiniketan, P. 521; Tapavan, P. 690
iv) Vol. 14: Samabaya Niti, P. 309; Palli Prakriti, P. 351; Aranya Devata, P. 372
Amartya Sen
All reprinted by Oxford University Press (OUP), New Delhi in 1999
1973: On Economic Inequality
1981: Poverty and Famine
1982: Choice, Welfare and Measurement
1984: Resources, Values and Development
1989 (with Jean Dreze): Hunger and Public Action
1995: The Political Economy of Hunger
Haq, Mahbub Ul (1997): Human Development in South Asia, OUP, New Delhi.
The cause of poverty is generally attributed to the lack of material amenities. But this is a naive idea as in course of material progress the intensity of poverty has hardly been reduced. On the contrary it has increased keeping pace with material progress of human society. So the question arises if there is any deeper cause other than lack of material progress behind poverty. As to this question the superfluous answer is related to distribution of income. If increasing wealth is appropriated by a minority, poverty would persist in spite of material advancement. In fact, this answer leads us on to the next query: why income distribution has remained skewed in course of material advancement. We endeavor to resolve this riddle in this article by pointing out that the root cause of persistent inequality of income distribution, perpetuating poverty, lies in basic human nature -- wanton greed and power mongering of the minority who take the pioneering role in material progress simply to meet their desires. But before taking up this central issue let us first define the term poverty.
The term poverty may be interpreted both in absolute and in relative terms. In the narrow sense, absolute poverty refers to the lack of basic amenities for sustenance of life without any reference to the relative economic position of the person concerned vis-à-vis other persons in the society he resides in. Relative poverty, on the other hand, is concerned with inequality of income distribution and refers to the relative position of the person in comparison to richer persons.
These two concepts, in this narrow sense, may or may not be interdependent. In a very primitive economy, absolute poverty may exist without any existence of income inequality, e.g. in the ‘primitive communism’ referred to by Marx and Engels (1975). On the other hand, in a highly developed country, high income inequality may exist without the existence of absolute poverty in its narrow interpretation. We use the term ‘narrow’ because the very definition of absolute poverty may itself change with rising income in a society. This is so because the concept of minimum subsistence changes with increasing opulence of a society. No wander an income level indicating absolute poverty according to standards applied in the USA may be much above the income of the average middle class in India. Absolute poverty has in fact both physical and psychological dimensions and here it becomes difficult to segregate absolute poverty from income inequality. Thus the question of poverty turns out to be a highly complex phenomenon unlikely to be amenable to treatment with oversimplified terminologies and definitions.
Leaving aside the definitions and linguistic juggleries it can hardly be denied that absolute poverty in the LDCs has in recent decades assumed a serious dimension in seer physical terms and has posed a threat to the lives of millions of people residing in these countries. On the other hand, relative poverty as well as absolute poverty (even if in purely psychological sense) has been the basic source of social tensions in many a developed countries. In the global context, poverty among nations has been widening nullifying all the predictions of meticulously constructed growth models emphasizing ‘convergence theories’ (Abramovitz, 1986). So far as the LDCs are concerned, low per capita income combined with extreme income inequality have forced these nations to move fast towards the precipice of disaster.
Under these situations it may be worthwhile to look into the basic causes of poverty. Is it purely a question of lack of economic development or otherwise inadequate attention to the question of redistributive policies or none of them? It is no denying that absolute poverty in primitive societies may be explained by man’s limited power to manipulate nature (and the underlying causes like limited scientific knowledge, primitive technologies and therefore limited productive capabilities etc.). But the same logic cannot be applied for societies which are capable of generating surplus values. The reasons for absolute poverty, which has gone hand in hand with inequality ever since the emergence of private property and economic surplus, is to be sought elsewhere. In fact, all conventional approaches towards this question have always been bye-passing the basic cause.
The development of productive power and knowledge enabling man to have command over nature through agricultural practices changed the situation that existed in the very primitive societies and clan lives. In course of time, man’s production process and command over nature went on snowballing and at present material production has assumed a spectacular dimension by means of the trinity of science, technology and industrial innovation. Unfortunately human society is still being pestered with the nagging problem of poverty, haply in a more intensified form as compared to the malady as existed in the pre-capitalistic societies. In fact, both opulence and poverty have been marching steadily onwards with the latter taking the leading role.