We always wonder about the word development- especially economic development. What does it consist of? Material Well Being? Of course; but something more than that! The problem is that the more we try to define it specifically, more we are caught in trouble.
There is no fixed definition. Recently Dr. Amartya Sen has come up with the novel and revolutionary idea of "development as freedom". That means freedom from restrictions that inhibit an individual's progress and freedom to him to enhance the scope of his capabilities.
To me, well, mere assurance of such a freedom is one step shorter to the road of development. I feel there is one more aspect that is missing. It is the discovery of one's self. Unless and untill one is thoroughly "through" with one's self, the external freedom is hardly of any use.
e.g. lets take the simple case of waking up early in the morning. General experience has it that ample plans are made about getting up early in the morning to do this and that. The alarm rings, but the lazy mind refuses to respond. There is no discernable cause that really prohibits one from doing what he/she has planned. There comes this 'self'. It is often taken for granted and hardly paid attention to. This self is nothing but our 'self-conscience', the so-called gut-feeling. We refuse to pay heed to it and stay where we are.
How to realise this self? Quite a difficult one.... But keep on searching. I'm too.....
1 comment:
hmm.. interesting.. but how would discovery of oneself (or ones eternal freedom) be in any way related to economic development? Yes, it would surely be congruent with the title of "The challenge of development".
The reson i say this is that in so many cases in India, we have seen that self realisation has come about in circumstances of abject poverty.
I believe our old "system of life" (or chaturvarniya system) is the best design to achieve this objective of "discovery of one's self", as it disciplines the mind, in the sense that under usual circumstances the economic path for an individual is fixed by birth. This would take so much "load" off the mind, and would help it stabilise, (to contemplate the "self"). Of course, there are flaws in the system in the bastardised form as it is followed today. The old system did not prevent migration to a different profession (cast), but such a need would only be felt by a select few. Think about it; if 99% of the people in the world already had their (secure) future path/profession given to them, with a resulting socio-economic status that they can see, they would be more than happy to follow it (path of least resistance?). I believe that because the mind would always prefer a certain level of certainty, than risk, as is the situation today (that you have to choose your profession).
So, i would still rate Manu as the best economist as he in fact could draw up a perfect system (in his times) where socio-economic objectives were perfectly aligned with those of self-realisation; without compromising freedom or overall economic excellence.
Post a Comment