Reassessing sustainable development through lens of ‘Integral Humanism’

Sustainable development has been a buzzword in the past decade that has helped mobilise the entire globe to pull off massive conventions addressing issues like climate change, global warming, and depletion of natural resources with an alarm ing degree of urgency. But there is an obvious chasm between what has been talked about and what has actually materialised on the ground. The global leadership on sustainable development appears to have proven itself inadequate in controlling the damage that is being caused by the forces of modernisation. Access to development is indeed a human right, and modernity is also a pressing need of the times we live in. Both of these appear to be the only answers to the questions of poverty and misery that we see still engulfing a large part of our population. But one cannot deny that development in its conventional course can only happen at the expense of natural resources. Infrastructure can develop only at the cost of forests, and material well-being can only happen at the cost of natural resources. And therefore, a severe paradox presents itself, demanding our immediate attention, as to where we can find the solution that could bring a resolution to this problem.

- YASHOWARDHAN TIWARI & NEELABH KUMAR SHARMA

Indian political thought offers a way out of this deadlock. It offers a roadmap to an improvised framework for rethinking the notions of modernity, development, and sustainability. As we commemorate 60 years of Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay's legacy of 'EkAtma MAnava Darshana' (Integral Humanism) on his 109th Jayanti, we need to rethink the frameworks of sustainability through this lens, keeping in mind that the basic needs of every individual are met, while keeping a check on the exploitation of natural resources.

Integral Humanism presents a powerful critique of modernity as articulated by the pernicious logic of Western hegemonic frameworks of capitalism and communism. It calls out "destructive consumerism" embedded in the Eurocentric definitions of development and modernity, which ultimately leads to the exploitation of nature as a result of limit less consumption, or gluttony, which is one of the seven deadly sins, even if we try to articulate it from the Judeo-Christian purview.

Upadhyaya points out the sinister fallacy that is at the fulcrum of this paradox. In the natural order of things, production ought to follow the demands necessitated by the individual or society. But he contends that in the current scenario, «demand follows the production», pointing out the contemporary phenomenon where, first, the production happens, and then an artificial need is created through thoughtfully curated advertisements and other means so that people are guided towards desiring something that they do not necessarily need. This is a natural outcome of the unrestrained consumeristic culture, which creates an ouroboric desire to consume, with the artificial creation of never-ending "wants", leading to a no-holds-barred model of development, with nature being the ultimate casualty.