We Are Debtors, Not Masters

 Mere desh ki dharti sona ugle, ugle heere moti, Mere desh ki dharti…

Kyu na puje iss maati ko jo jeevan ka sukh deti hai

Yahan apna paraya koi nahi….

Yahan apna paraya koi nahi, hai sab pe Maa upkar tera…

Mere desh ki dharti…..

Mere desh ki dharti sona ugle, ugle heere moti, Mere desh ki dharti…

(मेरे देश की धरती सोना उगले उगले हीरे मोती , मेरे देश की धरती

क्यों न पूजे इस माटी को जो जीवन का सुख देती है

यहाँ अपना पराया कोई नहीं

है सब पे माँ उपकार तेरा 

मेरे देश की धरती सोना उगले उगले हीरे मोती , मेरे देश की धरती)

 

This timeless song from the movie Upkar (उपकार) sung by Mahendra Kapoor Ji needs no introduction. Set in the mid - sixties, the song with its mesmerizing acoustic narration, is sure to, each time one hears it, paint a picture of the traditional farming mannerisms and customs followed in the then rural India. The movie, though primarily based on the political scenario of that time and centered on the famous slogan ‘Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan’, (जय जवान, जय किसान) is able to give us apt glimpses of an Indian farmer’s close bonds with his land, soil, cattle, family and fellow beings as also his love for the nation. The sense of belongingness and responsibility towards ‘matr bhoomi’ shown in this cult classic is till date, despite the change in times, not only relevant but also essential to be cultivated.

The inevitability of land - the soil, minerals, bio diversity; as the support system for survival and progress of human life is, beyond a shadow of doubt, well established. Today, owing to the progress of science, we understand, to a higher extend, the characteristics of our ecosystem and that its health has direct relationship with our own wellbeing. However, it was only about 12,000 years ago that homo - sapiens transitioned from hunters and food gatherers to food producers, i.e. discovered the concept of agriculture or should I say began changing the face of earth to nurture the augmentation of our very race. The onset of this new social order may be marked as the metamorphosis of human life form, from sheer survivors to co – existers. Fast forward to the ‘age of industrial and technological enlightenment’ and we suddenly turned into self – proclaimed ‘masters of nature’.

 How suicidal this delusionary belief is, needs no more elucidation, but hearing it or rather reading an economist say it, is bound to leave anyone awestruck. Yes, I am referring to my latest favourite book, “Small is Beautiful” by E F Schumacher, who with extraordinary subtlety demonstrates the ‘Proper Use of Land’ (including all creatures upon it) as a concept of meta-economic and meta-physical order. He starts with quoting famous ecologists, Tom Dale and Vernon Gill Carter, as “Civilized man was nearly always able to become master of his environment temporarily. His chief troubles came from his delusions that his temporary mastership was permanent. Man, whether civilized or savage, is a child of nature. He must conform his actions to certain natural laws if he is to maintain his dominance. When he tries to circumvent the laws of nature, he usually destroys the natural environment that sustains him. And when his environment deteriorates rapidly, his civilization declines.”

The depth of our fallacy is so grave that today we actually see ourselves as separate and superior to nature and believe that someday we might be able to emancipate from our dependence on it. And where this fundamentally erroneous notion has led us, is a vicious predicament of dichotomy and confusion. Schumacher explains this by dividing men into ‘producers’ and ‘consumers’. Following the rules of modern economics, a farmer (man as producer) would implement every possible method to cut his costs and raise his efficiency, without worrying about eliminating man as consumer or destroying the health and beauty of landscape. But when asked to consume his own produce, he would feel lucky to be able to afford those grown organically, without the use of any toxics. To conclude, what man as producer can afford is drastically different from what man as consumer can afford, and since each producer is eventually a consumer, we are all a part of this spine chilling turmoil. Basically, today we live in a society, where men are willing to poison not only soil, air, water and other lifeforms but also our own fellow beings, in an attempt to afford survival from being poisoned himself.

So are we moving back from being co – existers to merely survivors? All I know is that the havoc caused by exploiting nature for our selfish interests in the name of development hasn’t yet led us to a happier state. So is there no going back from here? Probably, probably not. What concerns me, more than the possibility of having caused irreparable damages to land, is the impossibility of us being able to change our habits to ones more sustainable. But we can certainly try, starting with, as Schumacher suggests, ‘all economists being ecologists’. Rightly so, economists are the ones who tell us and measure and compare our progresses; they probably are the ones who identified consumerism and material belongings as indicators of development. Only when they accept having missed out on ‘balancing with nature’ as the most vital criteria and tell us to change our habits by changing the required policies, is there a change of us paying any heed to this subject. Only when we recognize being tenants and not owners of our nurturing Mother Earth, only when our environmental stewardship becomes ‘must have’ from ‘nice to have’ without worrying about greed and bank balance, only when we understand what real progress is will we be able to move in the right direction.

Referring to Small is Beautiful, the author writes about a four point orientation of goals for man’s management of land. The first, health, wherein he encourages humans to stay in touch with nature, take care of its health and in turn it will reciprocate. Sadly today, we treat agriculture as an industry, something to maximize profits. Soil is a living entity, full of life. Working with it cannot possibly be like working with man - made machines. The absence of benevolence, kindness and gratitude (towards all living beings) is the root cause of our current plight. The second aspect, is restoring and maintaining the beauty of landscape and surroundings with an intent to humanize and ennoble man’s wider habitat. Gardening then is therapeutic. Imagine how healing and spirit lifting a superlative degree of gardening be. The third aspect permanence is probably the most controversial. Schumacher suggests that the movement of population from rural to urban areas, from agriculture to other industries i.e., going away from nature, is a step in the wrong direction. To ensure the permanence and sustainability of life, we should be attached to our roots, bring forth the foodstuffs and other materials needed for a becoming life. But today, even with our growing knowledge of climate changes and environmental degradation, the ‘consumerist’ and ‘presentist’ society that we live in, aspiring for permanence is only a sad joke. The last and the most relatable aspect productivity points out the impossibility of limitless production. With our ever increasing demands as a result of rapidly growing population, the societal economics should emphasize on our resources not being endless.  Our obsession with producing more and consuming more, without sufficient thought regarding the ecological, environmental-health and social impacts, is topping us over the edge.

Is it really impossible to blend successfully, the values from our heritage with material wellbeing? Is it easier to let everything blow up rather than trying to find middle grounds to live in symphony? And when I say symphony, I mean not just with nature and animals, but fellow human beings. We seem to have flourished so much, our technological advancements are mind boggling, our material possessions know no bounds yet our basic problems of poverty, unemployment, socio - economic disparity, crime, violence etc., never seem to diminish. So are we really doomed? The answer might not be as simple as one might think. Our inability to overcome these hindrances of happiness, point to a direction higher than our social science rationale, to something more spiritual, metaphysical and met economical.  

There is a universal agreement that human labour is a fundamental source of wealth. Modern economic theories however make us believe, the lesser the human effort the better off we are. Providing appropriate technological solutions has become synonymous with expansion, an increase in the labour force, not so much. As a result, not only has unemployment increase drastically, those employed have more machines as colleagues than humans, which in turn is making us like them - obsessed with precision and devoid of emotions. Use of technology is vital, it helps eliminate errors, but how do we curb its negative impacts on our psyche? Schumacher answers this with his ground breaking concept of Technology with a Human Face.

Advanced technology he says recognizes no self - limiting principles, in terms of size, speed or violence and possess no virtues of self - balancing, self - adjusting or self – cleaning, which in the subtle system of nature is bound act like a foreign body and eventually face rejection. So instead of pushing towards an ultimate breakdown, he suggests the usage of tools instead of machines. Tools that will assist us and make our work easy, not machines that replace us and make us their slaves. Tools that can be used and are affordable for most of us, not machines that can be operated and are affordable for just a handful. Gandhi Ji had said, “The poor of the world cannot be helped by mass production, only by production by the masses.” Thus the technology appropriate for use is one that involves production by the masses and as Schumacher says ‘mobilises the priceless resource which are possessed by all human beings - their clever brains and skillful hands.’ Productive work is curative; reducing the work load is not always a good thing. And what working with these tools will restore is the enjoyment and educational value of that journey before we reach our final destination (i.e. completing the task). So how do we introduce these tools to the masses? Can the ‘educated’ play any significant role here? Indeed.

All of us, ‘the educated lot’ have roots in the villages, either our own generation or our ancestors. And those left back home, had certainly made sacrifices while sending us to the cities. Also, they would have expected this migration, to benefit them in some way, in the long run. But, how many of us today realize what we owe them? Or did the bling of our ‘forward city lives’ blind us? The answer is not something we would boast of. We are guilty of forgetting our duty towards our villages. Repercussions, needless to state; we are all aware of them.

 To wrap up I would say, our fate as a species depends on the state of our relationship with land and all its inhabitants and they have all had enough of our selfishness and greed. What will justify the whole process of civilization, is a state of general happiness and peaceful co-existence. But if we do not mend our ways and keep testing their patience any further, we are sure to head towards self – destruction. After all, we too are (just like them) members of a biological community, not their masters.