There are a lot of factors that lead to the development of a country.
Another election year, another ambitious plan for Viksit Bharat 2047. While the idea of transforming India into a developed entity by 2047, the 100th year of Independence, sounds exciting, we must dream cautiously.
Let’s start by answering the question: What does it mean to be developed? For most of us, it’s a vision of a country like the US or Great Britain. High levels of infrastructure connecting us efficiently. Availability of advanced urban amenities. Access to high-quality goods and services. The Industrial Revolution, of which Europe and America emerged as leaders, birthed this idea of a developed nation. Mass production of goods led to easier access and a better quality of life.
What about before the Industrial Revolution? Were there models in society where we organised ourselves differently and were happier? India is home to the Harappan Civilisation, one of the first organised societies of mankind. India was historically also the richest country — in terms of wealth and wisdom. Are there models in Indian history and abroad that we should be looking at, which could be different or contrary to the accepted notion of a “developed” nation that we are striving towards?
There are a lot of factors that lead to the development of a country. Let’s zoom into one: Urban planning. India is known to have built one of the first planned cities in 3000 BC with the Indus Valley Civilisation where we had a covered sewage system in the centre of our towns. Ironically, many of our towns today still lack that. Historically, we were the richest nation for a long time. It is believed that during the rule of the Mughal emperor Akbar, we were the richest country in the world. We lived in houses that were built on the principles of “vaastu”, a traditional Indian science based on the flow of energy through natural elements like light and wind. It was developed before electricity was discovered. Beds faced east to give you energy and light in the morning from the rising sun. Kitchens were placed where the least wind flowed, to prevent a kitchen fire from spreading into the house. A haveli or wada always had a courtyard that provided physical and psychological benefits. Physically, it was built using precise scientific calculations of surface area versus built-up area to create wind pockets that served as independent microclimates — cool in the summer and warm in winter. Psychologically, they created a space where all the members of the house could safely interact with each other. Our houses were built with mud, again a material that is cooling in summer and warming in winter. There was clearly a lot of wisdom in traditional urban planning in India. We were rich not only materially but also with knowledge.
Today, as we transform our cities to look like urban cities of the West, with tall glass-and-steel structures to meet the demands of our growing population, are we carrying any of this traditional wisdom? Mumbai houses Asia’s largest slum in Dharavi, slated to undergo redevelopment, like many other slum redevelopment projects in the city. The slum dwellers who live in small huts close to each other are offered larger spaces in high-rise buildings. If they were offered access to amenities, like running water and electricity, and the security of permanent housing, would they be interested in moving for more space? They would lose proximity to their community and easier and more direct access to nature. Living in isolation and away from nature is directly linked to an increased number of mental and physical diseases like depression, anxiety and blood pressure. Could there be a solution to our growing population in our traditional urban planning systems that didn’t need high-rise buildings?
Following similar notions of development, Saudi Arabia in the recent past announced ambitious plans of a futuristic city called NEOM to be built in the middle of the desert. NEOM is meant to be a futuristic architectural marvel where the entire city, including parks, would be built along a line. A city like that would cost billions of dollars to construct. Saudi Arabia has a relatively small population of 34.2 million people, most of whom already have one, if not two, homes. Who would NEOM be catering to? Locals or tourists? When it comes to access to high-quality goods and services and traditional notions of development, their citizens already seem to have that. Would their citizens prefer an infrastructural marvel like NEOM or a thriving free society ? What would they consider to be true development for their country? Maybe it is these questions which led to the recent announcement by the Saudi government of a scale-back on its NEOM plans. Bhutan, on the other hand, measures its progress as a country not on its material growth or GDP, but on its GNH, Gross National Happiness. Bhutan and Saudi, are cases in point of two countries looking at development in very different ways.
As we think about Viksit Bharat, we need to first think about what it means to be “viksit”. We are racing towards the goal of becoming developed but are we putting enough thought into what it means for us? As we debate about what it means to be developed, we need to look at not only our glorious past but also at other countries as case studies. With the goal of building a happy, thriving society, we should build our very own version of Viksit Bharat that is a role model for the rest of the world.
The writer is director at RPG Foundation and founder of Pehlay Akshar, The Heritage Project
