1975, a Ladakhi man, Tsewang Paljor, said “we don’t have any poverty here.” Fast forward to 1983 the same man said “if you could only help us Ladakhis, we’re so poor.” Through modernisation, by the North, within less than 10 years, Ladakhis now see themselves worse off. Instead of the promise of western education, medicine and money they, the North, have robbed Ladakhis from their culture and what it meant to live with the land (Norberg-Hodge, H. 2000: 101).
We are always talking about global development. But is this what we really need or even want? Through western development are we destroying cultures, ancient medicines, living one with nature?
Let’s take Ladakh as an example and try to answer the following questions:
Is development bad? And did the West under-develop Ladakh?
I recently read a book by Helelna Norberg-Hodge called ‘Ancient Futures’. Helena is a specialist on international development on local communities. She first went to Ladakh in the 1970s before it was ‘developed’. She has been back to Ladakh many times. Her book ‘Ancient Futures’ won her the Right Livelihood Award (Alternate Noble Prize) (Local Futures, 2015).
Majority of what I write about Ladakh will come from her book.
Part One
Modernisation through development
Within the social sciences, development has historically conjured as an image of “underdeveloped” nations in the global south, being lifted out of their traditional state, by a process of modernisation by the more “developed” nations of the global north (Biel, R. 2000: 72).
Although, the term development simply suggests moving from one state to another, at the heart of this is an unequal binary- in which traditional societies according to the western imagination are bad, primitive and stagnant, and modern societies, are good and a symbol of progress. Pieterse (2001:7) says the development theory started roughly in the 1950s, at the heart of its psyche is an imperialist ideology that grew out of the colonial era. In the book ‘Ancient Futures’ Helena says: through the promise of development from the global north, the underdeveloped countries can now become comfortable and rich. Where poverty, overpopulation and environmental degradation will be solved (2000: 149). This has essentially been western nations exploiting the resources and human capital of the global south, for their own economic growth. And, with the onset of globalisation and neoliberalism in the 1980s, modernisation meant incorporating nations on the peripheries into a global capitalist system and deregulating markets (Pieterse, J.N. 2001:7). This further allowed for the dissemination of a western idea of development as the bulwark to further exploit non-western nations.
Modernisation theory is essentially a Eurocentric process (Billet, B.L., 1993.). According to Eisenstadt (1966: 1), it is a “process of change” towards the social, economic, and political systems developed in Western Europe and North America during industrialisation, and then spread to other European countries, South America, Asia and Africa in the twentieth century. Linking this to the discussion above on development, modernisation, a western model, became the blueprint for development. And in a global economic system, modernising the global south, essentially means including them into a western dominated system for the purpose of economic growth. However, this economic growth was still marked by unequal colonial/mercantile relations- in which ‘modernising’ these societies meant western nations taking their ecological resources, exploiting their human labour, and producing goods for little economic cost. As human and natural resources are subordinated to the accumulation of capital for the North, this prevents the development of local economies, and has a profound impact on the social and cultural fabric of life in these societies (Biel, R., 2000,72-74).
As a top-down process of development is enforced on regions in the South, like Ladakh, a host of problems are welcomed with it. Helena Norberg-Hodge in her “Ancient Futures: Learning from Ladakh”, argues that with globalisation large corporations, agencies like the IMF, and western governments have spread a consumer culture, or a “monoculture” through “development” and “aid”. By attempting to homogenise diverse local systems and cultures into a world system, people are encouraged to move away from their ancestral lands, attend western schooling and live in cities for the purpose of making money. Urbanisation in the South is frequented with slum living, unemployment and poverty. Farming is industrialised for the purpose of exporting cash crops, destroying locally adaptive forms of agriculture and plant diversity. By pushing the world towards a mono-consumer culture, modernisation ultimately threatens and destroys the natural, cultural and economic diversity in the world.
Brief understanding of Ladakh
Ladakh is located in the northernmost region of India between the Himalaya and Karakoram mountains (Dana, J.M.R., 2007:1). Ladakh is a democratic land. It is a place where people make decisions together. Most families own their own land. There are no divisions of wealth and roughly 95% of the population belongs to what we call a middle class. The other classes are the so called royalty and a typical lower class. The lower class is made up of Mons, they are the early settlers who are blacksmiths and carpenters. The Ladakhi people give them their lower class status because they extract resources; metal, from the earth which is thought to anger the spirits. Where there are social boundaries of class in Europe there is none in Ladakh. All three classes work and live together (Norberg-Hodge, H. 2000). One of the main reasons why Ladakhis can live together peacefully is through religion.
Religion is the centre of life in Ladakh. It is inseparable from their culture, music, art and even their agriculture. On paper, the Ladakhi people are materially poor but through Buddhism, their traditional religion, has allowed them to live a life that is unique and satisfying (Jina, P.S., 1997). Majority of Ladakhis have believed in Buddhism for nearly 200 years; where it has been their traditional religion. Although, Ladakhis also believe in Islam and Christianity, Buddhism is the main religion in Leh. Sunyata or “emptiness” is the core element of the Buddhist philosophy. To understand what sunyata means we need to look at an example, in this case a tree. When you, a westerner, think of a tree you think of it as being specific, an object that is defined. But on a deeper and greater level, the tree has no separate existence but many. Interlinked with a web of relationships. From the soil in the ground supporting the tree, the rain falling on each individual leaf, the wind causing the branches to sway side to side - all form part of the tree. Conclusively, everything in the universe contributes to what the tree is. It cannot be singled out or objectified as an individual; it’s nature changing from moment to moment - it is never the same. This is the meaning of sunyata, that there is no individual existence (Norberg-Hodge, H. 2000: 73). This is the belief of the Ladakhi people. Not ‘taking’ nor ‘grabbing’ from the earth but living with the earth. How ‘one grand organic whole’ is working in a perfect system (Crist, E and Rinker, H.B., 2010). How Gaia is a super-organism (Lovelock, J, 2000: 15-40).
Gaia theory allows thinking on a planetary scale. How the chemical and physical conditions on Earth are linked with all life. The Gaia theory began in the 1970s. Gaian philosophers have the theory that living and nonliving; that includes at a biological, geological and chemical level, are connected forming a biogeochemical entity that acts as a self-regulating system (Gaia in Turmoil). Thus, the concept of gaia is linked to the concept of life. Life is social. It exists in communities and collectives (Lovelock, J, 2000: 15-40). When Ladakhis pray they pray for happiness and prosperity. For their family but also for every sentient being in the universe (Norberg-Hodge, H. 2000: 73-74). From this we can understand that the Ladakhis work as a ‘self-regulating’ system. They give thanks to everything and only take what they need. In the case of the Mons, where they took from the earth; essentially accumulation for economic growth, they were classed as lower.
Part Two
How Ladakh was modernised:
Colonialism impacted development in Ladakh much later than expected. Before it started in Ladakh it began in India. The British empire went to India to trade and rule. The British wanted to colonise the Indian people by capturing the mind by teaching its language and ideology. This is where the term ‘coconut’ came from, meaning ‘brown on the outside, white on the inside.’ By 1947, India gained independence from the British. The British rule lasted for nearly 200 years where imperialism caused a division between India and Pakistan and introduced India to the industrial age (Bloy, M., 2015).
Due to its location, lack of resources and it’s climate, Ladakh was protected from colonialism and development. Once India was independent it set its eyes on Ladakh. Ladakh was located on one of Asia’s major trade routes; surrounded by Pakistan and China. Pakistan and China noticed and naturally India sent their military to protect the region (Jina, P.S. 2002:20). Change began in Ladakh in 1974 when the Indian government decided to open it up to tourism. This helped solidify Ladakh as a part of India. India thought it would be best to ‘develop’ Ladakh. Like most cases of development it was done through a western perspective; thanks to British colonialism. This consisted of infrastructure; roads and energy, western medicine and an education system. (Norberg-Hodge, H. 2000: 91-92)
Economic Development
Ladakh was rooted with an economy that was sustainable. There was a balance and a system that was dynamic between all classes. Majority, if not all, economic activity in Ladakh was based on local resources; where very few people were making a living from trading with the outside world. With western development, roads have now been built connecting Ladakh with the rest of the world. Roads were first built in the 1970s allowing tourist to reach Ladakh, this is when Ladakh started to become a tourist destination (Dana, J.M.R., 2007). This has allowed Ladakh to connect to the global macroeconomy. Roads essentially allowed all ‘modern-essentials’ to flood into Ladakh. Hospitals, electricity, a gas station, two banks, a cinema, paid employment, a government, and a football stadium arrived after roads. Within sixteen years, Leh, the major city in Ladakh, saw its population double and the rural population dropped drastically due to people searching for education and jobs.
For the economy to grow faster and stronger we would need more people. In essence, if the population is growing so is the economy (Eisenstien, C., 2014). But with overpopulation comes major environmental and health problems. Once roads were well developed, the vehicles followed and everyone wanted one. In such a small region, and more people than it could handle, traffic became a problem; causing problems such as air pollution. Ladakhis use to build their homes with mud but cement prices dropped and it was now cheaper and ‘economically’ sustainable. With overpopulation more homes were needed to be built fast. Resources were brought over the himalayan mountains in teams of trucks. Some trucks coming as far from South India. Ladakhis once use to build in a sustainable manner from their backyard. And, now they rely heavily on resources to keep up. For every two bedroom apartment, eight people were sharing causing more issues (Norberg-Hodge, H., 2000: 113-116).
One key environmental issue caused by development in Ladakh is waste management. Prior to development policies, Ladakhis would recycle everything- from left over food to broken tools. They had a system in place. Norberg-Hodge (2000: 24) discuss how the Ladakhi people were so well connected to nature they acted not only on a micro level but at a macro level. She tells the story of how she wanted to wash her dirty clothes in a stream but then a young girl approached her saying “You can’t put your clothes in that water.” The young girl then points downstream to the next village and says “People down there have to drink it.” The young girl shows her a different stream saying “You can use that one over there; that’s just for irrigation.” Waste management was never a problem. Human waste was used to nourish the lands. The Ladakhi people didn’t waste anything but with economic development, with increase in material consumption, waste management naturally became a problem. With the rise of modern housing came the need of waste removal. Toilets were need to be built and gallons of water was required to be pumped up to the top of buildings to flush human waste in miles of pipes into a septic tank. Leh is overcrowded and these tanks leaked causing contamination in the water and contributing to hepatitis and water-borne diseases. Before the 1970s no one in Ladakh knew what hepatitis even was (Norberg-Hodge, H., 2000: 115-119).
Land and people were once connected and now it has been separated for economic growth. It is now ‘uneconomic’ to grow your own food because it is easier and cheaper to buy it from the Punjab than it would be to buy it from your nearest village. Modernisation taught Ladakhis their Yak was inferior and inefficient. The Yak can only produce 3 litres of milk a day. Whereas the Jersey cow can produce up to 30 litres a day. The Yak can provide meat, fur and milk but what the Yak can do the Jersey cow can do ten fold. Jersey cows only graze at 10,000 feet, where the people are. They require shelter, land to graze and constant care. They also need to be imported which takes a lot of energy. Whereas the Yak, being from Ladakh, has it's long hair to cover it from the cold, it can graze up to 16,000 feet, with no help from people, gather energy from all over the mountains. Energy that can be converted into food, labour and clothing. It is clear that the Jersey cow was introduced for economic growth. This is a example on how modernisation ignores local resources and focus on accumulation (Norberg-Hodge, H., 2000: 111-113).
Ladakh’s traditional economy had differences in wealth but to take from the earth had its natural limits. You could only travel in daylight, the people could look after so many Yaks or could store so many kilos of rice. Whereas money could be accumulated and stored in banks causing a greater divide between the rich and the poor. The next part of the essay will look at the social and cultural impacts of development.
Social and Cultural Development
In todays world, the process called ‘education’ is based on a Eurocentric model (Patil, S.H., 2002: 63). Education was location specific. People learnt what they had to so they could survive. Each generation of Ladakhis learnt about their culture, religion, the plants that grew, the animals that grazed and what could grow where and when.
Western education first came to Ladakhi villages in the 1970s and within 20 years there were roughly 200 schools teaching a weak curriculum based on the British education with no Ladakhi teaching. Bill Bigelow (2002: 315) says the government of India require all Ladakhi children to attend school to help create ‘progressive’ ideas to better develop Ladakh. School is taught in Urdu; a language not spoken by Ladakhis, and a second language, English; also not spoken by Ladakhis. These languages are considered ‘modern’. Modern education has made the Ladakhi children believe their culture is inferior thus making themselves think they are worse off compared to the west. Norberg-Hodge (2000: 113) says in 1986 school children were asked to imagine what Ladakh would be like in the year 2000. One child said “They do sing their own songs like they feel disgrace but they sing English and Hindi songs with great interest. But these days majority of the people did not wear their own dress, they felt disgrace.” Modern education pulls people away from agriculture and into the city but it also disconnects them from who they are. Jina says “The younger generation now do not have enough time to follow the age old Buddhist traditional practices in their daily life.” Religion was once the centre of life and now due to western education it has disconnected them from Gaia. What was use to be known as sunyata, ‘emptiness’, has now been filled with western a philosophy.
‘Even if you know it is better to ask’ - a Ladakhi saying. Education is not only through schooling but from learning from one another. Once tourism was introduced Ladakhis could learn from the outside world. Development brought Western and Indian movies. This has brought insecurity of identity. Ladakhis are no longer comparing themselves with their neighbours or friends. They are comparing themselves to singers, actors, images of power and luxury. Western culture seemed better than their own. Biel (2000:71-72) says accumulation is synonymous with development and through the introduction of Western movies came the urge to accumulate ‘modern-essentials’. This has widen the gap between the rich and the poor, between neighbours and friends. Norberg-Hodge (2000: 107) gives the example of a retired government driver that bought a jeep back to Ladakh. He would drive through the villages and towns. The relationship between the villagers and himself changed. He know had something what the rest wanted, making him different to everyone else.
Round-up
Within a short space of time eco-social development took place putting across infrastructure, western schooling and trucks. Through these policies Ladakhis began moving into to the city, people left their rural settings and started to urbanise. They lost their connection to the land and with mass-consumption they lost their ancestral wisdom no longer living environmentally sustainable. This was most evident in the economic development once roads
Darwin (1998:1) introduces the theory that organisms have the ability to adapt to its environmental constraints. But everything has limits. External elements, be it chemical or physical, add up, forcing the Earth into a different state (Crist, E and Rinker, H.B. 2010). In the case of the Ladakhis, the external element would be the North, or the modernisation theory. How Europe would see it as ‘adapting’, to the modern way, is causing the Ladakhis to forget their teachings, culture and their world. This would essentially cause a rift in the system. Holling (2001: 390-405) shows this as ‘discontinuous’ development. Instead of working with nature it is working against it. In essence destroying the Ladakhis through economic and social development.
What do you think? Is development bad? Comment below….
Bibliography
Armer, J.M. and Katsillis, J (2003). Encyclopedia of Sociology Vol. 3. NY:Macmillan
Andras, P. (2003) The Modernization Imperative. Imprint Academic, Exeter, UK.
Bhasin, V. (1999) Leh - An Endangered City? Available: http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/T-Anth/Anth-01-0-000-000-1999-Web/ANTH-01-01-001-99-Abst-PDF/ANTH-01-01-001-99.pdf . Last Accessed 3rd Dec 2015
Biel, R. (2000) The New Imperialism - Crisis and Contradictions in North/South Relations. NY:St Martin’s Press Inc.
Bigelow, B. (2002). Rethinking ‘Primitive’ Cultures: Ancient Futures and Learning from Ladakh. In: Bigelow, B and Peterson, B Rethinking Globalization: Teaching for Justice in an Unjust World. Milwaukee: Rethinking Schools Press. 315.
Billet, B. L. (1993) Modernization Theory and Economic Development: Discontent in the Developing World. Westport, Conn: Praeger.
Bloy, M. (2015) British India. Available: http://www.historyhome.co.uk/c-eight/india/india.htm Last Accessed 4th Dec 2015
Britannica, (2015) Ladakh, Available: http://www.britannica.com/place/Ladakh Last Accessed 2nd Dec.2015
Crist, E and Rinker, H.B. (2010) Gaia in turmoil - Climate Change, Biodepletion, and Earth Ethics in an Age of Crisis. NY: MIT
Dana, J.M.R. (2007). GLOBALIZATION FROM BELOW: How Ladakh is Responding to Globalization with Education. Available: http://www.macalester.edu/educationreform/publicintellectualessay/new%20pies/Dana%20Ladakh%20and%20Education%20PIE.pdf . Last accessed 24th Nov 2015.
Darwin, C. (1998) On the Origin of Species (Classics of World Literature). Wandsworth Edition Limited, UK.
Eisenstadt, S. N. (1966) Modernization: Protest and Change. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Eisenstein, C. (2014) Concern about overpopulation is a red herring; consumption's the problem,. Available: http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/concern-overpopulation-red-herring-consumption-problem-sustainability . Last Accessed 3rd Dec 2015.
Holling C. S.(2001), “Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems” Ecosystems (2001) 4: 390–405
Jina, P.S. (1996) Ladakh: The Land and the People. Indus Publishing Company, New Dehli
Jina, P.S. (1997). Modernisation and Buddhism in Ladakh. In: Jina, P.S Recent Researches on the Himalaya. New Delhi: Indus Publishing Company.
Jina, P.S. (2002) Development of Ladakh Himalaya. Kalpaz Publications. New Dehli
Local Futures, (2015) Available: http://www.localfutures.org/helena-norberg-hodge/ . Last Accessed: 6th Dec 2015
Lovelock, James, (2000) "What is Gaia?" from Lovelock, James, The ages of Gaia: a biography of our living Earth pp.15-40, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Norberg-Hodge, H (2000). Ancient Futures: Learning from Ladakh. 5th ed. San Francisco: Rider.
Mukherjee, K. (1998). Cultural History of Ladakh. Available: http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/bot/pdf/bot_1996_03_02.pdf. Last accessed 5th Dec 2015.
Reyes, G.E. (2015) Four Main Theories of Development: Modernization, Dependency, Word-System, and Globalization. Available: http://pendientedemigracion.ucm.es/info/nomadas/4/gereyes1.htm#(2) Last Accessed 2nd Dec 2015
Sundberg, J., (2009) ‘Eurocentrism’, In: International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, London: Elsevier.
Phatil, S.H. (2002) Community Dominance and Political Modernisation: The Lingayats. Mittal Publications. New Dehli.
Pieterse, J.N. (2001) Development Theory. Sage. London