medical ethics and sikhism

Medical
Ethics AND SIKHISM

Bioethics
is the study of the ethic issues arising in the practice of
biological disciplines such as medicine nursing and other health care
professions including veterinary medicine and other biological or
life sciences.

Increased
capability (for e.g., organ transplant, external life support systems to keep a dying patient alive, genetic engineering to cure a patient of a deadly disease) raises further questions such as, given the capacity, "ought we to do it?" This question does not arise in the absence of capability. Increased knowledge gives rise to specialisation. Should these specialists continue with their value
free research and technology or should they also consider the values
and rights that may be threatened by their researches.

Now
the medicos can no longer confine themselves to their profession.
There is a need for them to evaluate their actions, to consider the
ethical implications of their actions. The doctor- patient
relationship can no longer be strictly based on the Hippocratic Oath.
The rights of the patients as well as the rights of the doctors need
to be reconsidered in the light of the present-day advances. The
dignity of human life and therefore prolongation of human life at any
cost is being reconsidered. Increased capability raises the question
of rights of the dying patient over his body,and also rights of the
society or community to which he belongs, over him. Till now, we have
been discussing the right to live but now, the right to die is also
being stressed.

In
this paper, I shall consider as to what would be the attitude of
Sikhism towards some problems that have arisen in medical ethics.
Euthanasia, suicide,abortion and organ donation. These issues are
based on the concept of right to one’s body. It can be argued
that since I have a right to my body I have a right to opt for
putting an end to my life, or donating an organ of my body to benefit
someone else. Similarly, a woman may say she has a right over her
body and that she does not want to carry the fetus in her body, for
whatever reason. Sikhism, does not accept that I have a right over
my body.

The
ethics in Sikhism stresses more on duty. My body is given to me by
God, and I have a duty to preserve it and similarly, I have a duty to
preserve the body of others. Thus accepting the principle of sanctity
of life, I do not have any right to destroy or harm my body or the
body of anyone else. The neglect of one’s body or another’s
body is a sin according to Sikhism.

Euthanasia:

With
new methods of treatment and advances in medicine, doctors are able
to prolong life of a large number of people. In most cases it is
presumed that prolongation of life is in the best interests of the
patients and this is also considered as a duty of the doctor.
However, the problem comes up when a patient denies treatment and
does not want to be kept alive artificially.

Euthanasia
is derived from Greek words ‘eu’ meaning good and
‘thanatos’ meaning death. Thus euthanasia implies
good death. It means, “the intentional termination of life by
another at the explicit request of the person who dies”. It is
also referred to as mercy killing. Euthanasia is usually resorted to
in case of physically unfit or ill people who feel that they would
like to die with dignity not being dependent on others or who desire
a painless death.

The
justification usually given is that the patient is in terrible agony
and pain. He is going to die any way because he is suffering from an
incurable disease. He is not able to bear the pain and is feeling the
loss of dignity as he is totally dependent on others. He wants a
peaceful painless death. Therefore, if the patient is himself asking
to be killed, the doctors should consent and remove him from this
agony.This is called active euthanasia.Active euthanasia
involves causing death of a person , through direct action, in
response to a request from that person.In passive euthanasia,the
death of a person is hastened by altering some form of support and
letting nature take its course.

One
may respond to such a situation in different ways. These are
variations between cultural and religious traditions as to when the
culmination of life is considered wrong. If we see historically, the
Greeks did not believe that all life is precious and therefore should
be preserved at all costs. In Sparta for example it was required by
the law that deformed infants be put to death. It was considered
better that they die rather than they live an unhappy life. If the
body was considered useless for service, one should rather free the
struggling soul.

As
opposed to such tradition Sikhism believes that, this body is given
to man by God. Suffering in this life is under God’s Will and
as a result of one’s own Karma. Administering euthanasia is not
giving comfort but rather putting an end to one’s life and
suffering will continue in the next form of life, maybe
human/non-human.

Another
argument given against euthanasia is that better quality of life is
not dependent on physical condition but mental and spiritual
condition as well. Pain and sorrow alongwith happiness and comfort
are both part of our life. They are like clothes that man wears.¹If
a person is in pain this does not really change or alter his inner
self. It is only the dress that has been changed . So there is no
reason to contemplate euthanasia.

One
may come across a patient who may be physically miserable yet
being a spiritual person having faith in God’s ways, he may not
really be suffering as thought by others. Therefore, euthanasia in
such a case would be a crime. He would say,we can mentally
alleviate a patient’s suffering by ‘Naam’. Naam
would give him the strength to bear physical pain. Euthanasia may end
suffering temporarily in this life, however it will not end suffering
in the next life. Suffering is bound to occur.It may only be
postponed temporarily.In the case of patients in the persistent
vegetable state(PVS) one may argue as to how can they be taken out
of this agony by Naam,for they are not even conscious. Here also Naam
can do wonders.After all it is God who has created this body.He can
always cure the person of this incurable disease .

Feticide

According
to the slippery slope argument “If you take step A, as a result
of the sticky sequence of events, step B will necessarily or very
likely follow, B is clearly not acceptable. Therefore you must not
take step A”².
Between an embryo and the newborn infant there is a continuous line
of development. We cannot have an arbitrary cut off point and say
that at this stage of development of the fetus, it can be aborted but
not before. If feticide is accepted it will lead to acceptance of
infanticide according to the slippery slope argument. Therefore
feticide is unacceptable at any stage because of the consequeces it
will lead to.

Another
more important reason against feticide is that the embryo itself is
living. Therefore whether it will by consequence lead to infanticide
or not, feticide involves killing of a living embryo. This is a
forbidden act in Sikhism.

If
a fetus is genetically screened and is found to be prone to a severe
defect as he has defective genes,should we abort the fetus or let it
be born and then suffer, or should it be aborted? The defective genes
are due to the bad karmas of the child and parents etc. By aborting,
we are preventing the karmas from taking fruit. Do we have a right to
do that? Shouldn’t we leave it to God to decide whether such a
child should be born or should die while it is still in the fetus? By
aborting, can we really put an end to the karmic effects of the
fetus? If aborted, this fetus would take birth again and bear the
fruits of his karma?

Organ
Donation

Sikhism
is based on the concept of service to the community. A Sikh should
always be ready to help the needy. Thus, if by donating his blood or
an organ, he can save the life of another person, it is in the
service of humanity which is recommended. This would prolong the life
of another person.There are certain ethical implications here
too.Suppose a person donates his organ not out of a feeling of
service but due to a dire need of money which he may get from the
recipient of his organ.This sort of organ donation is really
questionable ,for he is using his body as a means and is not
recognising the intrinsic worth of his body.He rather thinks that he
has a right to his body and therefore donates it.

Similarly
a person ,say the wife of a patient who needs a kidney may be forced
by social pressure from society ,or her in laws to donate her kidney
to keep her husband alive.This is a case of involuntary organ
donation and will not be accepted as ethical .

We
may grow human clones or genetically modify animals so that their
organs can be transplanted into humans in need of them.This is not
permissible. The human clone is grown and when there is need, the
needed organ would be removed and the cloned human or the animal
would be left to die. In such cases, the life of the clone or the
animal is being disrespected and therefore this would not be
permissible according to the Sikh Scripture. We cannot use another
living organism in order to serve our personal purposes.

We
can definitely consider transplantation of organs from a person who
is in a persistent vegetable state and had given the consent to use
his organs if at all he were to go in a comatose state or after his
death.The latter would be a case of cadaver transplantation and here
there would not be any adverse ethical implications.

The
question of reverence for life presupposes the value of life and the
attitude towards death. Only in light of the concept of death can we
discuss the issue of sanctity of life or reverence for life.Sikhism
accepts the concept of martyrdom, and a Sikh is supposed to be
prepared for death and should welcome death.However, euthanasia,
suicide, feticide are not permissible within Sikhism. Martyrdom is
not suicide. It is a case of sacrifice of one’s life. Suicide
is committed by a mentally ill and frustrated person, whereas, in
sacrifice, a man is perfectly normal, not a coward, but is rather
courageous, is ready to accept physical torture and death, for some
goal, aim , purpose or a higher and nobler cause.

In
Sikhism, death is not looked down upon. Rather, death is welcomed.
Saint Kabir mentions in Sri Guru Granth Sahib³
that the death of which everyone is afraid, I welcome it. For, it is
only on death that one meets one’s Lord. Similarly, if we see
historically, the fifth and the ninth Guru welcomed martyrdom and
preferred death rather than live a life without dignity and honour.
Same is true of the Sikh martyrs over a period of time. But then,
does this imply that these Gurus, martyrs and saints did not value
human life, or their aim was an early death, or did they despise
human life? Just the opposite was true. In fact, the Sikh Gurus
enjoined every Sikh to look after his body, for, God dwells therein.
Also, it is only while we are in this body that we can attain
liberation. Thus, this life is said to be having utmost value. If
human life has intrinsic worth, it is a gift of God. (a
presupposition of all theistic religions) we donot have the right to
neglect it or to take life.

The
principle of reverence for life is not only confined to the human
sphere. Sikhism believes in sanctity of all life forms and therefore
Xenotransplantation (transplantation of the organs from animals into
humans), cloning, genetic engineering etc. which treat other life
forms as a mere means to meet human ends are also questionable.Next I
shall discuss the position of Guru Granth Sahib on Genetic
engineering.

SriGuru
Granth Sahib and Genetic Engineering

Genetic
engineering is an awesome power. It promises relief from various
diseases and along with it, it also promises new forms of life.
Rather it promises an entirely new type of planet. Life forms will no
more be the same. Human beings and all other life forms will be
transformed both intentionally as well as unintentionally. The
utopian planet earth is no more going to be a fiction. It is very
fast becoming a reality. The world is being redesigned. An enormous
amount of money is being pumped for the genetic engineering research
projects. It is the transnational corporations, which are controlling
and directing research. They are hardly concerned about the ethical
implications of genetic engineering. Their major motive is profits.

Genetic
engineering places in human hands the capacity to redesign living
organisms. These organisms are the result of three billion years of
evolution. Erwin Chargoff, an eminent geneticist also called the
father of modern microbiology questions:

Have
we the right to counteract, irreversibly, the evolutionary wisdom of
millions of years, in order to satisfy the ambition and curiosity of
a few scientists?…..The world is given to us on loan. We come
and we go and after a time we leave earth and air and water to those
who come after us. My generation, or perhaps the one preceding mine
has been the first one to engage, under the leadership of the exact
sciences, in a destructive colonial warfare against nature. The
future will curse us for it^4.

Current
technology may allow us to produce custom-made organisms, for e.g.
bacteria, that clean up oil spills but then should we pursue such a
technology? Are we so inconvenienced by the present state of the
earth that we need to make changes on it by creating new forms of
life. The core issue behind the ethics of genetic engineering is that
is it right to change the nature of life on earth to suit man’s
desires better? Are we superior to animals and the rest of the
creation? Are we answerable to no one? If we are not fundamentally
different, do we have the right to meddle with evolution? If we are
accountable to God for our actions, should we risk insulting His
creation by trying to better it?

The
above questions about genetic engineering are all intrinsic concerns.
The extrinsic concerns about genetic engineering evaluate the
benefits and risks of genetic engineering. Theologians hold that as a
matter of fact, genetic engineering is intrinsically wrong. Genetic
engineering is unnatural. Anything that is going against the laws of
nature is questionable and immoral. ‘Nature knows best’
and the evolutionary processes of nature have a well-established
track record. Genetic engineers are gambling with their unproven
introductions. In their gamble they may cause disastrous changes.

The
intrinsic arguments against genetic engineering are mostly
theological. According to Guru Granth Sahib, nature is created
by the will of God. He knows best and He has created everything
complete. He has left no process incomplete⁵.
He has created the world and He sits and enjoys it.

Granted
that from within the religious matrix, we accept that man is superior
to all other forms of creation, yet in no way does he have the right
to exploit nature. Since the earth is created by God, everything has
the right to live, exist and flourish. We are not within our rights
to destroy or exploit any species or any part of the ecosystem in
general. Since we have not created it, we do not have the right to
destroy it or make any species extinct in it.

After
all there is a Divine Purpose, a Divine Design behind nature. We are
not aware of this design, of this Cosmic Purpose. The day we are
self-realized, we would understand this Design and we would never
think of interfering or making any changes in this ⁶.
He alone has created nature and He alone knows it, understands it.

We
are permitted to use the natural resources but not to exploit them
for, they are not merely meant for our use but also for the use of
the future generations. We do not have the right to tamper with
nature. If God has created it so that we, the existent generations
can enjoy it, the future generations are equally valuable in God's
eyes. In fact nature has not been created merely as a resource for
man; it has its own inherent worth. The whole ecosystem is made in
such a way that one species depends for its survival on another
species⁷.
However man is not permitted to exploit or tamper with nature beyond
his basic requirements.

The
argument against genetic engineering in its simplest form is as
follows:

‘Nature
and all that is natural is valuable and good in itself; all forms of
genetic engineering are unnatural, they go against nature and
interfere with nature, particularly in the crossing of natural
species boundaries; all forms of genetic engineering are therefore
wrong.’⁸

We
cannot isolate genetic engineering research from theological
concerns. While discussing theological concerns we could discuss from
two points of view. One would be from the point of view of religions,
which presuppose that although nature is God’s creation yet man
has been given the power to do whatever he wishes to do with it and
to use it the way he wants to.The second perspective is that of the
Sikh scripture,viz.,nature is God’s creation and we have no
right to interfere with it or to make attempts to improve it..

According
to the Sikh scripture the world is the creation of God. God creates
everything good. There is nothing created which is bad. Therefore the
world as it is, in other words the natural world is good. Thus
whatever is the case is good. If we go against nature, our action is
bad for we will be making changes in nature. These changes would
imply that the world is not as it was created and therefore
theologically it would be bad.

This
interpretation differs from the semitic viewpoint. The world was
good, but due to the Fall, there are changes that have occurred and
nature is no longer good as it was. As per the Baconian
interpretation of the genesis, man must gain mastery over nature,
know its secrets and control it; ‘he must regain his dominion
over nature, which was given to him by Divine bequest’.

Thus
nature also is to be respected. Nature does not have merely
instrumental value. Nature in itself is also having intrinsic worth
as was said by Guru Angad. "This world is the house of God, and
God resides in it”. If it is the house of God how can I, as a
spiritual being, having self-realization as the goal, be unmindful of
nature, and how can I afford to disrespect nature? If I want to
realize my self, this is possible only if I love God's creation.
Without love, God cannot be realized. As Guru Gobind Singh has said,
"Jin prem kio tin hi prabh paeo."⁹
Only those who love God's creation can attain God or Moksha or
self-realization. Loving God's creation does not imply loving only
men or the biosphere but the ecosphere in toto, for, the ecosphere
and human beings, everything is the house of God and God resides in
it. As Guru Amardas has said,¹⁰
“This world, which you are seeing, is the form of God, and has
come into existence only due to God's blessings”. If nature is
created, blessed by God and is the house of the Lord, I have to love
and respect it and recognize its independent intrinsic value. When I
recognize the intrinsic worth of nature, I will not think of
tampering with it.

If I am not allowed
to tamper with nature, how can I justify genetic engineering? If we
start playing with genes, we are ‘playing God’. We are
very finite beings knowing only our present and past. Our future too
is unpredictable. It is not possible for us to know the long-term
consequences of our actions. When we genetically engineer organisms,
we are trying to create new organisms, a new type of a world. We
think we have the power to create. Do we really have this power? We
must be humble. We are like a speck of dust. Guru Nanak says that we
are finite beings and cannot know the limit of God. If we cannot know
God, how can we ‘play God’? How can we create?

Sikhism
questions genetic engineering for it involves not only exploitation
of animals but exploitation of the entire nature.

Heidegger,
“in technology we make objects according to some blueprint that
we determine. We design things to satisfy our purpose rather than
allow our purposes to be affected by, and find creative expression
through, the qualities of the objects themselves.”¹¹

Today
we are not satisfied with mere artifacts designed to serve our
purposes. We are now aiming at nature, animals and humans designed to
serve our purpose. How arrogant and selfish we have become. We want
to make human, plant and animal artifacts too. By doing this, the
biodiversity and ecodiversity would all vanish. We would merely be
finding copies of humans, plants and animals when we clone.

And
isn’t biodiversity in itself also valuable? Doesn’t man
also want diversity, change? Then, why are we cloning genetically
engineering organisms? We are heading towards monoculture. God on the
other hand has created so much of biodiversity that no one
cell/organism is like the other.¹²
This itself is a fascinating phenomenon. It is this diversity which
brings in us admiration of nature. This is what takes us to a state
of bliss and wonderment. It elevates our soul. It is a pity that we
are going all out to destroy this diversity in the name of progress.

Thus
genetic engineering is questionable because it goes against the very
basic principle of the Sikh scripture, i.e., the world as it is
created is best. God knows what is right and wrong. He has designed
the laws of nature, creation and dissolution. Man has no right to
interfere and bring about genetic changes.

The
tension that we face when we have a severely retarded child who may
be curable by genetic engineering is difficult to resolve. Should we
accept him as he is, as a gift of God, with whatever abilities,
disabilities or should we view our child as an asset to be acquired?
If I accept the latter then I would want to genetically engineer him
at whatever cost (economic, or may be damage to the global humanity
or damage to the ecosystem) and make him a perfectly healthy, genius.
But if I accept the will of God, I would accept every condition as
created and willed by God. Especially, if I believe in the law of
karma, then whatever my child is, he is the result of his and my
previous karmas. Do I have the power to negate that effect? Seen from
the Sikh point of view, I cannot really undo the karmic effects. It
is not within my control.

Doesn’t
genetic engineering open up the possibility of negating the karmic
effects? By genetic engineering, I can make my child disease free.
How would the law of karma operate under such circumstances? While
inserting a healthy gene, during gene therapy, it is possible that
the genetic makeup of the child may be disturbed causing some other
incurable ailments or abnormalities in the child. Would we have then
negated the karmic effects? Yes apparently it does appear that we
could negate the karmic effects. Genetic engineering seems to be a
magic potion for all the ailments. Is it really so?

We
are only aware of the positive effects of genetic engineering. We do
not realize that though we may treat the patient of that disease but
we may be making him amenable to some other disease, which may even
be more dangerous, for as we know genetic engineering is not and
cannot be an exact science.

Sikhism
would at no stage accept that man could be co-creator. God is
infinite. Does He need the help of man to create a better world? Does
God not know what is best for us? This world is created under the
Will of God and it is enjoined upon every Sikh to accept the Will of
God. We should not try to equal God, for we can never really do so.
He has created us! He is all-powerful. We are very small beings, who
have been given an intellect, that too by God and how can we try and
match Him or create like Him.

According
to Sikhism, the world is made by God, according to His Will and
desire. The imperfections that are there in the world, in human as
well as the natural world are all under the Will of God. If He so
desires, he can himself make this world absolutely perfect. He can
Himself root out the imperfections. He does not require man’s
help for this purpose. Thus we cannot justify genetic engineering by
saying that by genetic engineering man will be able to root out all
suffering and restore creation to its full glory. It is really
unacceptable or a contradiction to presuppose an omnipotent God, who
is the Creator of this world, and at the same time hold that man can
restore the creation to its full glory. If man, who is created by
God, can root out suffering, can’t God do it? Is it really
possible for man to root out all suffering or is it that he would
actually make us much more miserable than what we are now?

We
may perhaps justify the imperfections by referring to the theory of
Karma. In that case the question that may arise here is that what
karmas would one attribute to the imperfections found amongst
animals, plants and inanimate nature? It is worth mentioning that
according to the Sikh philosophy, which believes in the
transmigration of the soul, the soul does not merely acquire human
form. It also transmigrates into animals, plants, trees, rocks and
mountains.

Kaee
janam Bhae Keet Patanga.Kaee janam gaj meen kuranga…

…Kaee
janam sail gir parea¹³

--Which means this soul has taken
the form of insects, kites for several lives…the form of
elephant and fish for several…birds and snakes…trees.
This soul has several times also taken the form of stones and
mountains. Thus we reap the fruit of our karmas not only in human
life but also in plant or animal life. This would explain why animals
have imperfections and why they suffer.

I
have shown that genetic engineering goes against nature. It goes
against the God made world. It brings about an ego in man that he can
equal God, that he can improve upon the God made world. Genetic
engineering shows contempt of nature as it is today. Its aim is to
transform nature according to human desires. This goes against the
basic tenets of the Sikh religion in particular. Nature has the
right to live and flourish. It has its own intrinsic worth. We have
no right to exploit it by our scientific advances. In fact, I can
realize myself and be a moral being only if I respect nature. The
first Guru of the Sikhs, Guru Nanak said, ¹⁴ i.e.
I am a sacrifice to Your creative power which is pervading
everywhere. Your limits cannot be known. A religious person sees God
present in nature, which is infinite. He goes into bliss and realizes
that if this nature is so wonderful, how wonderful its Creator would
be.

Since
the earth is created by God, everything has a right to live, exist
and flourish, we are not within our rights to destroy any species for
neither have we created it nor do we have a right to make it extinct
We may be permitted to use the natural resources but we must remember
that these resources are not merely for the existent generations but
for the future too. So we have an obligation towards these future
generations also. We do not have to merely love and identify with
nature and the existent generations but also the generations to come,
for, they too would be created by God and He would be immanent in
them.

Thus
to conclude, Sikhism stresses on the principle of sanctity of life
which is being questioned by the present day medical practices and
advanced medical technology. As regards genetic engineering, if it is
used for therapeutic purposes it maybe permissible, however genetic
engineering aimed at improving nature, human or enhancement is not
permissible.

Dr.Surjeet
Kaur

Reader

Department of
Philosophy,

University of Pune.
India.

chahal@unipune.ernet.in

1Guru
Granth Sahib,p 149

2Encyclopaedia
of Applied Ethics

3Guru
Granth Sahib, p. 1365

4

Erwin Chargoff, Heraclitean Fire: Sketches from a Life before
Nature, New York, Rockfeller University Press, p.190

5
Guru Nanak, Guru Granth Sahib p.1412

6
Guru Arjan, Guru Granth Sahib, p.1185

7
Guru Angad, Ibid, p.955

8
Michael J Reiss and Roger Straughan, Improving Nature?
The Science and Ethics of Genetic Engineering. 53, Cambridge
University Press, 1996.

9
Dasam Granth.

10
Guru Granth, p.922

11
Ibid p 86

12
Guru Granth Sahib p.1056

13
Guru Arjan, Guru Granth Sahib,p.176

14
Guru Granth Sahib, p.469.

sustainable development the sikh perspective

Sustainable
Development : The Sikh Perspective

We see unlimited
progress around us. The only limits to progress are

human creativity and
policy. The whole and sole aim of our actions today is development.
By development and progress we merely mean material development.
Traditionally human beings have taken the view the nature is created
simply for man. The philosophy of Bacon was the Charter of the
Industrial Revolution. Bacon said "Let the human race recover
that right over nature, which belongs to it by Divine Bequest."
It was such an attitude towards nature which has led to the present
development. The west was always interested in external material
progress.

In contrast with this
the Sikh Gurus looked down upon mere material progress. They stressed
upon both material as well as internal progress. Internal progress
was considered as having more value. They stressed the need to search
within rather than the material world. Nature was not regarded as
having merely instrumental value. God dwells in nature. Therefore
nature is not created solely for mankind, but it has a right of its
own. Global ecological crisis has arisen because we think we have a
right to use nature as we wish to. We are unconcerned about the
effects of our actions on nature. We are using more that what the
earth can replace. Till now we have been closing our eyes towards the
ecological threat. We have been thinking like a rabbit We think that
if we close our eyes the danger will automatically go away. Today, we
cannot do that any more.

The Ecological threat
us at three levels:

a) There is a serious
danger to the environment by factories, industries, and automobiles.
But in spite of the fact that there is unbreatheable air, we consider
every rise in consumption as a progress.

b) Global environmental
pollution caused by the emission of greenhouse gases

especially Carbon
di-Oxide. Global warming is also caused by cutting down forests. The
ecological threat to nature by human culture is rising armingly.

c) The third level at
which the ecological threat is rising is at the personal level

We always think that
something has to be done at the governmental level or by science or
by someone else. We do not realize each one of us has a major role to
play. Each one of us needs to limit our consumption in every way, be
it petrol, diesel, water, food. It is high time that we realize the
need to tread lightly on the earth. We should realize that ecological
ethics is the center stage for this millennium. We need to examine
our lifestyles. We need to examine the meaning of economic growth and
development. Economic growth has lowered rather than raised our
standard of living, which includes time spent with family and
friends, enjoyment of a rich human and natural environment.
Consumption provides an entry into a complex set of problems.
Impositions of gadgets and malls add to the rat race. We are so
optimistic about technology that we feel technology is the answer to
all our problems. We require to change our consciousness and also we
need to support this change with the creation of appropriate
institutions and structures that hold a genuine promise of a better
of life. Further economic growth and consumption are not the
solution. One finds greater depression in precisely those countries
that have experienced or are currently experiencing rapid economic
growth. Friendship and other social supports are antidotes to
depression. The Sikh scripture states,

Religiosity, a turning
inwards, meditation, altruism that will lead to lesser jealousy,
lesser feelings of domination the other will reduce depression.

Today all of us are
releasing toxic gases into the atmosphere through our automobiles,
our gadgets. These gases are as deadly and toxic as the gases in
the gas chambers of the Nazis. But do we ever stop and think? Do we
ever consider ourselves immoral? Are we not responsible for the
increasing ecological threat to the planet? Can we merely blame
others? I think it is high time we change our concept of morality.
Today we require not merely traditional ethics but an ecological
ethic. Earlier greed was regarded as undesirable. Sikhism believes
in living with minimum requirements and hoarding is looked down upon.
Contentment being a desirable value for the Sikhs, the ethics of
consumption is not there in Sikhism. However, today sikhs have also
started aping the west. Under the impact of Western civilization,
desire in no more considered to be a state of the sick soul. On the
contrary a person's status is dependent upon his material

possessions. The more
he desires, the more he possesses. The insatiable desire is
continuously being fuelled by science and technology. We no
longer are searching ourselves from within, which is a value
prescribed by our Gurus. Our aim is not to conquer ourselves but
rather to conquer others. We try to conquer others by dominating
over them. Our desire to dominate and show our superiority is
reaching

ever-increasing levels.
We dominate over the others by our material possessions. These
possessions are possible only by exploiting nature. We are
thereby continuously exploiting it without paying heed to its
consequences.

Earlier too, there has
been the affluent class, which has been exploiting.

But this class
could enjoy the fruits of human labour only.

Therefore the pace of
exploitation of nature was slow. Today, science and

technology is feeding
our desires at such a terrific pace that the exploitation of nature
is taking place very ,very fast. The demand being placed on
Earth is more than what the earth can give. We have started believing
that ever- rising levels of consumption will solve all our problems.
We are feeding our egoistic tendencies, our urge to dominate over the
other. As pointed out by Erazim Kohak, limitless egoism elevated to a
civilization strategy is not sustainable. We require to search within
ourselves and see what are the desirable traits,which will help us
to live in harmony with the planet earth.

Paul Santmire said,
"The earth is in danger of destruction". A time has come
today when we are all feeling the pinch of the environmental crisis
towards which we are heading. This environmental crisis is
engulfing us at such a rapid speed that we can no longer neglect
it saying that it is an affair of the environmentalists. We all
need to address ourselves to this and try to reduce if not
reverse or stop the environmental deterioration.

In my paper. I shall
try to argue out that Sikhism is not against development. It does
not preach asceticism. It encourages progress and development.
However, one point to be remembered is that if we look at the
Sikh theology, it does not prescribe anthropocentric development or
egocentric development. It preaches altruism, which will in its
turn lead to sustainable development. The 'I' when it expands it not
only includes the others who are belonging to my family but it
includes the whole earth as my family. It prescribes co-operation
in place of domination. Co-operation leads to humility. According to
the Sikh metaphysics ,I am related to the entire universe. It
therefore prescribes development in which the environment is not
exploited or subdued. How can I be justified in exploiting that to
which I am closely

related?

Thus Sikhism prescribes
sustainable development. Sustainability is the capacity to keep
going indefinitely. Development could be defined, as bringing out
what is latent, bringing out potentialities. But while doing
so, the present and the future have all to be taken into account.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in its 1987
report, Our Common Future defined Sustainable Development as:
"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of the future
generations to meet their own needs" while discussing
sustainability the focus is on two issues, viz, meeting the needs
of the present generation and not undermined the ability of
future generations of people to achieve

acceptable standards
of living themselves. There are four factors that

threaten the well being
of the present and the future generations viz, population,
pollution, resource use and consumption. An increase in any one or
all these factors causes imbalance and furthers the ecological
crisis causing devastation. When a Sikh daily prays and asks
for the welfare of all ,he says,Sarbat da Bhalla.This welfare of all
includes welfare of all-present as well as future.A development
which does not consider the welfare of the future is proscribed.

Sustainable development
raises various ethical issues. These have two main thrusts, viz,
social justice and the other concern for future generations.
Sustainable development implies that we should not proceed with our
development, researches and progressive plans without taking into
account the needy around us and the well being of the future

generations. We have
a positive duty to help those in need. In this connection there are
different views. Those who propound the Lifeboat ethics hold the
view that if you help people who are starving there will be more
people suffering half a century later. Garret Hardin holds the view
that we should not attempt to equalize. If we feed people who
cannot look after themselves they will produce more of their kind.
Let them fend for themselves or else perish. On the contrary Peter
Singer holds the view that those of us with surplus wealth should
share it with the unfortunate and needy. Singer believes in helping
starving babies rather than buying that new car or suit. Hardin's
plan is to control human population by the policy of survival of the
fittest. Our Gurus have stressed on contentment, on inner progress
and on consideration of the welfare of others. They emphasised
"Pichhon bachia aap

khaavanda". i.e.
only whatever remains after feeding others, a true sikh eats that.
Thus if this is our attitude, we would automatically help the

poor and the
needy.They have emphasized on helping those in need. (Gau

garib di Raksha) only
that development/progress is acceptable which is sustainable. Not
only the present needy have to be given justice but the

future generations
too have to be taken care of American population is

very low as compared to
the third world countries but its consumption is the biggest in the
world and has increased tenfold since 1960 as pointed by Erazim
Kohak in "The Green Halo" This clearly indicates that
reducing population levels is not a magic solution to all our

environmental problems.
It requires a deeper thinking and a change of our attitude. Thus
Hardin's way of thinking which is opposite to that of the Sikh
Gurus, does not really help in sustainable development. Thus we need
to work for a sustainable society. Population Control will definitely
reduce pollution and the consumption but as seen above from the
example of the Americans we require a change of our attitude, rather
than a mechanical reduction of population.

Due to our
lackadaisical attitude we use modern gadgets, technological
innovations and spoil the environment. Also we deplete the resources
of the environment. In this regard our Gurus have stressed Sanjam,
i.e. control and moderation. Anyone who believes in moderation
will not waste the resources of nature. In the name of development,
we devastate nature. In this connection Guru Nanak Devji says that
man is just a speck of dust in this universe. The universe is made
by God and man is just a part of it like any other part. No doubt
he is higher because he alone has the capacity for
self-realisation, however, this does not give him a license to
use/spoil nature as he desires. Nature is independent of man,
exits in its own right. Man can use it wherever necessary but
he must at the same time realise the intrinsic worth of nature. The
universe is a complex web of relations. Each individual human being
is interlinked with others, with animals as well as with the
ecosphere. once we have knowledge of the complex web of relations,
our attitudes towards nature will see God immanent in it and
therefore realize its intrinsic worth. Once we see God immanent in
His creation, we will identify ourselves with the creation and the
result would be respect, concern for nature and we would realize that
we are part of nature and if we try to bring any changes in it, any
changes in its homeostatic balance, it would have repercussions on
us. Whatever relation is there in the macrocosm it is there in the
microcosm. Thus in order to understand the universe and its
complex web of relations we have to look within our-self, realize
our potential and realize our-self. The knowledge of the universe
will automatically follow. Our development will be

sustainable development
and not selfish, egoistic, short lived

development. Once
we have knowledge of the complex web of relations, our attitudes
towards nature will automatically change. We will no longer want to
exploit it but will rather make friends with it, will see God
immanent in it and therefore realize its intrinsic worth. Once we
see God immanent in his creation, we will identify ourselves
with the creation and the result would be respect, concern for
nature, we would realize that we are part of nature and if we
try to bring any changes in it, any changes in its homeostatic
balance, it would have repercussions on us.

The Sikh religion
preaches in unity in diversity. A self-realized person sees this
unity and once he sees this unity he no longer exploits nature, he
rather respects it as a 'House of the Lord' in which dwells the Lord.
Such a person will always vouch for sustainable development, for he
cannot but think of the well being of the present, future generations
as well as the entire ecosystem. Sustainable development understood
in this way would entail a positive obligation to assist
present generations and a negative obligation not to hinder
future generations. We could hinder the development of future
generations is concerned this could be

done in a variety of
ways by depleting resources, by storing radioactive

waste unsafely, by
diminishing biodiversity, by bringing about climate change and by
causing other kinds of pollution. We all can play a

role in providing a
safe liveable environment to the future generation for e.g. if I
use public transport, walk wherever I can instead of using my car,
avoid usage of the air-conditioner or at least switch it off
whenever not needed, I can reduce pollution. Every air

conditioner releases
CFC'S causing holes in the ozone layer which protects us from
sun's ultraviolet radiation. By the holes in this layer we are
exposing the people to ultra violet radiation which causes skin
cancer. Similarly we can use scarce resources such as water,

electricity, food,
judiciously. We need not go back to the stone age and live in the
dark but we can certainly go in for sustainable development and
sustainable ways of living.

Some would oppose
sustainable development on the pretext that science and technology
will find alternative ways, alternative resources. Yes this does seen
a very attractive proposal but is it really so? The alternative to
electricity may be nuclear energy but is it without its

accompanying danger?
The problem of nuclear waste disposal, the

possibility of nuclear
accidents, all these make us question such development. We cannot
say it is sustainable, for it puts the future generation at a
considerable risk.

Similarly the
developments in genetic engineering are questionable. Gene

therapy promises a
very bright future to medicine. Many incurable

diseases will be
curable. However, is this development sustainable or does it raise
ethical and religious issues? Similarly genetic

engineering would make
it possible for us to create clones, to engineer animals
genetically so that we could use them for organ

transplantation.
However, it is really questionable as to would such a development be
sustainable. For one thing, by genetically engineering animals for
xenotransplantation, we re not treating them as ends in themselves
but as a means to human ends. Secondly, by creating new species we
are trying to become co-creators with God. Sikhism questions such
development. However, Sikh Gurus state "Poorai ka kia sabh kichh
poora, ghat wadh kichh nahi". (AGp.1412) meaning God has made
this world

complete. The
imperfections that are there in the world as we perceive them are all
under the Will of God. He does not need man's help to perfect the
world. In fact if we go around genetically modifying organisms this
could result in creation of new organisms which would be too
dangerous. Such development may lead to disaster and would not be
sustainble. It is better we live with what is the time tested genetic
diversity rather than tamper with it and perhaps even reduce the
genetic diversity. Sikhism also prescribes such genetic engineering
and genetic therapy which is

unsustainable in the
longer run even though initially it looks very attractive and useful.
Genetic engineering treats the entire plant and animal as a means
rather than as an end. These species are genetically engineered to
serve human purposes. As regards human genetic engineering for the
purpose of cure, most scientists accept the fact that the process of
human genetic engineering is risky and the process will itself
generate new mutations which will be passed on to future

generations. There is a
need for looking back into the past and learning from the past
experiences. However, we must remember that our human creativity
depends upon our human brain. Any alteration of man that would injure
the brain and hence his very creativity would indeed be a

disastrous mutilation,
especially if this were to be transmitted

genetically, thus
further polluting the gene pool with defects which might be hidden
and incalculable. Sikhism also proscribes such genetic engineering
and genetic therapy which is unsustainable in the longer run even
though initially it looks very attractive and useful.

Thus scientific
advances should not be made just for the sake of mere

progress or research.
Sikhism prevent us from trying to be co-creators

with God.
Development of this type can never be sustainable but would rather
be disastrous. If we start playing with Genes, we are 'playing God.'
We are very finite beings knowing only our present and past. Our
future too is unpredictable. It is not possible for us to know
the long term consequences of our actions. When we genetically
engineer organism, we are trying to create new organisms, a new
type of a world. We think we have the power to create. Do we really
have this power? We must be humble. We are like a speck of dust.
Guru Nanak says, that we finite beings cannot know the limit of God.
If we cannot know God, how can we 'play God'? How can we bring about
creation If we do so, our action would lead to disastrous results and
we would not know how to reverse our action. Especially in case of
genetically engineered organisms it may not be possible for us to
reverse the process. Ideally man should adjust himself to the
environment. He should let nature take its course and not interfere
with it either by miracles or by science. This is what is called as
Hukam in Sikhism or accepting the Will of God or the Law of Nature.
Heidegger states "in technology we make object according to some
blueprint that we determine. We design things to satisfy our purpose
rather than allow our purposes to be affected by, and find creative
expression through, the qualities of the objects themselves."

Today we are not
satisfied with mere artefacts designed to serve our purposes. We
are now aiming at nature, animals and humans designed to serve our
purpose. How arrogant and selfish we have become. Thus genetic

engineering is
questionable because it goes against the very basic

principle of
Sikhism, viz, the world as it is created is best. God knows what is
right and wrong. He has designed the laws of nature, creation and
dissolution. Man has no right to interfere and bring about genetic
changes.

The question which
faces us today is, what is the root cause of our ecological
crisis. Is it human greed or a flawed technology which is
unsustainable?

There are two extremes,
on the one hand we have the have nots who are dying of hunger and
starvation. On the other hand in the western countries

and even in our
country we have the 'haves' who are becoming goods rich

and time poor, dying
of stress and over consumption. These people are

addicted to consume the
Earth itself. They consume because others consume. There is a rat
race of consumption. We think that we would be happier if we consume
and as Paul Wachetel claims - nothing is "as naively utopian as

continuing on our
present course .... and hoping for a deus ex machina

by the name of
"technology" to bail us out at the last minute." 4

Some environmentalists
oppose the idea of sustainability for in this the

environment does not
have any intrinsic value of its own. It is only for

humans, the present
and the future humans. According to Sikhism, the

environment exists
for itself, it has its own intrinsic worth. Just as

God created humans
whenever He so desired under His Will, similarly, the entire universe
is His Creation, created under His Will. He is immanent in it. I
have a duty to look after another human being who is in need and
also have a duty to take care not to harm the non-existent future
generations, I also have a duty not to harm the environment. I have a
positive duty to work for the sustainability of the environment. In
fact to help others I need to realise that they are part of the
complex web of relations found in the ecosystem. Thus I cannot help
others in need without taking care of the environment or by
destroying it.In this context Sikhism would define sustainable
development in such a way that it includes not only human society but
biodiversity, ecological integrity and ecosystemic processes. Thus
even though these processes may not appear to be directly useful,
they have to be sustained. A point worth mentioning here is that with
the growing human population, a time may come when human needs
conflict with the needs of the environment per se. Thus

sustainability of the
society may conflict with the sustainability of the environment.
What should take priority? If we say that humans, since they have
more worth, they take priority, are we not merely paying lip the
service while affirming the intrinsic value of ecosystems. Is
it ethical to help the human needy by damaging the ecosystems?
I feel that a deeper the ecosystems?

I feel that a deeper
look and analysis of the problems would reveal to us that since
we humans are merely parts of the complex whole, no good

can really result
by damaging the ecosystem. We have to strike a

balance between
good of humans and of the ecosystem although this is not an easy
proposal.

To sum up, we can say
that discussions on sustainable development center

around issues of
social justice and the future generations. The main

issues that are
considered are population, consumption, resource use and pollution.
In the context of all these Sikhism definitely prescribes

moderation.Once
moderation exercised in intimate interpersonal

relations
automatically the population would be controlled. As regards
consumption, Sikhism prescribes an attitude of contentment, non
domination over the other humility van chhakna and sarabat da bhala.
With such an attitude, the spirit of competition will be subdued,
will be replaced by spirit of co-operation, helping the other
whether presently existent or the non-existent future generations.
As regards resource use, moderation and a spirit of
non-domination brings about lesser wastage of the resources of
nature. Also a concern for the others end and a recognition of
the intrinsic value of the ecosystem makes us utilise the
ecosystem with care so that the benefit that we and the future
generations will draw from it will be Sustainable. According to
the sikh understanding of sustainable development human autonomy and
common good do not conflict.

Dr. (Mrs) Surjeet
Kaur

Professor

Department of
Philosophy

University of Pune

Pune 411007

1.Quoted in John
Passmore, "Man's Responsibility for Nature", Duckworth

2. "Bande khoj
dil har for na fir paresani mahe". AG p.727

O human being
search your own heart every day, and do not wander

around in confusion.

4. David A. Crocker
and Toby Linden, from Ethics of Consumption,

Lahham,
Maryland;Roman and Littlefiled publishers 1998, P-330