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