The conception of development in the Swaraj Development Vision is inherently tied to the notion of self-rule. The degree to which individuals respect their obligations as well as exercise their rights reflects the degree of development. The development vision constructs a taxonomy of development by taking metaphorical examples from Nature.
Human societies can be “classified” into five different categories based on the degree of development.
The first category is the “parasitic” society, which rests fully on the right and the complete disregard of obligation. The key feature of this society is “self-love and pleasure-seeking by the easiest route.” Individuals in such a society live on the exploitation of others to the extent of extermination. They do not exercise their creative faculties but live off the “creation of others.” In other words, the personality of the individual is just an imitation of others because their exercise of creative faculties is insignificant. This group is noted as the “house of imitation”.
The second category is the “predatory” society. Here too, individuals do not recognise obligation and sustain themselves by exploiting others but not to the extent of extermination. Individuals exercise their creative faculties to “adopt” the “creation of others” but still not “enough to lay claim on originality.” In other words, people have the “willpower to pick and choose but lack the sense of perspective to create anything complete and whole.” The individual personality is marked by the appropriation of others’ creations. This society is called the “house of adoption.”
The third category is the society of “enterprise” where there is a recognition of obligation only to those who support one’s self-interest. The tolerance among individuals for different opinions is negligible, and there is a constant urge to force dissidents not to exercise their rights. Here, even though individuals exercise their creative faculties, they use them for their own benefit. This group is identified as the “house of material creation”.
The fourth category is the society of “gregation,” in which “[individuals] do not work for their own respective individual gains but for the common benefit of the whole colony like honeybees.” It represents “an extension from self-interest to group-interest and from acting on the immediate urge of present needs to planning for future requirements.” At this stage, the “[individual] becomes more and more conscious that no one lives unto himself but that there are certain ties that bind [humans].”
Such a society can be sub-categorised into “pack type” and “herd type” based on their motives. Individuals “unite for aggression” and their nature is “predatory” in the pack type, whereas individuals “gather together for safety” in “herd type.” These motives define the nature of a group. This conception can be extended to human society, too.
In the pack type, in spite of the shift in interest from individual to group, society is still vulnerable to violence because the self-interest that is morphed into the form of group interest is hostile to outsiders. A society based on herd type motive is more peaceful within the group as well as towards outsiders. In such a society, individuals exercise their creative faculties towards the good of the society in which they are embedded. This sect is referred to as the “house of social innovation.”
The fifth category is the society of “service,” which is organised based on the full recognition of obligation that leads “to an evaluation of each life in terms of others.” Individuals exercise their creative faculties for the benefit of others without expecting rewards. This results in a non-violent social order devoid of exploitation and becomes a society of “permanence” that ensures peace. Here, the term permanence is “relative” since the cosmology of the Natural Order recognises that humans comprehend the world within Time and Space, where “everything begins somewhere and ceases to exist somewhere.” Any society which fails to recognise the pre-eminent role of obligation leads to a society that is “transient” or short-lived. Hence, obligation takes axiological precedence over right in the society of service. In such a society, individuals exercise their creative faculties and employ them selfessly for the good of all to become a “house of sublimation.”
However, the development vision recognises and describes the psychological and sociological foundations to construct a society strictly on obligation below:
While it may be granted that group activity has a contribution to make within a limited community, it is open to serious doubt whether such activity is possible on a national scale for any length of time. A few idealists may get together and run an Ashram or other philanthropic institutions on the basis of service but whether such principles can be applied in the present stage of varied and varying civilizations on a world basis may be questioned...Experiments may be carried on under controlled circumstances in order to find out the laws that govern [socio-] economic movements but it is too much to expect humanity, as a whole, to function in like manner under normal conditions without such a controlled environment.
Nevertheless, the development vision aspires to the ideal of a society of permanence even if it is seldom attained in practice. It is considered as a direction for humanity to follow. The ultimate aim of life is to align one’s self with the Truth. Therefore, the conception of development in the Swaraj Development Vision is as follows:
Progress [development] signifies both the search for knowledge and truth as found in nature and its application to satisfy human needs. In the measure in which we are able to pull alongside nature’s dictates, we shall be progressing in the right direction. But in so far as we are pulling against the course of nature, we shall be creating violence and destruction which may take the form of social conflicts, personal ill-health and the spread of anti-social feelings, such as hatred, suspicion and fear. From these symptoms, we shall know whether we are progressing scientifically or not. If our course of action leads to goodwill, peace and contentment, we shall be on the side of progress, however little the material attainments may be; and in Theory, if it ends in dissatisfaction and conflict, we shall be retrogressing, however much in abundance we may possess material things.
The conception of development shifts from the material plane to a spiritual or moral plane once basic material needs are fulfilled because human beings cannot operate on their moral self as long as they are materially destitute. In other words, “[a] starving man thinks first of satisfying his hunger before anything else.”
Development is considered as a process of moving beyond the idea that we are separate selves by recognising the interconnectedness of life. Such a process involves constant resistance to internal self-interest as well as external domination. The former involves the act of renouncing one’s identity created by the egoistic self and the latter involves the act of renouncing the impression of one’s identity that resides in others. In short, the Swaraj Development Vision aspires to an “unalienated life” that ensures lasting peace.
Excerpted with permission from “Swaraj Development Vision” by the editor in Development as Swaraj: Towards a Sustainable and Equitable Future, edited by Sumanas Koulagi, Routledge.