If we critically examine the path of development that Nepal has followed after its opening to the world in 1950s, we would know that Nepal actually never had its own philosophy of looking at development.
It has blindly accepted the dominant paradigm in general, and the aid regime in particular, of respective times. Modernization, basic needs and neo-liberalism are the three distinct aid regimes that shaped development in Nepal after World War II. [break]
znetitaly.altervista.org
In fact, Nepal continuously changed its development approach to receive the aid available from the West, without contemplating the repercussion of blind acceptance.
This article will critically evaluate the neo-liberal philosophy of development that Nepal is trying to copy at present, and will argue the need of formulating our own understanding of development, suitable to our context.
All the political parities of Nepal unanimously agree on Neo-liberalism as the philosophy of development for Nepal. Even the UCPN (Maoist), which fought the state in the name of communism, has now become a strong proponent of it. The ultimate aim of this linear model of development is creating high mass consumption society, the fifth and the last stage of Rostow’s growth model. The unprecedented amount of wealth in the market now is because of neo-liberalism.
However, the experiences of the West in relation to the consumerist societies have not been pleasant. Unprecedented cases of environmental degradation and the economic break down of 2008 are some of the serious questions being raised over neo-liberalism.
In fact, lack of attention to the environment is the most crucial drawback of all the economic models propounded in the West, and neo-liberalism in no exception. Moreover, according to a recently published Oxfam Hong Kong Poverty Report, one-fifth of the people in Hong Kong—a successful neo-liberalist setting—are living below the poverty line. The income disparity in Hong Kong is even wider than in Singapore and the US. This shows that even successful settings of neo-liberalist societies are not perfect, and have problems.
In this context, is it wise for Nepal to blindly follow the theory of neo-liberalism without having a suitable and favorable context for it? Is Nepal suited for economic development based on consumerist society? Do the environmental sensitivities of Nepal sustain haphazard economic growth? Can the environment be left out of the economic theory as a mere constant now? Can’t we, being the protégés of the oldest living civilization, extract/develop our own development philosophies, theories, or models suitable to our context?
The truth is that we have wasted more than half a century in trying to copy others’ theories of development, neglecting our own traditional customs and practices that have sustained us since millennia. Despite being the descendants of one of the oldest self-sustaining civilizations, we—the people and the government—have incessantly tried to apply the same concept and approach towards development that worked in the West centuries ago, at the cost of the environment and its natural cycle. We are still trying to mimic Rostow’s growth model, which is not made for Nepali context, and has also been criticized for being insensitive towards the environment.
The importance of migration and remittances, a part of neo-liberal thinking, in decreasing the percentage of people living in absolute poverty from 40 percent to 25 percent could have been a strong reason in favor of neo-liberal philosophy. But Pete Pattisson’s recent report on The Guardian about Nepali migrant laborers living in worst conditions in Qatar has greatly reduced the chance of the remittance rationale being forwarded in defense of neo-liberalism.
Nepal, which is yet to witness the carbon-intensive period of industrialization, should strive hard to bypass the phase totally. Nepal should learn from the different development issues the West is facing at present, and gain knowledge from mistakes and right steps that the West made in its path towards development. But the place to find whether or not a development philosophy is suitable to Nepali context would be in our own traditions, cultural practices, and even religions.
For instance, according to Dr Karan Singh, Indian philosopher and statesman, Bhumi Sukta in Atharvaveda is a religious text from which we can learn about living a sustainable life. Similarly, many other traditions and cultures in our country are directly and indirectly related to sustainable livelihood.
Acharya is an Erasmus Mundus fellow at Uppsala University, Sweden
amolsansar@gmail.com
Related story
Security personnel mobilized to clear snow in Manang (photos)
-1200x560-1779899638.webp)
-1779842101.webp)
