Challenges on the Ground

The problem with working in development, and simultaneously being something of a tourist in a place, is that you learn way too much, and really see what is happening underneath the veneer that the gaze of most tourists is limited to.  You get exposed to the differences between the policies, rhetoric, and aims of what a government is trying to achieve, and the nitty-gritty of what is happening on the ground, as well as all of the challenges they come up against.  For a tiny country of less than one million people, sandwiched between the two one-billion-plus giants of India and China, there is so much outside pressure, that some of it becomes impossible to resist, and this is what is happening in this tiny Kingdom.  I fear that in twenty years this place will be almost unrecognizable.  And I know that, for people who were here twenty years ago, before TV, Coca-cola and blue jeans, it already is.

Just to provide a little historical context, it’s important to realize that none of this is really Bhutan’s fault.  It’s astonishing that they’ve maintained their sovereignty and independence as much as they have, and were never colonized, though of course this is due as much to their remoteness as anything, as well as some fairly skillful negotiation with the British over the 18^th, 19^th and early 20^th centuries.  For this period, Bhutan remained as traditional, remote, and closed as anywhere on earth.  But when they observed the invasion of China into Tibet in 1959, and felt increasingly threatened, they were forced to turn outwards and realize they couldn’t stay cut-off from the world forever.  Without entering into the game of international relations and the interplay of economies, politics and nation-states that so characterizes this era of globalization, they feared their small country would be lost, one way or another.  So they turned to India, who had become their closest ally (and at times adversary) in recent times.

Shepherds in the mountains with their yaks: an imperiled lifestyle.

Since then, though, it seems to me that they have become way too dependent on India, and too reliant on Indian politics and economics.  Most of their GDP comes from India, one way or another (and especially through an ever-growing reliance on selling them hydro-power), and the Bhutanese currency is pegged 1:1 to the Indian rupee.  In recent times, this has led to a ‘rupee-crunch’, and I’m told that it’s getting harder to change the Bhutanese ngultrum at the border, and that one even has to pay 110 ngultrum for 100 rupees now.  More ngultrum flows out than rupees come in these days, and more and more Bhutanese cross the border for cheap goods and food, and this of course affects the struggling Bhutanese business communities, and the poor farmers, negatively.  And it only seems to be getting worse.

This reliance on India seems to be proportionately affecting the government’s ability to live up to its GNH ideals.  When I was travelling towards the East of the country last weekend, I saw the most astonishing ecological devastation caused by the attempts to fix the terrible roads in this country (or I should say ‘road,’ because there is really only one east-west connector, with a few roads that go from that down South to India).  Who’s building this road and causing this destruction?  Contractors from India, so what interest do they have to take proper care with their work?  And this is the same story all over the country, or at least in much of the area around the political and economic center of Thimphu-Paro.  Bhutan’s growth is being fueled by its enormous Southern neighbor, but with this growth comes pressures that are increasingly difficult to resist.

We were stopped here as road crews knocked debris from above into the valley below. We actually saw a monkey running for cover.

 One of my least favorite observations, which I can’t help but take note of everyday here, is the difference between the outwards and inwards in Bhutanese life and culture.  For example, the government maintains its admirable policy of ensuring that all buildings are built in the traditional style: but sadly, this only pertains to their outwards façade.  Inside, anything seems to go, and some, no matter how lovely outside, are as ugly as any modern building within.  I noted in a recent op-ed, published in a local newspaper here (http://www.kuenselonline.com/observations-from-an-outsider/#.URzIemdcq4o), that this problem can be transposed to the people here, who, though they need to wear traditional gho or kira for most jobs, sadly don’t maintain that outwards integrity and beauty inwardly.  One sees too many people kicking at stray dogs to think that all Bhutanese are model Buddhists (or Hindus or Christians or Muslims) with respect and love for all living beings.  The deterioration of the inside of buildings can too easily be seen also within people.  

I could go on about the transition from traditional rammed earth architecture, seen around the country melting back into the earth in a truly ecological and sustainable fashion, towards the concrete and steel that is increasingly prevalent, in Thimpu at least, but I’ll leave that aside for now, except to note that it is another difference between policies of sustainability and the realities and pressures on the ground (and where are these new and modern techniques learned from?  Bhutanese are sent to, where else?  India, to learn about building, engineering, electricity, plumbing, and they come back with shoddy skills which lead to shoddy craftsmanship in too many places and in too many ways).

Alas, I don’t want to be entirely unsympathetic and negative.  The Royal Government is doing its best, and does work really hard to maintain its values and goals.  Good things are still in abundance, Thimphu maintains a certain lovely small-town charm, over 60% of nature in the country is preserved, and the beauty of it is stunning to anyone who travels through it.  I spent the weekend amidst hundreds of black-necked cranes who are about to depart for their breeding grounds in Tibet, and while the governments of China and Bhutan are hardly on talking terms, NGOs that do work to preserve nature, with support from the governments, are working together to preserve the natural homes of these marvelous creatures.  So hope is not lost, I only pray that Bhutan can truly maintain its sovereignty, overcome its reliance on its Southern neighbor, and grow to find true economic, as well as environmental, sustainability.  In the 21^st century, this is a necessary step for a country to truly survive and prosper.

 

New Development Paradigm Meeting in Thimphu

Over the course of last week I attended the current chapter of a very interesting ‘development’ in the history of development.  Because this tiny country of Bhutan has proven so influential in development thinking over the last few years, with its unique contribution of GNH to the larger world, the Royal Government of Bhutan has been asked to convene a group of international experts to turn GNH into something that is universally applicable, and a model that can be applied to the world.  The aim of this is to come up with alternatives for the hugely-influential Millenium Development Goals, which are coming to an end in 2015, and it was the UN that has requested this work to be done.  So a whole bunch of experts in the field have been in Thimphu, providing their insights into what is being called a ‘New Development Paradigm,’ and how we can change the current paradigm of greed, consumerism, automobile fetishism, and the like.  A tall order, no doubt, but there were some pretty level heads with some good ideas and insights in that (extremely beautiful) room.  The goal is to present a report to the UN General Assembly later this year, so this is what they are working towards.

Now, this is an admirable goal no doubt, but I personally came out of the meeting with certain concerns.  I am extremely thankful that the government here is chairing this whole committee (and I’m amazed at the level of intelligence and awareness coming out of the government here: the PM’s opening statement was highly intelligent, putting anything coming out of the mouths of any other politician I know to shame), and the government has stepped in to ensure things are progressing in accordance with the GNH vision.  But I was left a little bit concerned that by putting GNH into the hands of Western scholars and asking them to come up with something palatable to the whole world, certain of the essential dimensions of GNH may be lost in the translation.  In particular, I am worried that the unique cultural and spiritual context will be set aside in favour of a vision that fits in with the secular paradigm of the West.  And I am worried that what we will be left with is a materialistic solution to a materialistic problem, which is thus bound to fail. 

Anyways, I have written an open-letter about this matter which I am submitting to the working group, as well as as an op-ed, and I am posting it here if you are interested, though really it just expands on what I have just said, but if you are interested..

An open letter to the Steering Committee for the New Development Paradigm, the Gross National Happiness Commission, and the International Expert Working Group (IEWG),

Having attended the recent IEWG meeting in Thimphu as an observer, and as a visitor to Bhutan, I am left wondering about the attempt to translate it beyond the unique context of this country.  While the New Development Paradigm is based in Bhutan, and is being steered by Bhutanese, most of its experts are from all over the world, and are representatives of Western academia.  While some of the great scholarship from the last few decades is undoubtedly represented by this working group, it is important to remember that academia remains very much a secular institution.  I am thus somewhat concerned about how this development paradigm that has arisen out of the unique spiritual and cultural context of Bhutan, and which is a unique contribution from the developing, and still somewhat traditional, world, will be transformed through its being put into the hands of representatives of the modern, developed world, in such a way that much of what makes it unique and special risks being lost.

It is not that I think that the core principles of GNH cannot be taken beyond the Bhutanese context and applied at a universal level.  Rather, I am concerned that the holistic and overarching paradigm upon which GNH is based, a paradigm that I think is necessarily spiritual in nature, may be forgotten, as already seems to be happening somewhat in the translation of the concept of ‘happiness’ (a term distinctly Buddhist in spirit) into the scientific, and in my opinion somewhat watered-down, term ‘psychological well-being’.  Now, before I turn anyone off by continuing to use the term ‘spiritual,’ let us remember that it is the distinctly materialistic quality, the greed and consumerism, of the old paradigm that is attempting to be addressed by the ‘new paradigm’.  But without looking beyond the material world, how can we expect to provide meaningful and lasting answers?  Without acknowledging a higher purpose to human development than what can be scientifically measured, do we not risk remaining within the materialistic confines of the old paradigm?

Let me note also that when I use the term ‘spiritual,’ I’m not referring to any specific spirituality, but rather something more universal, the same spirituality that David Suzuki noted, in his speech at the meeting, informs the world-view of indigenous groups not only in Canada, but all around the world, and which allows them to see the earth as a living, and life-giving, entity, rather than only as a source of resources and material wealth.  It is this distinction, for me, that is necessary to make for any ‘new development paradigm’ to be meaningful, and substantially different from the materialistic old paradigm that we are trying to change.  Without a recognition that human beings are more than just material bodies, that there is a higher purpose of human development, of our very being here, then I for one am not convinced that we will ever get beyond the predicaments of our current paradigm and truly find lasting happiness and well-being.

Not that I have a problem with psychological well-being: it is an important component of what we are trying to achieve, and is already used as such by the GNHC, as part of the already existing 9 GNH domains.  But it is also part of the scientific model, and is therefore hardly the same thing as a spiritual understanding of the true goal of human development.  To put it bluntly, modern science is too often limited by its inability to see beyond what it can measure, while GNH also strives to define humans according to a spiritual paradigm that is also measured through faith, as expressed in its measurement of prayer recitation and meditation, as well as non-material cultural dimensions such as knowledge of local festivals and folk stories.  A spiritual definition of being necessarily encompasses all of the multi-facetted nature of human being, while psychological well-being focuses specifically on the mental.  What makes GNH both effective and beautiful is its all-encompassing, holistic, and universal nature, and this should not be forgotten.  Placing it in the realm of secular scholarship, without retaining its grounding in the spiritual dimension, risks depriving it of its ability to encompass the full multi-dimensional nature of human being, and thus watering it down to the same materialistic paradigm it seeks to replace.  It risks turning the holistic and multi-dimensional nature of GNH into a uni-dimensional model.

I plead with you not to forget the inherently spiritual dimension of GNH, nor the importance of at least attempting to quantify this through processes like the measurement of spiritual practice.  Bhutan should stand strong with this unique conception of development, and its great insight that there are higher, non-material purposes of being human, and not allow this insight to be lost in its translation into a scientific tool.  Long-term, sustainable human happiness may truly depend on the endeavours of the government and its international expert advisory panel on this issue.  Perhaps my concerns are misguided, and perhaps you are already taking this matter into consideration.  But if not, I plead with you not to allow what makes GNH unique to be lost or diluted in a well-meaning effort to turn it into something palatable for the ‘developed’ world.  I pray Bhutan stands with its unique creation, and holds firm to the spiritual dimension of GNH, even while striving to make it universally applicable.  And I thus pray that what makes GNH unique is not washed away in an attempt to placate the demands of the old paradigm.

Thank you, and Tashi Delek,
A Concerned Observer