Why Is Integral Humanism Restricted Only To Coffee Table Discussions?

Do we ever wonder why Adam Smith has been so successful and why EF Schumacher is not mentioned in popular discourse? Do we ever ponder why Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj, Deendayal Upadhyaya’s Integral Humanism and Dattopant Thengadi’s Third Way are restricted only to coffee table discussions? Ideologies which are practiced by society can only shape its worldview and evolution in a real sense.

So, why has capitalism been so successful? What were the factors that got it started in the first place? Technology, undoubtedly, was the biggest factor. It was technology that enabled large scale industries undertake mass production. Industrial Revolution (IR) was a result of technological innovation. It changed the dynamics of the whole world and Adam Smith emerged as one of the most important thinkers who influenced and shaped the contemporary world.

The world has since been investing in the kind of technology that is suitable for mass production. All the technological innovation has been unidirectional, making a particular mode of production more optimized and efficient than others.

The world has not invested in the technology that would have suited Schumacher’s Small is Beautiful paradigm, and thus, Schumacher is restricted to classrooms and coffee tables only. Small is not able to compete with large. This clearly demonstrates the power of technology. It is the single most powerful factor that dictates the fate of any philosophy or ideology in the contemporary world. Technology has redefined the discourse of almost all civilizations. It has redefined human relations and has impacted ethos and world views.

People have been talking of homogeneity and claim that indigenous philosophies are dying out. That is because every system is implementing the same technology, which in turn is giving rise to similar systems; thus creating an identity crisis.

In the context of India, there have been constant attempts to build systems which align with the Indian idea of evolution. It started with Mahatma Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj in which Gandhi pitched for systems that he thought were in accordance with the Indian worldview. Even though there were a large number of people who believed in his thoughts, it could never become a serious alternative to the contemporary socio-economic system.

A more sophisticated alternative was proposed by Deendayal Upadhyaya in the form of Integral Humanism (IH). IH has been adopted by BJP, the world’s largest political party, as its guiding philosophy. With BJP in power, IH makes a strong case for an alternative system; but a careful look into things shows that IH is not going to make it. The reason is obvious, nobody is talking practically.

IH stands for the scope of creativity in work and a sense of ownership which will bring physical, mental, intellectual and adhyatmic happiness to people. To achieve such an economy, a new system has to be conceptualized. To win the competition, believers will have to develop new technologies which fit the paradigm and can compete on production efficiency. But this seems to be nobody’s area of interest. People perceive technology as a universal phenomenon; this is a dangerous perception. Without investing in appropriate technologies, all efforts are going to be cosmetic in nature. It is a feedback system.

Lack of understanding of the above phenomenon is resulting in total chaos. Many have started restricting the Indian worldview to some cultural/moral aspects only. For politico-economic aspects, they rely on systems that derive from schools of thought belonging to the Left-Right spectrum. This is creating identity crisis among Indians.

People find workplace value system in direct conflict with the value system they believe in. The workplace doesn’t let one prosper in all the dimensions. Professional life does not align with the idea of evolution a common Indian possesses. We need to recognize that choice of technology is at the bottom of all this.