The progress of a nation is measured in terms of its economic growth. The only available measure for assessing the economic growth is the growth of the so called Gross Domestic Product or the national income, which is the money value of the goods and services produced in the country over a financial year, counted avoiding double or multiple counting of the same good in the successive stages of its production. This is the best possible definition of the national income of a country. It has many statistical and economic problems, both on the conceptual and computational criteria. But, here we will consider only those problems which are relevant to our topic.

1. National Income is the total of the incomes of all the people in a nation. When it is computed for measuring the rate of growth of a country’s economy, its distribution over various socioeconomic strata of the society, like for example, employers Vs employees, rich Vs poor, productive Vs unproductive (like gamblers) and creative Vs counter productive (like controllers) strata is not counted. The average income (or per capita as it is called in the economic literature), is many a time deceptive if not misleading. A simple example will show how. In a group of two persons A gets Rs. 100 and B Rs. 2. Their per capita income is Rs. (100 + 2)/2 = Rs. 51. If in the next year, A’s income becomes Rs. 500 and B’s Rs. 3, the per capita income becomes Rs. (500 + 3) / 2 = Rs. 251.5. This means the Gross Domestic Income increased by [(503 - 102)/102] X 100 = 393:14% and the Per Capita income increased by [(251.5 - 51)/51] X 100 = 392:16%: Both these are fantastic rates of growth. But, can such a society stay stable? The obvious answer is ‘no’. The relatively poorer sections of the society will soon come to realise that their poverty is not exclusively due to their being relatively inefficient, but due to the social structure that does not offer them an equal opportunity to develop those abilities. In any society at any time and in any field of an economic activity there are always some early starters, who have already established themselves well in the field. Hence, a newcomer has to develop an exceptional ability to ward off their superior resistance power, which bars his/her entry into the coveted field, be it entrepreneurship, education or any other field of empowerment. The proponents of competition usually maintain that (i) it is an important natural force that chooses only the fittest individuals and species for survival and (ii) it is a socioeconomic mechanism which guarantees the principle of income distribution viz. ‘getting according to one’s ability’. Both these statements require an equality of opportunity for developing one’s own abilities, to each contender, which is hardly there in any society at any time. In his eye opening satire on Communism, viz. Animal Farm, George Orwell, has effectively presented this failure of a collectivist society as, “All animals on the Animal Farm are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

Conflict (or its civilized version, viz. competition) is an important principle of life, both in nature and in a society. But, nature has sustained life on this planet by ingeniously reconciling conflict with cooperation and interdependence of the various species. Unfortunately all branches of knowledge developed under the Cartesian Newtonian Conceptual framework, have emphasised conflict to the near complete exclusion of cooperation as a basis of life. In the field of social sciences, particularly Economics and Political Science, both in capitalist as well as communist writings, this heavy imbalance towards conflict is so obviously seen. We have noted how capitalist thinkers idealised competition as though it is the (only) value in life. But even the founder of the so called ‘Scientific Socialism’ viz. Karl Marx, used to proudly call himself a ‘social Darwinist’, because Charles Darwin propounded the principles of ‘Struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest’ in his first publication, ‘On the origin of species’ (1859). Marx recognized that Darwin’s work provided an explanation for all activities of nature, thus supporting his world view.

A serious side effect of the unwarranted stress on conflict was the mindset of fighting and conquering nature. The proponents of this view, never realised that even though we conquer nature, we will still be on the losing side, as we are an integral part of nature and not its adversaries.

This is not to suggest that conflict or competition is not an important principle of life. Conflict and cooperation (interdependence) are the two principles on which nature has built its entire superstructure. Nature could do this, because it has successfully reconciled these two principles. Similarly, society is also sustained on both cooperation and conflict, reconciled scientifically. Stressing only conflict may affect the stability of the society and balances in nature.

2. We take raw materials and energy from nature. As these bear no price tag, the computation of the cost of production, includes only the cost of extraction of these inputs not the cost of their production to nature. It is precisely this low cost of the natural inputs that swells the profits of the entrepreneurs, who use them. However, the solid, liquid and gaseous wastes that are generated in the process of production and distribution are recklessly thrown on the environment. The cost of their management is dumped on the public authorities like the municipalities and is ultimately paid by the tax payers.

3. Nature creates new resources only by recycling resources. Through innumerable food chains, water cycle, nitrogen cycle etc. nature processes all the waste that is generated in its activities. Hence, nature does not create any wastes though each living being does. This creation, use and recycling of resources by nature and all its components, had continued for millenniums, before the industrial age began on the earth, in the year 1750. Today in the economic literature, economic development is identified with industrialisation of a country.

Industrialisation increased the demand for raw materials and sources of energy from nature. This destroyed the jungles and the life forms that lived therein, disturbed the cyclical mechanisms of resource regeneration by nature and created mountains of no biodegradable wastes like plastics, thermocoles which cannot be processed by nature. Worse still, the leftovers of the Thermonuclear electricity plants continue their radiation for 50,000 years. The increasing content of CO2 in the atmosphere, due again to the industrial activities and also the destruction of the jungles, causes global warming with disastrous effects on the weather cycles.

In short, our enthusiasm about increasing the consumer good basket has endangered the life on the earth. Unfortunately, the solution for this does not lie in better and cleaner technology. That may work only for the outward symptom of the problem rooted in our attitude towards nature.

It is here, that the traditional wisdom of our society provides a sustainable solution.

Please note that our ancestors never praised poverty or hated wealth. They knew for certain, that wealth is essential for lifting the human society above the subsistence level of animals. But they never over looked the fact that wealth or prosperity is only a means and not an end. Second, repeatedly have they exhorted the people that as the desire for more and more resources is never ending, a rational control over one’s mind, the fountainhead of all desires, is the key to a sustained happiness.

Hence, Yogawashishtham, the ancient treatise on Yoga, defines Yoga as

Yoga is controlling the tendencies of the mind.

An earlier text Kathopanishad, is more articulate on the issue of saturating warns. It wants,

No man will ever be fully satisfied, with whatever money he earns.

An anonymous poet goes into greater details. He maintains that just as a dearth of purchasing power is a horrible state of affairs, so is the availability of too much money. Like fire, money also should be earned only within moderate limits.

A lack of purchasing power as well its excess, both these are perilous, just as a lack as well as an excess of fire is dangerous.

Each one of us has to draw the lines marking the safe zone between the two perils, for oneself.