The problem

THE concept of Gross National Happiness represents the power of a new idea. The previous century was dominated by two main ideologies, that of capitalism and communism (or socialism). When the Berlin Wall collapsed and the Soviet Union splintered, communism’s claim to be the world dominant ideology also fell. Capitalism continues to hold sway but has its obvious discontents, including the dissatisfaction with soulless materialism and predatory consumerism. The world is looking for a new ideology which can combine economic growth with personal well-being. GNH is that new idea, occupying the middle ground between the polarities of capitalism and communism, and providing a modus vivendi between the excesses of both.

The strength of GNH, as first formulated by the Fourth King of Bhutan His Majesty Jigme Singye Wangchuck, was that it was a wholesome idea. It was not a dogma; it was not a credo; it was not a doctrinaire ideology. It was proffered as a holistic yet revolutionary new way to look at progress, change, human happiness, and development. The overall well-being of the human being, and not only in terms of his or her material perquisites, was at the centre of this new vision. Its articulation took into account variables which were often not included in the cold printout of economic statistics or the exclusionist posturings of dated political ideologies.

The fact that Bhutan was the cradle of this new thought demonstrates that there is no correlation between the strength of a new idea and the size of the country where it originates. In many ways, Bhutan was a likely locale for the nurturing of such a concept. For one, it was never colonized; second, it was always a society deeply rooted in its culture and heritage; third, it sought to – and succeeded in – calibrating the pace of its interface with a rapidly globalizing world; fourth, it was lucky to have a visionary monarch who could look into the future and see what is good for his own people and country, taking into account the inadequacies in the dominant doctrines of the world.

As GNH begins to capture the imagination of the world, it is instructive to take into account the pitfalls that could distort it. One great danger is that of GNH being posited in opposition to any form of materialism. The truth is that people anywhere and everywhere in the world desire to benefit from economic prosperity. They judge their individual happiness with the progressive acquisition of desirable material goods, be it a home or consumer durables, a car or the latest in fashion and technology. If GNH seeks to devalue, demean or ridicule the natural materialist impulse in human aspirations, it is likely to fall flat on its face. A second danger would be if GNH is projected as excessively idealistic, as an alternative way of life meant to unfold only in some Shangri La or an ivory tower.

The strength of GNH lies in its understanding of the needs of ordinary men and women in the real world. It is this balanced and enlightened understanding that leads it to find the right balance between the material and the spiritual, between prosperity and happiness, and between anonymous economic growth and identifiable individual fulfilment. The philosophy, therefore, must stand squarely on the terra firma of human pragmatism, and must consciously eschew the temptation of becoming an unemulatable utopian construct.

A third danger that could bedevil the practitioners of GNH is to unthinkingly glorify or fossilize the past. As a philosophy related to the sense of individual happiness, GNH rightly stresses the importance of cultural roots and identity, and of the need to preserve them in the face of a rapidly globalizing world whose subtext is co-option with the victim usually the last to know. In this context, there is an obvious danger in today’s world of individuals becoming deracinated, and left bereft of the natural cultural markers that are a source of psychological solace and the feeling of belonging. While this is true, any attempt to mechanically resist change and deify the past would be counterproductive.

The philosophy of GNH must accept that change is inevitable but that mature and stable societies can determine the pace, content and direction of change. In other words, it is essential that the notion of GNH equips individuals with the power of discrimination, so that they can choose between what must be preserved and what needs to be borrowed. It is this cerebral but natural flexibility that should be the strength of GNH.

Furthermore, any attempt to over-theorize the concept must be viewed with caution, although, of course, an idea as powerful as this does require further development and analysis, and nobody is doing this better than Bhutan’s erudite Prime Minister Jigmi Y. Thinley, and Dasho Karma Ura, the cerebral head of The Centre for Bhutanese Studies. The idea, of course, is not to insulate the concept from further interrogation or enquiry, but to save it from any obsessive or unnecessary academic elaboration that dilutes its natural, immediate and obvious appeal. At the moment, GNH has been given its four pillars, nine domains and 72 indicators. This examination has brought out some remarkable new elements, such as the manner in which an individual spends leisure time, community relationships, rural opportunities and urban migration. All of these deserve study; but ultimately it would be up to the people of Bhutan and its remarkably qualified intellectuals to decide when the concept is being over-analyzed and when it is being under-examined.

GNH reflects a way of life which incorporates more than the conventional criteria to decide on what constitutes individual happiness. Happiness is a difficult concept to define; GNH must also, therefore, retain within it the intellectual nuances necessary to retain the unsullied inspiration and vibrant spontaneity of the idea. Any attempt to mechanically measure happiness or to give absolute indicators for this purpose must be resisted; for otherwise there is the danger that the whole concept will be reduced to mechanical statistics, not very different from GDP indicators.

Bhutan has become the first country in the world to use a radically new prism to judge the quality of life of a citizen. The four basic pillars of GNH, viz. a concern for the environment, a sensitivity to the retention of the markers of culture and identity, due emphasis on good governance and a judicious allocation and use of resources for economic development, provide the right framework to measure happiness while pursuing the goals of progress and prosperity. This issue of Seminar explores the strength and relevance of the idea of Gross National Happiness.

PAVAN K. VARMA