1
PRINCIPLES FOR SELF-RELIANCE AND SUSTAINABILITY:
CASE STUDY OF BANGLADESH
Dora Marinova and Amzad Hossain
Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy
Murdoch University, Australia
Citation: Marinova, Dora ; Hossain, Amzad. (2006) Principles for Self Reliance and
Sustainability: Case Study of Bangladesh. Proceedings of the Anti-Poverty Academic Conference
with International Participation, Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy, Murdoch
University, Perth.
Published 2006 by the Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy (ISTP), Murdoch
University
Copyright © 2006 by Dora Marinova and Amzad Hossain. All rights reserved.
No part of these proceedings may be reproduced by any means without permission.
Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy, Murdoch University,
Western Australia
----Abstract
The paper explores the principles of self-reliance and connects them to the sustainability concept drawing
examples from Bangladesh. It argues that there is a need for an alternative model for development in
traditional, predominantly rural communities which avoids creating dependence on foreign aid and allows
for the empowering of local people to trust in their own capabilities and spirit. Self-reliance as an
alternative to the western model if properly understood and applied can bring hope for a brighter and more
sustainable future.
1. Introduction
The United Nations’ Brundtland Commission (formerly the World Commission on
Environment and Development – WCED) put sustainable development firmly on the
map of the global political agenda (Brundtland, 1987). The factors which triggered the
attention of the international community to intergenerational equity in relation to access
to natural resources included widespread environmental degradation, the existence of
severe poverty around the globe and concerns about achieving and maintaining good
quality of life. Committed governments, thinkers and practitioners speak about the triad
of environmental, social and economic aspects of development emphasising different
meanings, interpretations and strategies (see, for example, Government of Western
Australia, 2003; Pezzey, 1992; Pezzoli, 2002; Sutton, 2004), but sustainability
essentially is about the long-term future of the human population of any one country.
Long before the western world focused on the implications of unsustainable human
activities and human ways of living, traditional societies have had long-term
2
responsibilities for caring for their land, people and natural resources. Traditional
communities find the blueprint for their sustainability in their spirituality, including
mythical beliefs and religious Scriptures. In Bangladesh, for example, the Baul
philosophy, a syncretic religious tradition of Bangladesh that integrates wisdom from
Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity into secularism and has the elements of
liberalism, universalism, particularism, naturalism and mysticism, has always promoted
living in harmony with nature and a sustainable life style (Hossain and Marinova, 2003).
The basis for this is the ability of local populations to rely on their natural environment
and their own efforts for food and any other needs. This implies not only a healthy
natural ecology but also a healthy social environment where people can be self-reliant.
The existence of healthy eco-systems allows human economic activities and conversely
human activities have to support a healthy natural environment.
This paper develops the argument for developing self-reliant practices and knowledge in
Bangladesh, one of the poorest countries in the world1, as a way to building
sustainability for developing communities. It outlines the core principles of self-reliance
and discusses their links with sustainability. Achieving self-reliance could be potentially
beneficial for Bangladeshi people as it builds capacity and skills within the community
and emphasises culturally and environmentally appropriate practices that develop
relationships of trust and partnerships.
The structure of the paper is as follows. Section 2 looks at the spiritual roots of selfreliance in Bangladesh and section 3 gives examples of factors that have developed
dependencies and decreased the ability of communities to look after themselves. Five
core principles of self-reliance are defined in section 4 and discussed in terms of
sustainability. The paper concludes with remarks about the applicability of the concept.
2. Self-reliance
The term self-reliance was coined by Ralph Waldo Emerson in a similarly titled essay
published in 1841 which stressed the trust in one's present thoughts, skills, originality,
belief in own capabilities and genius and living from within. A famous quote from this
essay is: “Envy is ignorance, imitation is suicide” (n.p.). Translated to communities, this
philosophical concept takes a slightly different path emphasising the power of
independence, creativity, originality and belief in strength and resilience. It also rejects
the need for external support and glorifies the importance of self-application, e.g. tilling
of the land to get the “kernel of nourishing corn” (Emerson, 1841: n.p.). Gandhi
expanded this concept to incorporate a simple life style asserting that nature produces
enough for our wants, and if only everybody took enough for him/herself and nothing
more, there would be no people dying of starvation in this world (Kripalani, 1965: 130).
1
In 1971, Bangladesh had 75 million people and its per capita annual income was $100. In 35 years, its
population has increased to 147 million and per capita income to $440. Since 1991, its average annual
growth rate has improved at the rate to 4.4 percent, compared to the 5.1% average of all South Asian
countries for the same period (The Daily Observer, May 3, 2006, editorial by A. Momen). Irrespectively of
this achievement, the average income still remains at $1.20 per day.
3
Bangladesh was a self-reliant country in the past in the sense that it depended entirely
on the efforts of its own people but the introduction of the Green revolution in the 1960s
caused a sharp decline in its self-reliance. It introduced dependence on outside aid
which is a well-known phenomenon that slows down the path to sustainability.
Schumacher (1973), for example, stressed that foreign aid is able to play only a limited
role in bringing about sustained economic development. A country that makes
development plans which utterly depend on the receipt of substantial foreign aid is doing
much damage to the spirit of self-respect and self-reliance of its people. Even in the
narrowest economic terms, its loss is greater than its gains (Willoughby, 1990: 88).
Carmen (1996: 46) also notes that development aid is tied to the power of money and
the power of money is identified with the right of interventions. Such interventions
generally impact negatively on traditional systems within society causing a breakdown of
its integrity.
The movement for (re)achieving self-reliant sustainability in Bangladesh is mainly
focused on food items – rice, wheat, vegetables, pulses, oil seeds, fruits, herbs, milk,
fish and eggs. The rural economy of Bangladesh where the majority of population still
lives is basically not money-based. Most rural people live predominantly on their own
produce and only enter the money economy via excesses of this production.
Productivity-oriented self-reliance leads to health, health begets happiness, and
happiness welcomes modest poverty in terms of (a lack of) material possessions. It is
the case that the synergies between economic and food security, health and happiness
set people free to live in a sustainable way. This movement is strongly influenced by the
country’s wise people such as folk philosophers. For example, Darvish Aziz Shah Fakir
claims that as human life should be dictated by a human’s obligations to fellow
creatures, a self-reliant livelihood means a state of affording one’s obligations to oneself
and fellow beings, without claiming (undue) rights over or favour from others. He calls
this self-reliance sukhabash (pleasant living) and adds that “Dhari o na, dharai o na”
(neither in debt nor in credit) is another aspect of self-reliance (Hossain and Marinova,
2003: 12).
Although the context of this paper is clearly rural and non-urban environments, some of
the principles discussed later on have implications about making life more sustainable in
cities where complex highly centralised systems for food production, energy generation,
waste disposal and communication infrastructure have significantly reduced the ability of
people to be self-reliant.
3. Destroyed Self-reliance
Bangladesh’s historically self-reliant way of existence started to be neglected and
consequently was destroyed as a direct outcome of synergies between mostly foreignaid based NGOs (non-government organisations) and the Green Revolution Movement
in the 1960s (Brammer, 1997). A number of the technologies were promoted and
disseminated through the donor-supported NGOs in Bangladesh which encouraged the
transformation of agricultural production through the use of modern seeds and farming
techniques. The consequences are now evident in the noticeable and growing
syndromes of unsustainability, such as elevation of hard-core poverty, land degradation,
4
arsenic contamination and crisis of drinking water – all in the country of naturally
renewing land fertility and innumerable rivers.
Although the Green Revolution produced an initial rise in agricultural output, the overall
lesson from it is “that increased food production can – and often does – go hand in hand
with greater hunger” (Rosset, 2000: n.p.). Productivity in the country now depends on
ever-increasing use of chemicals and mechanised inputs, which besides severe
negative environmental impacts are also no longer economically affordable.
The evidence of the real impact of the Green Revolution in many developing countries is
widely discussed (e.g. Shiva, 1993; Novak, 1993; Rosset, 2000). The most important
aspect of it is creating dependencies and rejecting the capacity of non-western
communities to find the most appropriate ways for maintaining their sustainability. The
western culture is gradually overshadowing traditional culture of economic and
environmental management, bringing practices and values which are not sustainable in
the particular cultural and geo-environmental context. According to Rosset (2000), the
dominant western technology destroys the very basis for future production, by degrading
the soil and generating pest and weed problems thus making it increasingly costly to
sustain yields.
Faced with the impossibility to continue the current unsustainable practices, nonwestern communities are looking for alternatives through self-reliance.
4. Understanding Self-reliance in Terms of Sustainability
Understanding self-reliance from a sustainability perspective is crucial for such a life
style to be encouraged as an alternative to the western model of development for
traditional communities in developing countries in the world, including Bangladesh. It
also allows for the concept of poverty alleviation to be perceived differently by reframing
the achievement of material possessions to living wholesome life styles in a happy
social environment within a healthy ecology. The following five characteristics of selfreliance show the close links between this philosophy and the sustainability concept.
(1) Simplicity – this concept comes from the original idea of the value and pride in the
things and ideas that are present. On the surface this can be seen as conflicting with
sustainability which is understood as a way of caring for future generations, but in
essence the care for the future is built in the glory of the present and the acceptance
that the future is secure if we do the right things today. Gandhi’s philosophy argues for
modest consumption and material possessions and he resents consumerism (“The more
I have, the less I am”, see Gupta, The Hindu, 2005 and Joshi, 1993: 53). Another
implication from simplicity is the nature of technology that a community uses or in
Gandhi’s words technology has to be “home-scale”. This allows full control by people
over the technology, avoids technological determinism, dominance and dependence and
most importantly protects the natural environment. The negative social and
environmental impacts of large-scale centralised industrialisation can thus be avoided.
5
In most non-western communities human resources are abundant and the aim should
be to provide a meaningful way of life for the satisfaction of the fundamental human
needs, hence for simple living. For example, organic agriculture, including urban
agriculture, can provide a high level of satisfaction as well as a means to guarantee a
better future.
(2) Responsibility – the obligations that community feels to itself, other communities and
the natural world transcends the boundaries of time. These obligations require that any
activities (e.g. waste management) to be undertaken in a thoughtful manner that should
also be responsible for any consequences. A self-reliant community takes the
responsibility for its actions in creating and using goods as much as possible in a selfsufficient circle.
Related to the technology used, responsibility translates into reduced dependence on
fossil fuels, rejection of nuclear power and introduction of renewable energy (solar,
biogas) alternatives. Innovative appropriate technologies, either created locally,
imported or a mix, is the option for rural people’s self-reliant sustainability. However, it is
important that rural communities have the full responsibility for the management of these
technologies which implies that they need to be able not only to operate them but also
understand, adapt and develop further according to their own requirements. Only if they
are in full control of these technologies, can they also bear full responsibility.
(3) Respect – this characteristic talks about respect for fellow human beings as well as
for the living and non-living natural world which is the source of enjoyment and
inspiration for the community. The respect is practised in a culturally appreciable
framework without harming the environment, and this links to the environmental and
social aspects of sustainability.
In many traditional societies respect is built around knowledge and experience.
Knudston and Suzuki (1992) talk about the “wisdom of the elders” and the “sacred
ecologies” which can provide the foundation for new global environmental ethics. The
Baul philosophers in Bangladesh are deeply respected and people are prepared to
follow their advice. Respect of social cultural norms and traditions is also an important
component of self-reliance and the long-term sustainability of Indigenous societies.
(4) Commitment – a community needs to be committed to working and should not rely
on help from outside to guarantee the provision of its needs and economic security.
From an economic point of view, the long-term equitable access to resources needs to
be guaranteed by replenishing of any resources used. Hence, consumption on its own,
be it moderate, is unsustainable unless there is commitment to ensuring resources are
being replaced or renewed. An implication from this characteristic of self-reliance is the
choice of resources used and the preference for renewable resources that can be
replaced in a reliable way. Another implication of commitment is that the time outside
productive work can be allocated to performing rituals, educational and cultural activities
which are equally important for maintaining the capacity to work.
6
For the last two centuries, international development has created a lot of environmental
and social damage. Changing the direction of development to self-reliance implies
commitment and work on capacity-building to achieve this. The spirit of sustainability is
what has helped Indigenous and traditional societies to survive and this needs to be
encouraged.
(5) Creativity – sustainability requires a change of course as to how things have been
done during western industrialisation and development. New innovative solutions are the
key to success for implementing such a change. The concept of self-reliance implies
that a community is a constant source of creativity and ideas about how the present can
be made better. People are, as they always have been and ought to be, the real
protagonists of their own development and future. The search for sustainable solutions
should involve the people who are affected by these solutions. Neither the government
nor the private sector nor the foreign NGOs can provide jobs or wage-based work for the
entire population, particularly in rural areas.
The above five characteristics have been manifested in the self-reliant life style of rural
families in Bangladesh. This is also encouraged by the Baul philosophers who often set
examples for simplicity, responsibility, respect, commitment and creativity through their
songs and actions. Most families in rural Bangladesh used to be self-reliant in terms of
most of their daily needs, without harming the natural resource-base (soil, water and biodiversity). The land of Bangladesh also has had a historic status of self-reliance
throughout the centuries. Its prosperity attracted traders from abroad who brought
metals (iron, copper, gold etc) to exchange with Bangladesh’s artefacts, crafts and
primary produces including medicinal plants. In the 16th century the country was known
as the Paradise of Nations, the land of wealth. It was renowned for its agricultural
surplus and manufacturing wealth (Novak, 1993: 57).
Similarly, the five characteristics of self-reliance existed in other traditional communities.
Australian Indigenous people are another example. Bourke et al. (1998: 220) maintain
that Aborigines did not exhaust the resources of an area. They had spiritual attachment
to the land, a sense of bonding to the land. The protective myths, rituals and attitude of
land stewardship meant, in part, the right to share resources with others. The various
Aboriginal groups utilised the edible plants, worked their mines, developed the use of
drugs and medicines, had new manufacturing techniques and a large range of
resources which ranged from raw materials for cosmetics and paints to hidden supplies
of water.
The self-reliant sustainability of various traditional communities around the world are not
the same. Still, the culture of self-reliant living is based on the spiritual values within
these societies. Such a society would not be at the mercy of distant and uncontrollable
national bureaucracies and trans-national governments, and thus it would be more selfregarding, more cohesive, developing a sense of place, community, comradeship and
the pride that comes from stability, control, competence and independence.
5. Conclusion
7
The concept of living in a state of self-reliant sustainability involves a natural simple
lifestyle with enough for basic needs. It does not encourage ill health, famine, illiteracy or
inadequate living standards. Self-reliant living is a viable means of caring for nature and
other human beings, and hence, for sustainability. The examples from Bangladesh show
that there is opportunity for making changes and creating culturally appreciated
alternatives.
The diverse development endeavours of the current era have shown no sign of
sustainable development so far; rather they have contributed to the depletion of natural
resources. Consequently, the quality of living is degenerated. Prime (1994: 60-62)
argues that if we are to resolve the environmental problems which now beset us, we
must examine the connection between our environment and our way of life.
The self-reliant way of living in countries such as Bangladesh or India demonstrate that
unsustainability on a global scale is triggered by countries which do not adhere to the
five characteristics. The current 147 million population of Bangladesh has a much
smaller impact compared to countries such as Australia or USA whose populations
consume and waste per capita more than 10 times the natural resources used by
Bangladesh people. Back in 1970s, an American had 25 times higher impact on the
environment than an Indian (Goldsmith et al., 1972: 152). Many changes have
happened since – India is industrialising fast increasing its levels of consumption and
ecological impact while the USA has amplified even further its consumerist patterns and
ecological footprint. There is constantly emerging evidence that trade liberalisation and
foreign direct investment in developing countries contribute to higher levels of pollution
and social inequality (see, for example, Gamper-Rabindran and Jha, 2002). Selfreliance is an alternative to the western model and, if properly understood and applied,
can bring hope for a brighter and more sustainable future.
6. Acknowledgements
The authors thank two referees for very helpful comments and suggestions.
References
Bourke, C., Borke, E. & Edwards, B. (1998). Aboriginal Australia. Brisbane, Australia:
University of Queensland Press.
Brammer, H. (1997). Agricultural Development Possibilities in Bangladesh. Dhaka:
University Press.
Brundtland, H. (1987). Our common future. World Commission on Environment and
Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carmen, R. (1996). Autonomous development – humanising the landscape. London:
Zed Books.
Emerson, R.W. (1841). Essay II Self-Reliance. In Essays: First
http://www.emersoncentral.com/selfreliance.htm (date of access 30.12.2006).
Series,
8
Gamper-Rabindran, S. & Jha, S. (2002). Environmental Impact of India’s Trade
Liberalization, United nations Online Network on Public Administration and Finance,
unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/ public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN024230.pdf (date of
access 30.12.2006).
Goldsmith, E., Allen, R., Allaby, M., Davoll, J. & and Lawrence, S. (1972). A Blueprint for
survival. Harnondsworth, England: Penguin.
Government of Western Australia. (2003). Hope for the future: the Western Australian
State Sustainability Strategy. Perth.
Joshi, N. (1992). Economics of the spinning wheel. Ahmedabad, India: Navajiban
Mudranalaya.
Hossain, A., Marinova, D. (2003). Assessing Tools for Sustainability: Bangladesh
Context, Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the Academic Forum of Regional
Government for Sustainable Development, Fremantle, Australia, CD ROM.
Knudston, P. and Suzuki, D. (1992). Wisdom of the elders. North Sydney, Australia:
Allen & Unwin.
Kripalani, K. (1965). All men are brothers – life and thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi as told
in his own words, New York: Columbia University Press.
Novak, J. (1993). Bangladesh – Reflection on the water. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Pezzey, J. (1992). Sustainable development concepts: An economic analysis, World
Bank Environment Paper No. 2. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Pezzoli, K. (2002). Sustainability, livelihood, and community mobilisation in the Ajusco
ecological reserve.' In P. Evans (Ed.), Livable cities: The politics of urban livelihood and
sustainability (pp. 195-222). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Prime, R. (1994). Hinduism and ecology. Delhi: Motilal Banarosidas Publishers.
Rosset, P. (2000). Lessons from the Green Revolution: Do we need new technology to
end
hunger?
Institute
for
Food
and
Development
Policy,
http://www.foodfirst.org/media/opeds/2000/4-greenrev.html (date of access 24.10.2006).
Schumacher, E.F. (1973). Small is beautiful. A study of economics as if people
mattered. London: Blond & Briggs.
Shiva, V. (1993). The violence of the Green Revolution. London: Zed Books.
Sutton, P. (2004). What is sustainability? www.green-innovations.asn.au/What-is-
9
sustainability.doc (date of access 24.10.2006).
Willoughby, K. (1990). Technology choice: A critique of the appropriate technology
movement. London: Westview Press.