The debate on development continues. For most of our living lives, this generation of yours and mine has witnessed talk, plan or action on this “D” word.
Globally, since we live in a part of the world that is defined to be “developing” as yet, we see a lot of action. Our cities and towns (and now even our villages), are all “work-in-progress” centres. The roads are being dug up, footpaths are being yanked off, flyovers are under construction, bridges are being put into place and there is frenetic action all about. In many ways, there is inconvenience galore and most cities look like war-ravaged locations. The “smart city” is being put into place, but even as the work is on, a whole generation of people has to bear through an “idiot-city” that has many of us baffled and battered.
I create four clusters of cities and towns and indeed countries even, when I define development.
The first is what I call the “Supra-developed” nation of the world. Japan is a classic example. A part of the world which got its basic infrastructure act together decades ago managed its population levels at near static ranges and chose the path of education to get a nation on the move. Japan, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, and well nigh nearly The Netherlands fall in this bucket. Nations that prioritised and discovered health before wealth even.
The second categorisation is that of the “Developed” nations of the world. In many ways, these are the high GDP nations of the world. These nations really discovered wealth first, and are now clamouring to discover health for their people. In terms of infrastructure, these are nations that have invested deeply in space (like China) or are countries that have the unique joy of a sparse population that occupies a vast space (like Australia). Leading the pack out here is the United States of America ($ 25.3T economy in terms of GDP), followed by China ($19.9T), Germany ($4.3T) and the United Kingdom ($3.4T).
The third category of nations is the “Developing” nation cluster. India ($3.3T) is a classic example. Iran ($1.7T) in the Middle East, Brazil ($1.8T) in South America and a whole host of nations all across the world fall in this cluster. These are population-rich areas that face the challenges of poverty, food, water, clothing, shelter, Medicare dispensation and more.
The fourth cluster is really what I call the “Submerged” nations of the world. These are the economically depressed nations of the world. Each one with a challenge that looks insurmountable for now. In the case of some of these countries, the challenge is basic as in food and water. In some, it is complete devastation of health, nutrition and wellness formats. These are the desperate nations of the world. Nations that depend on the largesse of large-hearted souls all across the world, whether they are UN organisations, high net-worth individuals or corporate organisations that reach out a helping hand. I will not name a single nation on this list. The list is embarrassingly stark, long and apparent.
I do believe development (like charity) begins at home. I do believe we need to understand the “D” word a little better. In understanding, I would rather jump to Alvin Toffler and his take on illiteracy, who put it succinctly, “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn.”
Development is that big word we were taught in our early days of taking those baby steps as nations wanting to grow and achieve economic and social equity for ourselves.
The times have changed. There is development all around us. Development is quite a canker in our lives now. The old has given way to the new and the old is being brought down to make way for the new. No city looks the same after the “D” word has taken its toll. And a lot of money is going into doing just this. Development is a paradigm today. A box of our making which we need to jump out of and look anew. Development is a space we need to learn the new, unlearn the old, and relearn the different. Does this sound oblique?
Let me exemplify. Let me fine-focus on Singapore. This city rose from the swamps literally. This modern city-State invested in brick and mortar and kept importing literally everything it needed.
Today, as Singapore is all brick and mortar, what is old resonates more than what is new. As you walk its streets, the old preserved structures with a modern twist add quality and value to the city that is otherwise a cut-and-paste version of any other from the other end of the world. The city today believes in preserving heritage. It believes strongly in re-purposing its buildings. Some of the old churches are bookstores and nightclubs even. Singapore is busy reinventing its past and preserving what little heritage it can salvage. Singapore has learnt, unlearnt and re-learnt.
Let me micro-focus on Bengaluru, the city I live in. The city is proud of its Cubbon Park. This is a tiny park in the heart of the city. The entire horticulture department is today in the planning stage to re-stage and re-invent Cubbon Park. There are cobbled pathways put together, and modern stone benches, and the ecosystem of the park is today stirred, if not shaken. More grassy green areas give way to brick and stone, and the park gets transformed to be a modern place for ostensibly modern people with modern needs.
Must this happen at all? I believe the newest definition of development must be “preserving the old and developing the new”. If you destroy the old to make way for the new, you are doing away with the old forever. If however, you can develop the new in a totally barren space you will re-wild. Will you not be doing good then? Must we not preserve the old and develop the new instead?
In conclusion (and in irritation), our entire understanding of the “D” word needs to change. And this must happen fast and quick.
Harish Bijoor
Brand Guru & Founder, Harish Bijoor Consults Inc
(harishbijoor@hotmail.com)