This is part 2 of a series of 3 articles is based on the booklet titled 'Grama Vikas' (Village Development), authored by Ashish Kumar Gupta and Dilip Kelkar and published by Bharatiya Shiksha Sansthan.
Abstract
Abstract
Contemporary approaches to village development often focus on external interventions—economic schemes, infrastructure, and administrative reforms—withoutcivilizationallyg a more fundamental question: what constitutes a village in its essential sense. This paper argues that meaningful village development requires a civilizational understanding of the village as a self-reliant, interdependent, and holistic social unit. Drawing from Indian philosophical thought, it situates human life within the broader pursuit of freedom, culminating in moksha, and interprets self-reliance (swāvalamban) not as isolation but as a balanced harmony between autonomy and interdependence. Extending this principle to the village, the paper conceptualizes the village as a complete social universe—capable of meeting material, social, cultural, and spiritual needs through local resources and collective responsibility. It further outlines the importance of natural boundaries, dignified livelihoods, context-sensitive education, and integrated social systems as essential characteristics of a sustainable village. The paper contends that only by restoring this holistic understanding can village development transcend superficial reforms and contribute to enduring, civilizationally rooted sustainability.
What Is a Village, Really?
Most contemporary models of village development suffer from a fundamental flaw: they attempt to fix villages without first understanding what a village truly is. Without clarity on the purpose and nature of the village, any intervention—however well-intentioned—remains superficial.
The ultimate goal of human life, as articulated in Indian thought, is the attainment of moksha. During one’s lifetime, this expresses itself as the pursuit of freedom—freedom in thought, action, and inner experience. This freedom is not merely political or economic; it is existential. It arises from swāvalamban—self-reliance rooted in self-awareness.
A swāvalambhi individual is one who is capable of sustaining life with dignity while remaining ethically grounded and socially connected. Yet, self-reliance does not mean isolation. No human being, family, or community can exist in absolute self-sufficiency. Life is inherently interdependent. True self-reliance, therefore, lies not in severing relationships, but in harmonizing interdependence with autonomy.
Freedom exists precisely in those spheres where dependence is minimized. Where dependence is excessive, freedom diminishes. This principle applies not only to individuals, but also to villages.
A village must therefore be organized in a way that allows it to be self-reliant—socially, economically, culturally, and spiritually. Such self-reliance forms the foundation of a meaningful social life aligned with higher human goals, rather than endless material expansion.
If we are to define the Indian village in its truest sense, it is a self-reliant unit formed through the use of local resources and the mutual interdependence of families and clans residing within it. When these families function together as an integrated whole—much like a single extended family—the village attains its complete form. In such a village, freedom and the fulfillment of basic needs are not opposing goals, but harmoniously interconnected realities.
The foremost characteristic of such a village is that, for every individual residing within it, the village itself becomes their immediate universe. Education, skill development, livelihood, social responsibility, and spiritual growth are all organically available within the village framework and are considered collective responsibilities. Seen from this perspective, the village is not merely a settlement—it is a small, complete universe.
The physical boundaries of a village must also be natural and humane. A village should be limited in such a way that a person can leave home in the morning to earn a livelihood—on foot or by simple means—and return home by evening. Within these boundaries, every individual must have access to dignified work.
Education, within such a system, cannot be abstract or detached. It must nurture belonging, responsibility, and the desire to contribute. A social philosophy that consciously upholds education, security, and nutrition as foundational systems can be considered complete in itself. When these are rightly organized, they ensure not merely survival, but dignity, harmony, and continuity of life.
Only when villages are understood and nurtured in this holistic sense can they remain living, sustainable, and civilizationally rooted entities.
Conclusion
Village development cannot succeed as a purely technical or administrative exercise. Without a clear understanding of the village as a living social organism, reforms risk addressing symptoms while neglecting foundational realities. The village, when viewed through a civilizational lens, emerges not as a backward unit awaiting modernization, but as a self-reliant and interdependent community capable of nurturing freedom, dignity, and continuity of life.
True self-reliance does not imply separation from wider society, but the ability to minimize unnecessary dependence while preserving meaningful interconnections. When villages are organized to provide education, livelihood, security, and social belonging within humane and natural boundaries, they become complete ecosystems—small universes in which individual freedom and collective responsibility reinforce one another.
Such a vision challenges prevailing development paradigms that equate progress with expansion, centralization, and abstraction. Instead, it calls for a reorientation toward rootedness, balance, and purpose. Only by nurturing villages as holistic, self-sustaining entities aligned with higher human goals can they remain resilient, culturally grounded, and genuinely sustainable in the long term.
Comments
Post a Comment