This blog post examines the shift between Ladakh’s traditional values and modern development, sharing reflections on whether we should follow their path.
We often refer to the process of transforming a backward society into a modern one as ‘development,’ ‘urbanization,‘ and ‘Westernization.’ Development is the effort to change society for the better. Through development, society becomes more convenient and prosperous. Our country, too, went through this process of development, escaping past poverty to build the society we have today.
However, the term ‘development’ seems distant from ‘happiness.’ Looking at the happiness index published by British psychologist Rothwell and life counselor Cohen, many economically poor countries have high happiness indices. Conversely, there are also economically wealthy countries with low happiness indices. This shows that development does not necessarily equate to happiness. Therefore, we must reconsider whether development is truly desirable.
Helena Norberg-Hodge offers answers to these questions in her book ‘Ancient Futures: Learning from Ladakh’. This book contains the author’s reflections and insights gained during her 16-year stay in Ladakh, India. Ladakh, often called “Little Tibet,” was a community that maintained a self-sufficient way of life based on its own language and Buddhist culture, despite being part of Indian territory. However, after the Indian central government opened it to foreign tourists, the once-simple Ladakh began to change. While development brought some positive impacts to the Ladakhi people, the author focuses more on the past values lost due to development.
This book is broadly divided into three parts. Part 1, ‘Tradition,’ depicts the pure and happy past of Ladakhi society. Part 2, ‘Change,’ shows how Ladakh transformed under the influence of Western culture. Finally, Part 3, ‘Learning from Ladakh,’ calmly presents the author’s thoughts on progress and development. By contrasting the content of Parts 1 and 2, the author evokes a sense of regret in the reader regarding Ladakh’s transformation. This emotion makes the author’s arguments in Part 3 resonate even more deeply.
The Ladakh depicted in Part 1 is portrayed as a happy society approaching an ideal. Ladakhis worked only four months a year, and their lives were filled with leisure. The concept of wealth disparity did not exist; they lived content with what they had amidst beautiful nature. The author observes this with a warm gaze, taking time for self-reflection.
The Ladakh of Part 2 is the landscape after opening to foreign tourists by the Indian central government. As tourism developed, the Ladakhis gradually began earning money, and people who once valued money little became increasingly entangled in materialism. People grew greedy, and the youth began to view their own culture as inferior to Western culture. Additionally, Ladakh’s natural environment started to be gradually destroyed.
In Part 3, the author reflects on his observations of Ladakh’s transformation. He identifies ‘globalization’ as the root cause of Ladakh’s change and argues that blindly following the path of developed nations is not desirable. He states that a future based on living modestly and leisurely, as in the past, is what we should pursue.
However, the author is not advocating a ‘simple return to the past’. The development he criticizes is Western-style development that pursues efficiency alone, and he proposes ‘human-scale’ development as an alternative. This development, called ‘anti-development’ or the ‘Ladakh Project,’ is an attempt to revive traditional values using environmentally unharming energy sources, such as solar heating or gravity-fed water pumps. The author hopes these efforts will make Ladakh’s future more valuable and happier.
“There’s no such thing as poverty here” – Tsewang Paljor (Ladakhi resident), 1975
“I wish you could help us Ladakhis. We are so poor.” – Tsewang Paljor, 1983
This is one of the most striking parts of the book. Development made people unhappy in just eight years. Is this truly the development we wanted? It is obvious that problems like the wealth gap or environmental pollution cannot be solved by conventional development methods. That is why the values the author proposes, such as ‘ecologism,’ hold meaning.
However, in our society already steeped in materialism, such claims may feel distant from reality. The more we cling to material things, the more spiritual values tend to be ignored. We know the reality that we spend most of our lives just trying to make money is wrong, yet we struggle to change society easily. Because it’s hard to give up the convenience and dynamism enjoyed in modern society, the author’s arguments sound like idealistic theory. Just as values unattainable in the modern world were found in Ladakh, the convenience and dynamism unique to modern society are also cherished.
Nevertheless, I want to cheer on Ladakh’s ‘humanistic’ attempt to revive traditional values. I hope the author’s belief that true progress cannot be achieved without respect for tradition and nature will blossom in Ladakh.
