Sunil Ray and His Cohesive Development

Sanjoy De & Atanu Sengupta

[The first review of Sunil Ray’s thought-provoking Book–Birth of an Alternative Development Paradigm: Unfolding Transformative Mode of Production–was published in April 29- May 3, 2025 issue. This is the second review.]

Talk on ‘development’ isubiquitous. It is extensively used in all discourses, such as in economics, politics, and in everyday dialogues. It is nowadays seen as the ultimate goal–something that will move everyone up the ladder and solve all the problems. In his blockbuster book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, Yuval Noah Harari (2015) opines that human cooperation hinges on shared stories. In the modern era, one of the most powerful stories people share among themselves is about development and its enormous possibilities. But as Professor Sunil Ray in his “Birth of an Alternative Development Paradigm: Unfolding of Transformative Mode of Production” [Published by Germinal Publications Pvt Ltd (Publisher of Frontier weekly), Kolkata. Price: 250INR] reveals, this story may not be as unblemished or supportive as people believe.

The way development is generally orchestrated–emphasised principally on economic growth–can, in reality, inflict a lot of damage. It often results in the indiscriminate use of natural resources, unethical treatment of labourers, displacement of tribals and communities, and growing inequality. In fact, instead of helping everyone, it sometimes ends up making life worse for the most downtrodden class of society.

Some alternative radical approaches to development have also emerged. These approaches attempt to fix this by challenging who holds power and who derives the benefits. These include Marxist notions about labourers, feminist movements, and other grassroots struggles. But even these can sometimes become unyielding or can often lose sight of their goals. Despite having noble intentions, these approaches sometimes hurt the interest of some specific groups or classes in the society. This leads to adverse reactions, causing social tensions and violence. Ultimately, the alternative radical policy fails. That is where the concept of cohesive development fits in–a more sensible and human-centric approach that Prof Sunil Ray elucidates in his book Birth of an Alternative Development Paradigm.

Prof Ray cites several real-life movements to concretise his ideas. For example, in the 1990s, the National Alliance of People’s Movements [NAPM] in India opposed against the adverse impact of globalisation and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The Narmada BachaoAndolan fought against the setting up of big dams that would displace people and aggravate the environment. Ray also highlights the Zapatista movement in Mexico, which erupted after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) affected local communities. These movements indicate how people can come together to oppose harmful systems and ensure a promising future.

Ray recommends that people need to rethink the development paradigm employing a few prudent-humanistic ideas. One is reciprocal altruism, which implies helping others with the assurance that they will reciprocate in return. Another tenet is the principle of sufficiency, which signifies producing and consuming to the extent that is actually required, instead of chasing limitless wealth. These ideas guarantee trust, justice, and sustainability.

But one-size-fits-all solutions may not fit into the idea of cohesive development. In fact, the operation of cohesive development is highly localised. One example was the Bhoodan (Land Gift) Movement spearheaded by VinobaBhave in India. Inspired by Gandhi’s philosophy, Bhave persuaded the affluent landowners to willingly donate land to the landless. This non-violent approach helped avert the violence of forced land redistribution. However, it was not very successful because of strong opposition from political groups. Still, it had the potential for trust-based change.

Environmental issues are another big challenge. While pollution and climate change are often the act of the wealthy, their effects harm everyone. As Karl Marx once cautioned, this could lead to the ruin of both the poor and the rich. That is why many experts now opine that solving these problems requires cooperation among all and not opposition. Everyone must work collectively, regardless of gender, caste, class, or background.

Another very important sphere of cohesive development is the issue of religion in modern politics. In Europe, religion, at least by Christians, was institutionalised. This is the main springboard of the mainstream Christian religion (Harari, 2024). However, even before that, the so-called pagan religious practices in Greece and Rome were also institutionalised. There was the temple of Athena in Athens, Zeus at Olympia, Juno in Rome, and so on. The only place where people could perform their religious activities was the public spheres – temples, churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.

In India, the religion was mostly private. In most of the houses in India, there are idols, and people used to offer their devotion in a purely private manner (Sengupta& De, 2000). Even the so-called beggars and vagabonds carry these idols with them and worship them wherever and whenever they stay.

It is, however, true that the Buddhist and the Jain religions were the first to replace this private religion with a public religion. Eventually, however, this led to the demise of both these religions. When their centres were gone, the Buddhist idols in the numerous villages and towns still continued to function with a private motive, and later merged with Islamic ideas. The Dharma Thakur of Bengal, the various Pir-sthans in Bengal and other parts of India are testimony to this.

Even Islam in India could not take a very structured form. There were very few rural and semi-urban mosques in India during the medieval period and very little dress code. There were numerous mazars where both the Hindus and the Muslims simultaneously offered their devotion to the Lord. There was inter-mixing, both social, economic, and political, between the various religions. The caste system was indeed a structured form of organisation, but in the era with little hope of modern information (Harari,2024), even the caste system could not take its present rigid mode.

The secularists failed to understand this purely privatised view of religion. They followed the European example of completely disowning religion in the name of secular practice. It was Ashis Nandy (1995) who strongly criticised this view and brought the alternative concept of anti-secularism. The two great rulers of India – Ashoka and Akbar were not non-religious. They preached religion but they also tried to put it in a private sphere with utmost tolerance.

It is in this context that cohesive development is important, removing the so-called secularist rigid view and the current Hindutva view. The founders of the Hindutva doctrine took this weakness of secularism into their stride. They tried to spread a homogeneous philosophy based on organised public religion. The same was the case with the Muslim League, and it stressed a homogeneous, organised Islam which never existed in India in the medieval and early modern ages.

The cohesive development is a good panacea for these ills. By bringing all these different viewpoints within its ambit, the cohesive development can push up a new mode of thinking. This thinking is very akin to the words of the great emperor Ashoka. “But it is better to honour other religions for this reason. By so doing, one’s own religion benefits, and so do other religions, while doing otherwise harms one’s own religion and the religions of others. (Nikam& McKeon (Translated), 1959).” Also, the Great Akbar observes that “all religions are either equally true or equally illusory (Abu’l-Fazl. (1993). The history of Akbar (W. M. Thackston, Trans.).” Even Swami Vivekananda, in his talk at the Chicago conference, praised this inclusiveness of the Hindu religion (Vivekananda, 1893). Cohesive development is a good way to cement these diverse modes of thinking and usher in a new era in the Indian polity and society.

This is where the game-theoretic framework comes in handy. Mainstream economics often emphasises on competition. Even capitalist market and production systems are built upon co-operation (Arrow, 1974). Buyers and sellers come to an agreement in the marketplace regarding the amount of commodity they want to buy and sell. A sort of co-operation binds the capitalist and the labourers, which ultimately determines the amount of production. But the real problem of sharing the rewards attained after co-operation remains unanswered. That depends on justice and trust.

 But if the fruits of cooperation are not shared fairly, the whole system suffers. Prof Ray advocates that cohesive development is a way to focus on not just working together, but also sharing the results in a fair and respectful way.

At its core, cohesive development is all about solidarity between people and nature. It supersedes the narcissistic logic of capitalism with the benevolent idea that helping others helps all. It complements dignity, promotes sustainability, and promises a future where no one is deprived of the accolades of development. As pointed out by the eminent economist Amit Bhaduri (2005), the existing system hides both the abject poverty of the oppressed and the ostensible wealth of the powerful. Cohesive development proposes a pathway toward a more equitable and humane world.

References:
Abu’l-Fazl. (1993). The history of Akbar (W. M. Thackston, Trans.). Harvard University Press.
Arrow, K. J. (1974). The Limits of Organization. W. W. Norton.
Nandy, Ashis. (1995). An anti-secularist manifesto. India International Centre Quarterly, 22(1), 35–64.
Bhaduri, A. (2005). Development with dignity. National Book Trust.
Harari, Y. N. (2015). Sapiens: A brief history of humankind. Harper.
Harari, Y. N. (2024). Nexus: A brief history of information networks from the Stone Age to AI. Random House.
Nikam, N. A., & McKeon, R. (Trans.). (1959). The edicts of King Ashoka. University of Chicago Press.
Ray, D. (2007). A game theoretic perspective on coalition formation. Oxford University Press.
Sengupta, A., & De, S. (2025). Institutionalised Nobel A Journey from Lewis to AJR. Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 60,No5
Sengupta, A., & De, S. (2020). End of a paranoia: A Philosophical tour of the anti-CAA protest. Mainstream Weekly.
Vivekananda, S. (1893). The World’s Parliament of Religions. In J. H. Barrows (Ed.), The World’s Parliament of Religions: An International History of the Religion of the World, Chicago 11
[Dr Sanjoy De, Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, ShyampurSiddheswariMahavidyalaya, (Affiliated to the University of Calcutta, Mob-80172140, Email: sanjoyde2000 @gmail.com
Dr AtanuSengupta, Professor, Department of Economics University of Burdwan, Mob-9593542847 Email: sengupta_ atanu@yahoo.com]

Back to Home Page

Frontier
Vol 58, No. 4, Jul 20 - 26, 2025