User:Ram Nandan P. Sinha/sandbox

{User sandbox}}

Geosheelitics

The idea to start geosheelitic studies was first mooted on February 5, 1991 at the concluding session of the U.G.C. sponsored National Seminar on Geography of Current Political Situation in India organized in the Department of Geography, Faculty of Science, Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, (Gujarat). One of the suggestions mooted therein ran as follows:

"Political Geographers in India should                    develop a distinctive Indian approach to the relation between geography and politics mediated by ethics and morality."

which the Director of the Seminar (present writer) liked to call as "geosheelitics" (Bhoosheelniti in Hindi). The idea was given a concrete shape about four years later on 2nd October 1995 (the birth day of Mahatma Gandhi) when a group of academicians from the disciplines of geography, political science and history met in Patna on that auspicious day and laid the foundation of a study centre named the Centre for Geosheelitic Studies.

The term ‘geosheelitics’ was coined as an anti-thesis of the well-known but much maligned term ‘geopolitics’ which was first used by a Swede Political Scientist Rudolf Kjellen in an article on the boundaries of Sweden published in the Swedish geographical journal Ymer in 1899. The very origin of the term was shrouded in imperialistic designs. Kjellen defined geopolitics as "The science which conceived the state as a geographical organism or as a phenomenon in space" and said "power is the most important attribute of the state, more important than law, which can be maintained by power." In his words: "State does not engage in its activities ... for some ethical purpose or primarily in the interest of its citizens but for its own sake- in order to strengthen itself internally and externally, in order to have power" (Dorpalen 53).

Kjellen’s other emphasis is on the state as a biological organism. The territory of the state, according to him, is its body, it must grow “either by colonialism, amalgamation or conquest..." Thus the term "Lebensraum" (living space) became a code word for state expansion at the cost of its neighbours.

Thus, both of Kjellen’s concepts of power and biological organism were bound to lead to international conflict and war and therefore were immoral and unethical.

Immediately, geopolitical ideas of Kjellen were taken over by German geographers headed by Haushofer and were made subservient to the German war-machine. Geographic concepts and methods were, under the geopolitical banner, put into the service of the politicians for the sole purpose of aggrandizement of the state. Later, during and after the World War II, British, American, Italian and Japanese geopoliticians viewed the world through geopolitical glasses and propounded nation-centric theories of global conflict and world domination.

As a consequence, the term geopolitics became so defamed that "there were many departments and whole universities, not to speak of publishing houses, which never let the subject of geopolitics pass their door-step" (Kristof 92).

But today geopolitics in again ‘in’ though it had never ceased to be spoused by the geostrategic thinkers and politicians. Many are advancing ideas of a New World Order aimed at bringing about world peace. But all such ideas based on the old geopolitical concepts are bound to be doomed. The main reason for this is that all such thoughts are founded primarily on (i) violent means of structuring the world maps; (ii) concept of military power and balance of power on regional and global scale and (iii) exploitation of the weak by the strong.

To view the world from a new angle has, therefore, become imperative. The Geosheelitic View is one attempt in this direction. But before this term is explained it will be better to review some other ideas that have been put forth as anti-thesis to geopolitics. One idea was geopacifics advanced by Griffith Taylor as far back in 1951 at the time when the world’s nations were being tormented by the super power rivalry between the U.S.A. and the- then Soviet Union. He gave a wide picture of Cultural Geography in a series of four volumes: Environment and Race, (1927), Environment and Nation (1936), Urban Geography (1949), and Our Evolving Civilization: An Introduction to Geopacifics (1947). He called them collectively as a treatise on Geopacifics, as the "new department of geography" and anti-thesis of Geopolitics. He summarized his ideas as follows:

Geopacifics is an attempt to base the teachings of freedom and humanity upon real geographical deductions: in a sense it is humanized geopolitics. It shows, for instance, from a study of World Plan, where the leading nations must arise, be it understood to lead, not to conquer. It shows how the conflicts based on racial differences are usually absurd... It shows that we should study environmental control so as to advance in harmony with our environment."

However, he himself admitted that it was a material philosophy though not a complete one because it did not pretend to discuss those basic principles which properly belong to distinct ethical principles.

But the concept could not catch the attention either of the academia or the political theoreticians for want of any sound theoretical underpinnings. Besides, in his own understanding, there was nothing ethical about it, with which we are presently concerned.

Recently the term Geopolinomics has been introduced by Demko (1994). But it is not an anti-thesis of geopolitics; it only emphasizes the economic component of the interstate relationship over the geostrategic. In his view, "Applied political geography – the geopolitics or geopolinomics – is emerging rapidly and vigorously. It is a sub-field and ambitiously attempts to explain the prevailing distribution and cultural influences, economic linkages, political power and military forces, as well as to better understand the processes that alter these distributions". International financial networks and inter-corporate trade and investment patterns will to a large extent redraw the economic map of the world on which places will have less geostrategic significance than telecommunication channels. Under these circumstances nature of sovereignty of nations is being questioned, the immunity of international boundaries are being questioned by virtue of environmental catastrophe, racial minority and human right problems and the development of weapons of mass destruction. Economic penetration by powerful multinationals and the clandestine economic bullying by economic powers pose grave threat to Third World countries.

From the Indian point of view all these concepts fail to meet the needs of the situation as they are based on Western concept of power, materialism, power politics and violence. We have therefore tried to approach the problem through the concept of Geosheelitics. This term is a combination of three different ideas: geography, sheel and politics. Interrelationship between geography and politics is signified by the well known term geopolitics, and the term sheel, put between geography and politics signifies geopolitics mediated by sheel, which having no equivalence in English has been put to mean jointly as morality and ethics. Thus, by the term geosheelitics we mean moralistic and ethical geopolitics.

The terms geography and politics being well known the new term sheel needs to be looked into a bit closely. Sheel is a Sanskrit term meaning right conduct or morality and ethics. In Buddhism it comprises three stages along the eight-fold path: right speech, right action and right livelihood. In the words of Radhakrishnan:

The Buddhist idea of sila, or good conduct – is a universal need for social discipline, cultural growth and peaceful co-existence of human beings with an aim to realize a state of mind where all diversity is merged into oneness".

By intercalating the term sheel, we wish geopolitics to take into account the moral and ethical values in the behaviour of states in keeping with the Indian tradition as enshrined in the Vedas, Upanishadas, Ramayana, Mahabharat, Kautilya and, not the least, the ideas of Mahatma Gandhi.

According to Indian (let us for the time being say, Gandhian) tradition the state should not covet the territory of other states to gain power. The aim may not be world conquest by acquiring material power in terms of wealth, resources and weapons, but to serve the world through benevolent power by doing service to humanity, the welfare of mankind. Instead of shastra-vijaya (conquest by arm) one should strive for shaastra-vijaya (conquest by wisdom) based on the tenets of dharma in its widest manifestations, not in the ritualistic ones.

In the Indian tradition also the state is considered as an organism but emphasis is not on expansion of its limbs (the territory) but on strengthening of its soul (moral and ethical prowess). The state is believed to behave as a human being, the same moral and ethical principles being applicable to the state as they are applicable to an individual. Here morality is concerned with self in case of an individual and internal relations in case of the state, while ethics is concerned with relation with others, that is, social or inter-personal relations of the individual and external or inter-state relations of the state.

So far as inter-state relations are concerned, we may take advantage of the Oceanic or Concentric Circle Model of Gandhi. In contrast to the modern political system which is "pyramidal with the apex sustained by the bottom", Gandhi envisaged a policy of a kind of a system of oceanic concentric circle with the individual as the focal point and the other units as "ever widening, never ascending circles" culminating finally in the entire world. This visualizes the entire system as an organic family composed of the primary units of the individuals. Each circle has backward and forward linkages, the larger circle getting support from the smaller circle, the smaller getting strength from the larger ones. This means free intercourse and give and take among all the units in the system in a spirit of healthy interdependence and mutual relationship. Within the system there is no dominance of one over the other, rather all thrive thinking and acting in a spirit of service to others. Power is not concentrated at one level but is decentralized so that each intervening unit between the individual and the world organization enjoys requisite authority and resources. The economy of the unit is to be "free from exploitation in every shape and form". The basis of success of each unit of the system is to be self-improvement through self-transformation aiming at self-sacrifice. The ultimate objective is the establishment of a world federation or international league. In this scheme, based on non-violence, the smallest nation will feel as tall as the tallest. (Gandhi: Young India, Fb.11,1939). He believed that such world order would progressively advance towards the ultimate goal of building a non-violent society – Sarvodaya.

Geosheelitics will aim to study the events and conflicts at various levels – village, panchayat (these two being the most vital component of India and the rest of developing world), local, regional and global – in the light of Indian (especially Gandhian) tradition and try to find a workable solution to the problem, the motto being Mitrasya chakshusa sameekshamahe (May we examine each other from the viewpoint of a friend).

Now let us very briefly view the contents, approaches, methods and purposes of Geosheelitics. We define geosheelitics as the study of relationship between geography and politics in the light of moralistic and ethical principles. Thus, for subject matter we explore the broad range of topics covered under various disciplines such as geography, political science, philosophy and religion (ethics and morality), history, economics and military science and, of course, sociology and psychology. Besides, we closely explore Gandhian literature for insight into the problems at hand and their probable solution.

Our main emphasis will be on conflict resolution, other will be value system and public policy. Besides, all the subjects studied under political geography and geopolitics will be taken care of. Our approach to the problems will decidedly be Gandhian, based on basic tenets of truth and non-violence, together with all the relevant approaches applied in case of political geography and geopolitics.

Our method of study will also be in keeping with the Gandhian approach. The following steps may be taken on way to resolving a conflict situation: 1. Arriving at the truth of the situation by            objectively exploring the viewpoints of each side. 2. Finding the common ground and tryssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssing to narrow down the gaps or divergences

3. Bringing the parties across the table, first alone, thereafter, if need be, with a counselor, that is, conciliation.

4. If the conflict is not resolved, trying to persuade them for arbitration.

Purpose of all these studies will be the welfare of the people or parties concerned with a view to improve mental peace and quality of life and ultimately to bring about peace and prosperity on as wide an area of the globe as possible, pan-ultimate objective being the building up of a New Benevolent World Order given to world peace.

These aspects of Geosheelitics may be represented schematically as below:

Geosheelitic View is published bi-monthly by the Centre for Geosheelitic Studies, Dept.of Geography, Patna University, Patna. Each issue is devoted to a conflict situation in a politically organised area on micro-meso scale, stress being on reaching at the truth behind the causes of the conflict and suggesting a non-violent resolution based on moral and ethical principles. In the process due consideration is given to historical, physical, social, economic, psychological and military factors. Subscription: Rs. 30($6) for one year, Rs. 80($16) for three years, Rs. 300 ($60) for life.

The Centre for Geosheelitic Studies, a non-profit institution was founded in 1995. The objective of the Centre is “to understand, promote and disseminate research in interrelationship between geography and political behaviour of poli