Written by Laurence Brahm - Published by Review Asia on 10/07/2007

In sharp contrast to Washington-centered development, economics, politics and global values, a new geopolitical entity The Himalayan Consensus is rising.

“Where is Shangri-la?” Asking the question in 2002, I abruptly closed my legal consulting firm. Journeying to Tibet, directing a documentary film, searching for Shangri-la, I soon learned Shangri-la is a misspelling of Shambhala. Shambhala, a Tibetan Buddhist concept, visualizes an idealistic, equitable world: no poverty, ethnic dignity, environmental protection, and world peace. So, I began journeying to Shambhala, by searching for Shangri-la.

Traveling across Tibet, I met monks, nuns, artists, non-government organizations and environmental activists. Undertaking grassroots efforts to preserve their people’s cultural heritage, they were helping change lives for the better.

Several people particularly influenced me. Tibetan artist An Sang supports a factory established by former monks and employing handicapped workers who make only Tibetan handicrafts, paper and incense. The workers support not only themselves, but also an orphanage and a school.

Bai minority dancer Yang Liping choreographs performances as economic platforms preserving traditions before they are lost.

Monk Jigme Jensen’s highland cheese factory purchases yak milk, raising nomad income without disrupting traditional lifestyles. He re-invests proceed, building schools for nomad children.

Dolma Chugi, a graduate of University of Massachusetts-Amherst, has forsaken comfortable opportunities in America to return to Tibet and lead volunteer doctors into rugged nomad country, undertaking operations to remove cataract and restore eyesight to thousands of rural poor.

Then there’s Nyima Tsering, abbot of Jokhang Monastery, Tibet’s most sacred pilgrimage site, who has been calling for a new global order based ton human compassion, not aggression, and condemning corporate egotism and luxury brands as new opiates.

Writing up notes, reflecting back on my travels through the Tibetan outback, several things became clear.

First, China broke from World Band and International Monetary Fund (IME) models to forge its own path. However, China’s model is unique to conditions. It cannot be repeated. Each country’s path is different. Washington-linked economists fanatically adhere to models-you must privatize, liberalize currency and trade, and pursue democracy. But experiences suitable for one country may not suit others. They can be drawn upon only when relevant. There is no singular model for economics, politics or social development.

Second, the role of governments should be to alleviate poverty, narrow income gaps that create social strife, protect the environment for next generation’s survival, provide health care and education-offer hope for a better future. What form or political model government takes is less important than what it accomplishes. Photocopying theoretical models, applying them to cultures and ethnic groups where they won’t work, is counterproductive. The attitude in Washington about so-called liberal free-market theory and color-coded party democracy is no different in approach than the Soviet International once was, insisting on its centrally planned top-down model. So both approaches are equally wrong in imposing what they believe works for them, on other people, where conditions and experiences prove irrelevant.

Third, ethnicity is good In fact, the more diverse our global ethnicity, the better it is for the human species. Why should everyone dive into a single melting pot? Of course, everyone thinking alike makes it easier for multinational corporations to globalize marketing. But is this good for the survival and evolution of our species? Moreover, quantity accumulation expressed through blind brand-buying does not necessarily spell quality of life. Small can be beautiful. Grassroots work can change lives without the baggage of excessive, top-down and cookie-cutter globalization.

Fourth, sustainable economic foundations are essential to each culture’s survival and evolution. Idealism must be tempered by pragmatism to succeed. If the economic rug is pulled, cultures go into museums, sustainable only selling tickets for costume gawking. All cultures evolve continuously. So establishing functioning, sustainable businesses can help cultures evolve which preserving their individual identity.

Fifth, each culture and ethnic group knows what is best for itself. People have the right to determine their own future. Imposing external economic or political models based on different experiences can harm instead of help. Providing tools that empower or re-empower people can contribute to their own development. Forcing models of development. Forcing models of development to upon them will only deter or even reverse their progress, bringing disaster.

After moving to the Tibetan capital of Lhasa last year, I began asking myself, what do political leaders on both sides of the Himalayan mountain chain have in common? From China’s President Hu Jintao, Nepal’s Maoist leader Prachanda, Sri Laankan Buddhist opposition party Leader and monk Aruthilu Li, Bangladesh’s Nobel Prize winner Professor Mohamed Yunus, and Bhutan’s King Jigme Singye Wangchuck, all in their own way call for new, innovative and local solutions to global problems. Inadvertently, they are forming a new regional consensus.

In sharp contrast to Washington-centered development, economics, politics and global values, a new geopolitical entity- the Himalayan Consensus-is rising. Ian Baker, National Geographic explorer, Kathmandu resident, prolific Himalayan author, and Shambhala director, sums The spirit of the Himalayan Consensus: “Close gaps between meditation and social transformation. The essence of Buddhism getting purified goes beyond self-help to helping others. The Himalayan Consensus approaches with positive social action. Don’t look for a perfect world. Go create it!” The Himalayan Consensus embraces three pillars of economic-socio-politics.

First, China’s economic experience overturned IMF and World Bank development assumptions. Throw out theory. The experiences of each country differ based on local conditions. While China emphasizes gross domestic product, or GDP, Bhutan calls for GDH-gross domestic happiness. Both are equally right with separate application in each country where circumstances, population density, rural and urban income gaps differ. Various approaches should be mutually respected and applied. People should adopt a “no model” approach. Instead, they should share development experiences, emphasize grassroots micro-finance, combine market forces and planning to achieve positive results, end the blind application of Washington’s economic fundamentalism and apply local realities.

Second, since World War II, global values, from political systems to conspicuous consumption, were set by the United States, while Judeo-Christian moralists dictated paradigms. The Himalayan Consensus rejects this. Instead, it draws from the indigenous religious values of Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam. All share similar aspirations: human equality, closing income gaps, global medical access, environmental respect, ethnic diversity, sustainable development, and peaceful solutions to global conflict.

Third, based on the preceding two pillars, every country has the right to develop its own independent political system, incorporating different ethnic and religious constituencies through evolution, not radical reform. The Himalayan Consensus seeks indigenous models of participatory government by basing politics on local culture, with tribal and historic foundations.

Such ideas are anathema to Washington. Mordern history has proven-and continues to prove-America’s failure in forcing its model of government on countries without relevant historic, social or cultural commonalities. Iraq and Afghanistan are the more recent examples, underscoring political instablility and socal-humanitarian disasters.

“In opposition politics, you cannot win because you are always opposed to something,” says Baker. “The Shambhala vision is based on questioning. A hidden land leads us on a question of going beyond where we are. The world is an integrated whole. This differs from the Christian view of a ‘Garden of Eden’, a world within a cage. The Shambhala vision is a world without limitations, everytings is included, not a dual world.

“In Nepal, politics means freedom and working for the common good.” Baker adds. “Democracy as a system went against people’s desire to work together collectively. Democracy, with its emphasis on duality, has own deep flaws, perpetuating ways of thinking that can never lead to an enlightened view” in holistic societies.

From Colombo to Islamabad, from Lhasa to Beijing, people are asking if the Himalayan Consensus can replace the once mighty “Washington Consensus”.

“It all comes down to politics,” Baker says. “Based on the Buddhist position, Buddha walked out of politics and renounced it to sit under a tree. Now it is time for Buddha to walk back into politics, not sit under a tree-because the trees are all being cut down.”

Laurence Brahm is a global activist, international mediator, political columnist and author. He is the leading advocate of a fresh development paradigm - The Himalayan Consensus - an innovative approach to development.

Back to Top