Thursday, June 09, 2005

Entrepreneurship and religion:

Nepali conflict assumes all the more significance and importance because of the strategic location of Nepal as it is between two Asian giants- India and China, with two different traditions, cultures and even politics.Dor Bahadur Bista, one of the well known sociologists in Nepal has stated his view in his book "Fatalism and Development" about the development process of Nepal. He has stressed his view in religion which is the main barrier of entpreneurship development in Nepal. Strong religious belief of the Nepalese that the fortune of a person is determined by his/her performance in the previous life is generally offered as one of the factors blocking entpreneurship development in Nepal. His logic and research book is widely popular in Nepal which is highly used as first reference book by every development worker who comes to Nepal under a donor assisted project.
In 1994 research study had been done by SBPP which has proved Bista's hypothesis wrong. About 60% of the respondents in the survey did not believe in fatalism. On the contrary, the study has confirmed that the country-frog syndrome (a phenomenon of everybody pulling everybody else down and not allowing him/her progress, also called "leg pulling" tendency or in Nepali Khutta Tanne Prabritti) is one of the major hurdles in the entrepreneurial development. According to the report, this indicated to the lack of unity in the society. And this seems to be an area where the state interventions for reforms would be very much helpful. The hypothesis that Hinduism & Buddhism is less encouraging to entrepreneurship is proven wrong by examples also from elsewhere, such as India, Fiji, the East Africa and Malaysia where the occupation of Hindus has been business and entrepreneurship. In these sectors they are quite success.
In my view, Lack of genuineness and honesty with oneself or with others seems to be a characteristic common not only to intellectual person but to many leaders, government worker and to many other people. It is difficult to understand because everybody can not know what other people think they are hiding from others when they not only do not treat them reasonably and decently but think they are successfully pretending they are. There is no such successful simulation; only the additional proposition that one is as hypocritical and dense as one is incompetent or unkind.

No comments: