Sustainable Development: An Unhappy Consciousness

Introduction

The discussion of this chapter intends to critique sustainable development occurring around the world, similar to positive economic change (Sen,2009) and sometimes includes environmental issues (Benjaminsen & Savarstad,2021; Mebratu,2017) in the community. However, apart from these, I intend to include the ‘community’ between the two words— sustainable and development in text and practice. Before proposing the Sustainable Community Development Framework (SCDF) as a prospective solution to development issues and appropriation of the comments, feelings, and suggestions of small ethnic groups (SEGs). Furthermore, the author intends to provide a concise and logical argument on the history of ‘Sustainable Development,’ and this combined term bears the meaning of ‘unhappy consciousness’ in the scholarly and academic realm (Paul,2008; Parris et al.,2003) along with the exclusive Communities. There is no way to avoid the relationship between customary law and community development, which have been connected for a long time. This deliberate action by the community of the area and local government policy connects with culture, customs, and customary law, helping to transform it into a modern community-based development alongside customary law and great traditions. As a case study, this chapter describes how customary law and culture are entrenched within sustainable community development, policy, programs, and goals at the local level (Amanda,2018). For example, scholars have also used logical connotations; examples from life have been taken to prove logical arguments regarding sustainable development (SD). Although there is a trending debate in academia, for instance, the conceptual lineage of ‘Development’ has yet to come directly from Western society and its generated philosophical root (Grober,2007; Pissani,2006; Rist,2014; Sen,2017. However, as per the paper’s objective, this side-lined the debate, and the researcher believes it is only worth this scholarly argument constructively and sustainably for the community. However, a briefing is pertinent for establishing the core objective. Unfortunately, economic growth and development have been vitally linked to a society’s bird’s eye view instead of a community perspective. That is why I glimpse a development gap between the ethnic community and integrated development projects. SDGs 11 and 16 cannot relieve marginal communities’ suffering; scholars or development practitioners must understand the causes of SDG gaps for ethnic development. I assert that SEGs cannot access political power and economic resources (Barkat,2016; Sarker et al.,2016) and cannot represent mainstream people. For that reason, I would like to draw a framework based on the SEGs lens—Customary law—for the inclusion of community development and representation skills among people of the mainstream.

SD is an imperfect coupling word that was subsequently discussed; this study analyses sustainable development through customary law to propose a framework for SEGs. Customary law is a sound and sustainable way to maintain security and human rights to ensure a sustainable community at the root level. Because human behavior, culture, attitudes, nature, supernatural power, values, norms, and traditions are all involved with customary systems, they are also interlinked with growth and development in India (Mahapatra,1986). Therefore, before ensuring sustainable community development, not sustainable development, the present research needs to comprehend the community’s customary law. Why? For example, in Bangladesh, the Phulbari coal mine or Nawabganj Forest Authority—which evicted the minority people from their historical dwellings; the Gobindaganj clash between Santals and State Forces; and recently, all may appear to have been an accident or planned, but there was a root cause in those incidents—development occurred beyond and behind community guidelines.