I have always wondered what it must have been to be Ekalavya. What does it mean to defer to the demands of a scornful 'Guru' who demands the ultimate price? It must hurt immensely when all that is learnt by observation and self practice is claimed as a commodity imparted by the 'Guru' and his unilateral claims to that knowledge. What a price to pay as an "offering": one's thumb! The swell of pain reverberates in a disastrous end to all that was learnt by sheer hard work and persistence, and no tutoring whatsoever – in Ekalavya's case the science was archery.
Subservience and subordination disguised as humility to the "Guru" makes for a potent pathway of ownership of the ultimate asset – the privileging of knowledge. Seeking, gaining and possessing knowledge is like treading in treacherous terrain. It leads to various forms of ownership, not least of which is commodification of knowledge and proprietary control over its contents. It happens all the time in our world. In some ways it is akin to the absolute control 'brahmins' had (and some perhaps still have) over knowledge in times past. The new scientific 'brahmin', though casteless, uses similar methods.
It is one thing to expect rigour and discipline in gaining knowledge, but an altogether different matter when it gets privileged. If one feels one is in the "know-how" business, then already the journey away from the world of the ordinary has begun. Its a bit like a balloon floating in the air. Everyone notices it, but there is clearly a limit to such existence. A lot of gas is demanded to be up there, but that is also its limit.
Two instances in Bangalore come to my mind about how such privileging can be risky. One is with the Government of Karnataka calling for a 'consultation' on potential field trials of food GMOs, but only inviting those with the required 'knowledge'. As the invitation letter reveals, only representatives of biotech companies are welcome, and the meeting is to be held in Vidhana Soudha, the invincible fortress from where the Government keeps people and democracy out in the streets. There are protests against such 'consultations' and not surprisingly only from the often derided farmers, 'activists', etc., who are also perceived to be 'un-knowledgeable' of such complex issues.
At about the same time several 'scientists' have signed up a statement against tree felling and road widening in Bangalore. There are many facts and analyses cited, which is to be expected coming from this self formed 'class'. Not surprisingly at all the statement has received good press coverage. After all in a 'science city' (which ironically has the highest density of millionaires but not one decent public library) scientists rule the roost.
Several of my friends have signed up this statement, and in all sincerity to help the cause. But I have a problem with such privileging of scientists.
Just like the Karnataka Government is consulting with only those who are 'knowledgeable' and thus causing a huge gap in decision making between those who farm and eat and those who now claim the capacity and knowledge of the ultimate systems of food production, our scientist friends have similarly made issues relating to urban environment unnecessarily complex and 'scientific'. Both efforts create gaps and are rather undemocratic pathways to follow.
Instead, I would argue that our scientists must step out of their proverbial 'ivory towers' and 'enclave' mentality, and throw their rationale and might into the common cause by striking the right cord with commoners. Knowledge, then, will actually become an useful instrument of democratisation and aid in the movement away from the privileging of the 'scientist' and thus the creation of the 'new brahmin'.
Last year when participating in public consultations on the Bt Brinjal issue, that then Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh had organised, I found very few 'scientists' present there. I had expected Bangalore's scientists to come out in large numbers actually and was very disappointed that they did not care to wear their scientific zeal in a very public manner. Similarly, I have been rather disturbed that our scientists do not always step out and help in organising communities affected by road widening and participating in debates on such issues in ordinary public fora. Begs the question if our scientists are inimical to such democratic and civil actions?
Use all the scientific methods and capacities at one's disposal and produce good reports, papers, notes,... whatever. All such efforts will aid the development of good science and sound public policy. Make sure that such contributions are also formulated in a way that can contribute to ongoing street actions, litigative efforts and administrative decision making. But please do not fall into a trap of creating a new class out of knowledge.
Consider this: what if all contractors got together and made a similar statement that road widening is good for the city, for instance? And similarly, all agro-biotechnologists proposed that the only way forward with agriculture is the GMO route?
I am sure this proposition will disturb my scientist friends who have signed up the statement. But that would only be good for science and sound public policy no?
* The term 'brahmin' has been used here not to denigrate any community, but as a social metaphor of consciousness of distinctiveness.
* The term 'brahmin' has been used here not to denigrate any community, but as a social metaphor of consciousness of distinctiveness.
2 comments:
Dear Leo,
I agree that getting a statement signed by scientists, is something which legitimizes the view of 'experts' over people. However, in this case, when seen in the context of road-widening, this also does help our fight, which is a gain.
In a society which is so technocratic, this does further entrenches the technocracy, i agree...but also..it is a first effort at getting the scientists engaged in local issues like road-widening. Maybe now the scientists will start engaging more and start coming on to the street?
Even if this initiative did not happen, our society would continue to be technocratic, and this initative contributes it to by a very small factor.. but the gain is significant in the sense that the anti-road-widening campaign has got more support?
And as i saw this letter, what I also felt was, when we agreed to a court apponted commitee of 'experts' to decide on road-widening, there also we sort of legtimised 'expert opinion' alva? I mean why should an urabn planner have more of a say over what happens to an area than the people in the area?
Yen antheera?
that said, i also would have been more comfortable with scientists signing a statement along with poets, civiv leaders, artistes, union leaders, residents etc. However this intiative is a sincere attempt to getting scientists to enagge with this issue and i think its now upto us to get them on the ground and participate in a deeper manner.
- Vinay Sreenivasa
hey leo, i even commute by bus within the city, which most others with a car dont, like you. Are not your comments sweeping, trivialising learning and experience? This is with eference to the tree issue. Maybe a larger group should have been consulted. But trivialising the collective knowledge of humanity and the experience of the individual is...
Post a Comment