Every summer is a horrifying experience for millions of people. During the monsoon, we are flooded. Crops, cattle and human beings are washed away. No remedy is sought for this as our scientific community has more profound tasks before it. Weaponising is more crucial. Have we set our priorities in order, asks Vandana Shukla
Back to the future

WHAT are the needs of a good society, and that of a modern, scientific society? Are these the same? An impression has been created to make them appear the same. Should we then expect science and the scientists to provide answers for all our social problems, or shall we come face-to-face with the reality that the growth of science has created wider chasms in the society?

The paradox is created by the very nature of our scientific progress. It has created two parallel streams — more armaments, more peace talks; more medicines, new diseases; more affluence, more poverty; more longevity, more young deaths; better meteorological predictions, more natural devastations; more science, more ignorance. Is it a co-incidence or cause and effect?

Today, the most dominating images the world over are that of science and violence. Science and violence are politicised and commercialised to maintain power and hegemony, just as in the past religion and socialism had been used. The position enjoyed by the cardinals and the acharyas in the corridors of power has been taken over by high-profile nuclear scientists.

Though, being a colony, we had tasted a bit of technology — the Indian Railways, roads, post and telegraph— we were largely victimised due to the technological advancement of the West that resulted in exploitation of our resources. Thus, it was natural for the first government of a free India to propagate the development of a scientific temper. We had seen Europe reaping commercial fruits of the scientific temper translated into high technology. We also had before us the example of the erstwhile USSR where socialism and technology had been combined to create a "miracle".

But, our very Indian version of ‘scientific temper’ failed to innoculate us against our natural disposition of politicising everything and making it fall under a compulsive caste-system that runs deep in our social ethos. Our "temples of modern India" — dams, research labs, agricultural advancement, atomic programmes — have all been politicised for petty and myopic gains. These fruits of science are leading us towards a colossal unrest — whether it is river water distribution, (Tamil Nadu — Karnataka) distribution of power, (Punjab — Haryana) excessive exploitation of land and its resources (gas pipeline in Assam), setting up of industry and power projects or even location of dams (Narmada). Every benefit, gained through the advancement of technology, has divided us further. The concept of democracy has hardly found a space in our social set-up, can it do so in the realm of science?

Things have come to such a pass because modern science has been made to establish a secure relationship with the philosophy of development. Hence, it has not been questioned. Moreover, development is a word which is most abused by politicians of all developing countries. As a result, we have two types of development-technologies running parallel to each after. One, the grand, truly developmental, IIT kind, which is sophisticated and exclusive. It is beyond the reach of the common man which makes him look at it with awe because of its glamourous creations like super-computers, satellites, sophisticated missiles and nukes. Two, the more pedestrian type of technology which is used to plug the loopholes in our development process. Hence, together with the so-called modern water supply system, the business of Aquaguards has flourished,too. With our much-hyped use of the atom for power generation, an increasing need for stabilisers, inverters, gensets, UPS etc is felt to fill the gap created by the dichotomy of development.

Apart from the inconvenience that an ordinary citizen faces due to the dual approach to development, huge amounts of money are blocked in these uncalled for gadgets and losses are incurred by the users (commercial as well as domestic) of photo-copiers, refrigerators, industrial and electronic gadgets due to voltage fluctuations. This money is unnecessarily blocked and thus remains unproductive. But we continue to bear these gaps in technology in the name of development.

Thus, an ordinary middle class man is triple blessed. He pays his tax to support this high science, he spends on gadgets to enjoy the fruits of development, and then, he pays more to make these gadgets work. Even in a developed country like the USA, keeping the limited water resources and the expected growth of population in mind, the capacity of flushing systems was reduced officially from 11 litres to 7 litres. But, we do not feel any need to bother over petty technical hassles. Each and every summer is a horrifying experience for millions of people. During the monsoon, we are flooded and crops, cattle and human beings are washed away. No remedy is sought for this as our scientific community has more profound tasks before it. Weaponising is more crucial. Have we set our priorities in the right order?

This disorder in our scientific temper has thrown us into a vicious circle. We cannot get back to the state of non-technology — the natural way of life — nor can we have access to sophisticated technology enjoyed by the developed world. This is because our huge population would raise consumption levels to such an extent that it would suck away global resources. Hence, scientific growth of this nature will be only for a few. It will, therefore, continue to be secretive, centralised and would continue to extend support to a dwindling political system for its own survival.

Can there be a way out? A middle way that can make life a little smoother, a little less horrifying and complaining, where tax paying can be justified in simple, honest terms; so that floods can be less devastating, drains less choked, summers bearable? Or that one can drink water outside one’s home without the fear of contamination, that washing machines are not used for want of water, or we may not be told to choose between washing machines and water? Can the nation save its energies for pursuits better than these?

Where have we gone wrong? Instead of beginning with the basics of technological development, improvising at the first rung of development, i.e. infrastructure, we have been trying to climb to the top rung. We have started from the top-end. It is reflective of our feudal approach where the contribution at the top gets recognised and the work at the bottom remains perpetually unnoticed. Every-thing in the system supports this attitude. So, there is severe dearth of funds for an ordinary science lab of a government school but macho labs have no dearth of funds.

Ashish Nandy says that the "theatrical projects" of high science are not open to public scrutiny — their accounts are never audited. The government of our poor country can afford to be ditched by IIT graduates, MDs and MSs on whom lakhs are spent year after year, but, it is presumed that a village lad cannot contribute anything towards great concepts of science and technology. Hence, investment in this sector is barred. Should scientific temper grow at the base or should it be paraded, moving its magic wand at the top? The mirror at the top is not reflecting the ground reality.

The middle class aspirations have also favoured growth of high science in our country. The ugliness of politics has pushed the urban elite to expect the elusive economic miracle through science. This is more evident in a middle class setting where mothers feed almonds to the IIT-aspirant son whereas the "artwalla" receives the treatment meted out to a poor country-cousin! This attitude has commercial expectations lurking behind it. In a similar manner, politicians seek sanctity under the garb of science. Whatever is done under the name of science and development, receives social sanction.

No system of knowledge should be allowed to become a new source of oppression as once it acquires power or the capacity to bestow power, it develops within it a structure that is exploitative. This has been experienced under the Brahminical order. Today, we may declare with pride "the one million-strong Indian estate of science, the world’s third largest mass of scientific manpower" but we must also not forget the fate of our technological mentor of the past — the erstwhile USSR. There the high nuclear growth incurred such high expenditure that it left the masses poor for decades to come. The scientists were absorbed by other countries in need. No one came to the rescue of the masses.

No one would disagree that we have come a long way in the last five decades. At the same time, a few basic questions have remained unanswered.

If nuclear science remains the role model for our scientific growth, things are not going to change for the better as far as the common man is concerned. The survival of sophisticated technology needs production of more gadgets for a few, thereby concentrating the power of consumption to a few. So, if a lane has five air-conditioned houses, the rest will be forced to use hand fans and enjoy candle-light dinners or spend more on gen-sets. Few houses with powerful motors would suck more water and make the others learn to live under glorified austerity. Advancement in medicine would provide longevity to a few, while others would die of new diseases.

In the coming years, we will be enlightened on more and more names of viruses. With better and faster transport network, we should expect more accidents because the obsolete traffic systems and the pot-holes suck in all the funds meant for maintenance. There will be more filth around us, forcing us to spend more on advanced kinds of mosquito repellents, floor and toilet cleaners and, perhaps, air-cleaners. More advanced technologies will be required to purify water. There will be more sons, few daughters. With the much-hyped advanced telecommunication system, multiple TV channels would provide more choices between bad and worse.

One would like to assess the miraculous advancement of the past in terms of technological contribution. Under the much-hyped Green Revolution of the 60s, the traditional seed selection got replaced by ‘miracle seeds’. Thus, the self-renewability of crops got replaced by uniformity seeds — a costly input to be purchased — thereby trapping many farmers in debt traps. The White Revolution of the 70s offered advanced dairying, but has taken away milk from the common man. Of course, now we can produce export quality chocolates and cheese! The power generation of the 80s, industrial growth and weather-warning systems have not reduced the fury of devastation for us.The nuclear achievement of 90s has left people tired of this jargon.

We, the marginalised, ordinary citizens have less and less voice in the "expert" decisions taken by smart brains which shape and affect our lives. Nobody is outside the domain of social responsibility. Science and scientist must carve out a philosophy for their role in the Indian society. Or, people will continue to swallow doses of the theory of Karma to digest the fruits of scientific temper, the dichotomy of development.