|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The case for local systems
Economic Studies of Indigenous and Traditional Knowledge
In the post-colonial years, especially in the earlier phase, the pendulum swung to the other extreme in quite a few cases, it becoming fashionable to dismiss and decry all people-preserved systems of knowledge. In the era of globalisation, which began not long ago, traditional knowledge has been caught up in highly controversial issues of intellectual property rights (IPRs) et al. It is the last, topical list of issues, presumably, that have prompted serious economic research on traditional knowledge, such as reflected in the volume under review. Nirmal Sengupta, editor of this compilation, makes clear right in his introduction that it represents the outlook of neither the “orthodox nationalism including religious fanaticism” nor the intelligentsia of the immediate post-Independence period that “tended to reject everything traditional”. As he and other contributors argue, traditional knowledge has come to acquire an important place in developmental strategies, and not only in India, for two major reasons. In the first place, it facilitates development through people-friendly schemes, ones in which the beneficiaries can participate in an informed manner without remaining bemused spectators. Secondly, far from being backward and outdated, schemes based on traditional knowledge often serve better the objective of sustainability, one of modern and environment-conscious adoption. A particular merit of the volume in fact, lies in the painstaking research reflected in the papers that point to practical ways in which local communities can be helped to improve considerably upon the systems and practices they have inherited. Where traditional knowledge is given its due and not treated with utterly thoughtless disdain, the objectives of developmental projects begin to look far less difficult to achieve. Sengupta and others cite several examples. Housing for all, for example may appear utopian if cement, steel etc. are considered building materials. Rural health care may sound like no more than rhetoric if indigenous health systems are to play no role in India. Education can only remain a pipedream for the poor if what is erroneously labelled “public education” is taken as the only practicable model. If this conforms to the common Indian experience, the importance of traditional knowledge has also earned international recognition. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), signed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992, envisaged measures for the use and protection of traditional knowledge, related to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. By 2006, 188 member-states (with the notable exception of the USA) had ratified the convention and agreed to be bound by its provisions. The signatories undertook to “respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and promote their wider application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilisation of such knowledge, innovations and practices”. The bureaucrats and politicians, returning home from international conferences that produce such conventions, may be content to go back to their old ways of planning without the people. With a vital stake in centralisation of development schemes they might evince little interest in democratisation and decentralisation of the development process. They may talk of an “India shining” even while being entirely in the dark about the many ways in which the masses can better their own lives. They may pay lip service to the aam aadmi even while pursuing a totally elitist path of development in areas ranging from education to energy. All this, however, has not stopped some significant advance in the utilisation of the inherited popular resources of the people of the kind that this volume deals with in rich and instructive detail. Among the many interesting examples are the improvements suggested in the jhum cultivation of the humid tropics of the North-East in a paper by P.S. Ramakrishnan that combines expertise with involvement of years. After showing how much we can learn from the traditional farming practice designed to preserve soil nutrition on a difficult terrain, the paper recommends steps such as addition of native legumes and also non-legume nitrogen fixers as part of the multi-crop system. It is heartening to learn that some of this suggestions are already being acted upon.The same, however, cannot be said of other areas of traditional knowledge. Sengupta provides a major illustration in his paper on neglected sources of irrigation. He notes that most of the heavier post-Independence investments in irrigation have been made in “canals, tubewells and wells, the three favourite sources... (for) the concerned departments”. What he calls “user-friendly” irrigation sources are relegated to the background in official schemes and statistics under the head of “tanks and other sources”. In a fascinating study of marine fisheries in Colachel, off Nagercoil in Tamil Nadu, K.T. Thomson throws considerable light on the intimate and indispensable links between traditional knowledge and production as well as distribution in this important area of economic activity along much of the eastern coast. While the meticulously gathered information in this regard warrants much hope for the region, some misgivings may be raised the description of the church-centred community structure that is also essential to collective fishing activity. One might wonder whether and how long this structure can survive in an age of rapid globalisation. The biggest post-globalisation issue relating to traditional knowledge has, of course, come in the form of IPRs. We are familiar with the cases of neem, turmeric and basmati where India had to put up successful legal fights to prevent foreign patenting of India's traditional knowledge. In these instances, India had to incur expenditure of millions of dollars to produce literature in order to prove the existence of indigenous knowledge. There have been other cases, however, where innovation or research and development were needed to successfully claim our IPR over practices and products of traditional knowledge. Aparna Bhagirathy, in a comprehensive paper on the issue, concludes: “This (equitable sharing of the benefits of such knowledge) involves designing IPR incentives to encourage investment in innovation to develop an application based on traditional knowledge”. She adds: “For this not only does the application developer have to add to joint profits, the firms developing it should also be able to cover their costs of innovation and holders of traditional knowledge earn a share for their contributions in facilitating the innovation in the first place.” The third requirement, obviously, will be the hardest to meet in a system and a society where the people come last. One of the most controversial issues about traditional knowledge is investigated in a refreshingly original essay by Madhulika Banerjee on the marketing of ayurvedic medicine. Starting as a case study of pharmaceutical giant Dabur, the study proceeds to raise a profound question about the metamorphosis of traditional knowledge through marketing. Citing television commercials seeking to sell ayurveda as “modern” and “scientific”, she wonders whether this search for legitimacy suggests “a deeper submission”.
|
Neem