Lokavidya Jan Andolan (LJA)लोकविद्या जन आन्दोलन

Lokavidya Jan Andolan Prashikshan Shivir, Darbhanga, 17-18 Dec. 2011

2012-02-12T11:31:00.005+05:30

This shivir for the Mithila region was held in village Chanaur of Manigachhi block of Darbhanga. It was attended by about 50 activists coming from the districts of Madhubani, Samastipur and Darbhanga.
Some photographs.

Participants at the Darbhanga Shivir

Vijay Kumar speaking

Sunil Sahasrabudhey speaking

Posted from Vidya Ashram.

Some photos from lokavidya bazar campaign in the Indore region

2012-02-06T12:11:00.003+05:30

Lokavidya Bazar Abhiyan ka rikshaw , Indore

Gyan Panchayat hut in a village in Indore

A Bazar Modo Meeting, Indore

Lokavidya Jan Andolan : Events Dec. 2011, Jan.-March 2012

2012-01-31T11:59:00.006+05:30

This is to briefly report on the happenings since the November Conference and also the events planned in February and March 2012.

On 10-11 Dec. 2011, a Lokavidya Shivir for Youth was organized at Baidhan in Singrauli, Madhya Pradesh. It was organized by Awdhesh Dwiwedi and Sunil and Chitra Sahasrabudhey from Varanasi participated in it.
On 17-18 Dec. 2011, a Lokavidya Jan Andolan Shivir for activists in Mithila (Madhubani, Darbhanga, Samastipur) was organised at Village Chanaur in Manigachhi block of Darbhanga, Bihar. It was organized by Vijay Kumar. From Varanasi Dilip, Sunil and Chitra participated.
On 19-20 Feb. 2012, a Lokavidya Media Training Workshop and Dialogue is planned at Vidya Ashram, Sarnath, Varanasi.
On 17th March 2012, Vidya Ashram National Meeting at Sewagram Ashram, Wardha.
On 18th March 2012, Lokavidya Jan Andolan Sanyojan Samiti is to meet at Sewagram Ashram, Wardha. Organizer- Vidya Ashram- 09838944822 (Chitra)
On 23rd March 2012, a Gyan Panchayat in Bhopal on the topic "लोकविद्या और डा० लोहिया की दृष्टि". Organizer - Awdhesh Dwiwedi- 09425013524.
On 25th March 2012, a Lokavidya Yatra to culminate into a Stop Displacement conference at Pithampura, Indore. Organizer- Sanjeev Kirtane-09926426858
On 31 March-1st April 2012, Mithila Lokavidya Jan Andolan Convention planned in Darbhanga, Bihar. Convener Vijay Kumar- 09431068555

Chitra Sahasrabudhey

More Photos of Participants from LJA Conf.

2011-11-28T16:30:00.004+05:30

Shivprasad, Varanasi

Shivmoorat, Varanasi

Sanjay Kumar, Varanasi

Sunil Yadav, Allahabad

Some more photos

2011-11-28T16:09:00.004+05:30

Neela Hardikar, Muraina

Parmita, Varanasi

Medha, Delhi

Balwant, Ballia

Pankaj, Delhi

More Photos- Participants in LJA Conf.

2011-11-28T15:44:00.004+05:30

Ehsan Ali, Varanasi

Nandlal Singh, Chandauli

Shafiqurrahaman, Varanasi

Radhadevi, Varanasi

Chanda Yadav, Varanasi

Some artists in session on Art and Media

2011-11-26T11:23:00.005+05:30

Swati, Pune, Singing a sant Bahinabai pad in Marathi

Narsing Rao, Chirala, talking about sculpture in the lokavidya world

Manju, Singrauli, Singing a lokageet

Vaidani Sarojini, East Godavari Dist., singing a lokageet in Telugu

Haridev, Samastipur, reciting a poem

Sessions, stalls and meals - LJA Conf.

2011-11-26T10:49:00.003+05:30

Prof. Mohini Mullick (extreme left), chair, session on global people's struggles and lokavidya perspective. Lina Dokuzovic speaking.

Dialogue in the evening

Registration and books stall

Participants having food

Participants having food

Some posters in LJA Conf.

2011-11-26T10:25:00.003+05:30

Sculpture by Narsing Rao, Chirala

Poster from Indore team

Session Moderators in LJA Conf.

2011-11-25T11:55:00.003+05:30

Ajay, Singrauli

Saumya, Gudgaon

Gunjan, Sonbhadra

Ravi Shekhar, Lucknow

Ekta, Lucknow, with Chitraji

Speakers from the regions- some more photos

2011-11-25T11:09:00.003+05:30

Poornima, Delhi

Niroop Reddy, Hyderabad

Ashwini Pankaj, Ranchi

Jai Sen, Delhi

Ravindra Pathak, Gaya

Speakers from different regions in LJA - Photos

2011-11-25T10:52:00.003+05:30

Abhijit, Hyderabad

Narayan Rao, Hyderabad

Avinash, Delhi

Lina, Vienna

Parth Sarathi , Kolkata

Reporting and Dialoguing Further

2011-11-24T08:30:00.003+05:30

After the Lokavidya Jan Andolan Conference ( 12-14 Nov. 2011), so far we have posted on this blog a brief report of the same and a set of photographs. More photographs will be posted as we proceed. We have all the photographs here at Vidya Ashram and our handling capacity is limited therefore the delays and lack of order in the presentation. It can easily happen that what should have been posted earlier appears only later.

A longer report is in the making. However what is felt important here is the need to critically review what happened in Varanasi in the name of LJA Conference. Your comments are invited. Please find time to post your comments on this blog, they may be short and they can be longer. If there is any difficulty in posting, please send the write up to us, we will post it.

Also please find time to send us in writing what you said in the Conference. Those of you who were not in the Conference , may send too what they would have said here, had they been present. We intend to put such material together to prepare an out put which may be useful for work in future.

Suggestions are invited too for future work shaping the Lokavidya Jan Andolan. You may indicate how you propose to associate with and contribute to the LJA.

Just say what you want to say. Let this blog truly become an open forum for LJA.

Sunil Sahasrabudhey

Uttar Pradesh Farmer Leaders in LJA

2011-11-23T12:06:00.004+05:30

Deevanchand Chaudhary, BKU U.P. President

Babulal Manav, BKU Leader from Ghazipur

Ghanshyam Varma, BKU U.P. General Secretary

Laxman Prasad, BKU Varanasi Dist. President

Dilip Kumar 'Dili', BKU Varanasi Div. General Secretary

Farmer Leaders in LJA

2011-11-23T11:30:00.004+05:30

National Leaders

Leaders on the stage in the session on movements

Rakesh Tikait, BKU National Spokesperson

Ajmer Singh Lakhowal, BKU Punjab President

Rajpal Sharma, BKU National General Secretary

Vijay Jawandhia, Farmer Leader from Maharashtra

LJA Photos- Participants

2011-11-23T10:46:00.002+05:30

LJA participants

LJA Conf. - More Photos

2011-11-22T12:12:00.003+05:30

Lokavidya and different aspects of life

J.K. Suresh, Bangluru - Lokavidya in the World of Knowledge

Sanjeev Kirtane, Indore - Lokavidya Bazar

Madhulika, Delhi - Lokavidya and Health Care

Premlata, Varanasi - Lokavidya and Women's Movement

Dilip, Deoghar - Lokavidya and the Role of Institutions

LJA Conf.- Some more photos

2011-11-22T11:46:00.003+05:30

Lokavidyadhar Samaj- discussing unity and movement

Girish, Nagpur - LJA in Continuation with Poorna Swaraj of the Independence Movement

Awdhesh, Singrauli- Lokavidya and Displacement

Ajay, Vaishali - Lokavidya and People's Movements

Vijay Kumar, Madhubani - Lokavidya and Rural Mobilization

Mohan Rao, Chirala - Lokavidya and artisan communities

LJA Conference , Some Photos

2011-11-22T10:15:00.004+05:30

Friends,
We are posting some photographs of the LJA Conference here. More will follow.

Dilip, Varanasi - welcoming the participants

Chitra, Varanasi - Introducing the Conference

Surendran, Pune - Political Philosophy of Lokavidya

Sunil, Varanasi - Political Philosophy of Lokavidya

Krishnarajulu, Hyderabad- Lokavidya
Livlihood Right

Report-Lokavidya Jan Andolan Conference Nov. 2011

2011-11-18T22:20:00.002+05:30

A Report on

The First International Conference of Lokavidya Jan Andolan (LJA)

held at Vidya Ashram, Sarnath, Varanasi

between 12 and 14 Nov, 2011

Vidya Ashram campus was full of participants during 12-14 November 2011, when the first conference of Lokavidya Jan Andolan was held there. About 300 persons attended the conference, each session witnessing a participation of over 150. The participation seemed to indicate that the idea has started striking resonance with those in struggles of the Lokavidyadhar Samaj (the bearers of lokavidya, namely, peasants, artisans, women, adivasis, small retailers and others). Social activists, leaders of farmers’ movement, farmers, artisans, artists, intellectuals, students and many others related to actual struggles and willing to think about social change from a lokavidya perspective had gathered to deliberate on the idea of a knowledge movement of those who have not gone to University.

Participants came from parts of Bihar, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and Europe. Specifically, they came from Madhubani, Darbhanga, Vaishali, Gaya, Ranchi, Deoghar, Hazaribagh, Kolkata, Vijayawada, Chirala, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Pune, Wardha, Nagpur, Indore, Dhar, Moraina, Rewa, Singrauli, Delhi, Amritsar, Aligadh, Muzaffarnagar, Lucknow, Sultanpur, Basti, Faizabad, Allahabad, Jaunpur, Gorakhpur, Ballia, Azamgadh, Chandauli, Ghazipur, Sonbhadra, Mirzapur, Varanasi and Vienna.

Debates were around three major themes : Lokavidya Perspective, Struggles and Organization of Lokavidyadhar Samaj and Media (including art, language and philosophy). Specially discussed were the ideas of dignity and prestige of lokavidya, displacement from land, habitat and work, jobs to everybody on the basis of lokavidya, control and availability of national and natural resources, a law ensuring a fundamental right to livelihood based on lokavidya, the possibility of a lokavidya-media and LJA in continuity with the movement for Poorna Swaraj (comprehensive self-rule) during India’s freedom struggle.

Over 50 persons talked about their views, doubts, struggles in which they were engaged, organizational forms they were exploring and constructive activities they were engaged in. It may be specially mentioned that farmers’ leaders, namely those from the Bharatiya Kisan Union, explicitly expressed their solidarity with the Lokavidya Jan Andolan. Vidya Ashram told the assembly briefly about how the ideas and practice related to lokavidya have taken shape for over two decades now and how the systemic changes that characterize the present transition to the information society have created the conditions and the opportunity for a knowledge movement by the people, namely Lokavidya Jan Andolan. Through a session on the world-wide movements, it was discussed how the lokavidya perspective connects globally. Apart from the sessions through the day, a sizable number gathered each evening for a critical review of the proceedings during the sessions. In the session on Media-Art-Language-Philosophy a consensual resolution was passed for the release of Jiten Marandi, a popular loka-kalakar of Jharkhand, active in widespread campaigns for the liberation of adivasis from the present exploitative and life snatching traps. [Jiten Marandi has been falsely convicted and sentenced to be hanged by a Giridih Court].

There were intense debates on the theoretical and practical location of LJA and how possibly the dialogues emerging in the struggle sites can gel with the critical perspectives to measure up to the challenge. Struggles in the different regions, struggles of different sections of the lokavidyadhar samaj explicitly informed by the ideas of lokavidya and an assertion by the people that they know, are generally seen as the location of shaping the LJA. Participation with the idea of lokavidya in the mass movements of farmers and adivasis was also seen as a major location for LJA. There was general agreement that the task of shaping the LJA was of a new type and required fresh and new imagination to develop new forms and locations.

Following decisions were taken by the conference through a consensus.

Ø An Organizing Committee for the LJA was formed from among the persons present. At present it has 22 members coming from different regions and sections of society. This is expected to be expanded further. Vidya Ashram shall function as the secretariat for one year, when it will be revisited.

Ø An Advisory Council was formed. It has 11 members at present.

Ø The following events are planned.

1. Lucknow - A workshop on the Idea of Lokavidya, January, 2012.

2. Darbhanga - A Lokavidya Conference, March, 2012.

3. Vijaywada - A Lokavidya Conference, May, 2012.

4. Singrauli - A Lokavidya Conference on 9^th August, 2012.

5. Wardha - A Lokavidya event, October, 2012.

6. Indore - A 3-day event on Lokavidya Bazar, December, 2012.

Overall the conference built a mood to stake the lokavidya claim in the public domain, in all walks of life.

Prepared by Sunil, Surendran and Krishnarajulu

LJA Conference Program

2011-11-09T20:03:00.002+05:30

Program of the First International Conference of the LJA

12-14 November, 2011

Vidya Ashram, Sarnath, Varanasi

This meeting is a step towards staking a claim on behalf of lokavidya and the lokavidyadhar samaj for equality in the world of knowledge.

Program

Day One: November 12, 2011

The following propositions and issues will be discussed:

1. The construction of a new world requires restoring the prestige of lokavidya

2. The lokavidyadhar samaj (peasants, fisherfolk, indigenous people, artisans, small retailers and women) is the victim of displacement. A fundamental transformation of society requires their coming together.

3. Lokavidya Jan Andolan is the contemporary phase of the movement for poorna swaraj (complete independence) which started with India’s freedom struggle.

4. A law ensuring a right to livelihood based on lokavidya must be passed.

5. Every adult in the country must be given a job that makes use of what she or he knows to do (lokavidya). Compensation for these jobs should not be less than the minimum wage in government jobs.

Day Two: November 13, 2011

There will be a discussion on aspects of struggle, organizing and the way ahead for the lokavidyadhar samaj.

1. Organizers from various parts of the country will speak about struggle and organizing in their area.

2. Comprehensive discussions will take place on the peasant movement from the lokavidya standpoint

3. Possibilities for a knowledge movement of artisanal communities

4. The Lokavidya Women’s Movement

5. Lokavidya Youth Movement

Day Three: November 14, 2011

Art, philosophy, language and media will be explored from the lokvidya standpoint. Activists and thinkers from various parts of the country will debate and discuss how developments occurring in art, media etc. can strengthen the LJA.

On all three days, evenings are kept for discussions among various communities as well as for critical dialog with academics and other university-educated people.

On the 13^th and the 14^th the All-India Coordination Committee of the Peasant Movement will hold its meetings.

लोकविद्या और कला, भाषा व मीडिया

2011-10-14T14:10:00.005+05:30

१२-१४ नवम्बर २०११ को वाराणसी में होने जा रहे लोकविद्या जन आन्दोलन के तीसरे दिन यानि १४ नवम्बर को लोकविद्या और कला, भाषा और मीडिया के बीच संबंधों पर चर्चा होगी। इस चर्चा के लिए कुछ विचार यहाँ प्रस्तुत है।

लोकविद्या की हर तरफ सराहना हो रही है। संगीत के क्षेत्र में, लोकसंगीत को समाज में इज्ज़त है। समारोह और सम्मेलनों में लोग इसे खूब पसंद करते हैं। सिनेमा संगीत में इसकी लोकप्रियता का जवाब नहीं है। नौशाद, सचिनदेव बर्मन, ओ पी नैयर ने तो लोकसंगीत के बल पर लोकप्रियता के झंडें गाड दिए। नए संगीतकारों में रहमान, भारद्वाज आदि भी पीछे नहीं हैं। गीत और बोल के मामले में तो गीतकारों ने लोकगीत ही उठा लिए हैं। लोकगायकी का लोहा कौन नहीं मानता? ठुमरी, होरी, चैती, कहरवा, निर्गुण, सभी ने शास्त्रीय संगीत में अपनी खास जगह बना ली है। नाटकों में भी लोककथा, लोकवाद्य, लोकजीवन को इज्ज़त का स्थान है। हबीब तनवीर को कौन नहीं जानता? कविता, कहानी, उपन्यास और पटकथाओं में लोकभाषाओं का प्रचुर इस्तेमाल हो रहा हैं और लोग इनके दम-ख़म और अभिव्यक्ति की समृद्धि के कायल हैं। फणीश्वरनाथ रेनू ने हिंदी साहित्य में जो रास्ता खोला वह आज बहुत चौड़ा हो चुका है और उस पर चलने वाले साहित्यकारों की एक बड़ी संख्या है, वे लोकप्रिय भी हैं। शिल्प की दुनिया में लोककला का सानी नहीं है। फैशन की दुनिया में लोककला को ऊंचा मान है। कपडे की बुनाई, रंगाई, छपाई, कसीदाकारी, फर्नीचर के डिज़ाइन, घरों की बनावट और सजावट, स्वाथ्य रक्षा सब में लोककला की बड़ी इज्ज़त है। यही नहीं विश्वविद्यालयों के ज्यादातर विभागों में आज जो शोध हो रहे हैं उनका आधार लोकविद्या के भंडार को खंगालने और जानकारियों को संग्रहित करने से सम्बंधित हैं।

इतना सब होने के बावजूद लोकविद्या को ज्ञान का दर्जा देने और लोकाविद्याधर को ज्ञानी मानने से सभी हिचकते हैं। यह हिचकिचाहट इसलिए है कि ज्ञान के क्षेत्र में केवल साइंस यानि मोटे तौर पर विश्वविद्यालय में पढाये जाने वाले ज्ञान को ही ज्ञान माना जाता रहा है। दूसरी बात यह है कि ज्यादातर लोगों में लोकविद्या के प्रति उत्सुकता है लेकिन लोकाविद्याधर समाज की बदहाली के प्रति वे उदासीन हैं।

सूचना युग ने एक बदलाव लाया है। इस युग ने बढ़ते व्यवसायीकरण के चलते ज्ञान को मुनाफा कमाने की वस्तु में तब्दील कर दिया है। इसका सबसे बड़ा नतीजा यह हुआ है कि लोकविद्या, यानि लोगों की विद्या, समाज में पैदा और समृद्ध होने वाले ज्ञान की लूट शुरू हो गयी है। किसानों, आदिवासियों, कारीगरों, महिलाओं के पास की लोकभाषा, लोककला, लोकसंगीत, लोकगीत, कृषि, वान्यिकी, जल-प्रबंधन, कारीगरी, स्वास्थ्य, आदि अनेक क्षेत्रों की जानकारियों को संग्रहित करने की होड़ मची है। मीडिया के नए रूप ने इस लूट को नए आयाम दिए है। संचार और संपर्क यानि मीडिया आज ज्ञान के प्रबंधन में एक अग्रणी स्थान पर है।

इस प्रक्रिया से बुनियादी सवाल खड़े हो गए हैं। जैसे- इन अशिक्षित लोगों के पास जो जानकारियां हैं क्या उन्हें ज्ञान का दर्जा दिया जाना चाहिए? क्या इन्हें इनके ज्ञान के सिद्धांत की समझ है? क्या लोकविद्या साईंस के समान है या भिन्न है? क्या इस ज्ञान में तर्क और मूल्यों का प्रकार भिन्न है? क्या लोकविद्या में कला, भाषा व संचार की भिन्न अवधारणायें हैं? अगर ज्ञान मनुष्य की शक्ति है तो लोकविद्या लोकविद्याधर समाज की ताकत कैसे बने? आदि।

लोकविद्या जन आन्दोलन इन और इन जैसे सारे सवालों को बहस का मुद्दा बनाता है और लोकविद्या के श्रेष्ठ ज्ञान होने का दावा पेश करता है। आन्दोलन की यह मान्यता है कि सभी ज्ञान लोकविद्या में जन्म लेते हैं और लौटकर लोकविद्या में आते हैं। जो ज्ञान धाराएं वापस लौटकर लोकविद्या में नहीं आतीं वे समयांतर में मनुष्य, समाज और प्रकृति की दुश्मन हो जाती हैं।

अभी तक कला के क्षेत्रों ने, सिनेमा, नाट्य, संगीत, चित्रकला, साहित्य, शिल्प आदि सभी क्षेत्रों ने लोकविद्या से बहुत कुछ लिया है। क्या लोकविद्या को वापस लौटाने की किन्हीं जिम्मेदारियों, प्रक्रियाओं और तरीकों पर विचार होना ज़रूरी नहीं है? क्या लोकविद्या के निर्माणकर्ताओं के प्रति शासन, कला संस्थाओं और कलाकारों की कोई ज़िम्मेदारी बनती है? क्या लोकविद्या की लूट को रोकने और लोकाविद्याधरों की तिरस्कृत ज़िन्दगी को खुशहाली की ओर ले जाने के रास्तों को बनाने में इन सभी को अपनी भूमिका तय करने की ज़रुरत नहीं है? और क्या इन जिम्मेदारियों और भूमिकाओं को सजग करने और मूर्त रूप देने में नए मीडिया की एक अग्रणी भूमिका नहीं होनी चाहिए?

भाषा, कला और मीडिया पर चर्चा एक साथ होनी चाहिए। इनके बीच के सक्रिय सम्बन्ध और इनमें ज्ञान के रूप की साईंस से भिन्नता के चलते ये क्षेत्र लोकविद्या जन आन्दोलन को गति देने में विशेष भूमिका निभा सकते हैं।

विद्या आश्रम

Jan Lokpal Bill and Lokavidhyadhar Samaj - Lalit Kaul

2011-08-30T14:15:00.001+05:30

The root cause for birth of corruption in activities related to social, political, religious, and economic affairs of a human society is dishonest intent. Consequently the impact of such dishonest maneuvers in managing, family affairs, societal affairs, and that of the whole Nation varies in the quantum of harm it does within its specified boundaries.

To experiment while trying to plan and implement certain programs perceived to do good for the populace that is under consideration cannot be denied to any head of a family, sarpanch/panchayat of a village, and/or the elected government of a Nation. The failure of such an experiment too does not deserve any kind of ridicule for the thought process that initiated it and the effort/resources that were expended to make a success of it, but to stick on to a failed experiment is tantamount to pursuing certain interests that are at once at variance with, and/or in contrast to, its avowed aim – the good of the people. The failed experiments do benefit a section of people who are a part of planning and implementing agencies because of very huge (incomprehensible for a commoner on the street) quantum of financial investments in activities under the experiments. The intent to carry on endlessly with the experiment because of vested interests is Dishonest Intent and amassing of wealth at the cost of perceived beneficiaries is only its by-product- defined as corruption. An honest intent would scrap the experiment.

Organic Link:

The Indian caste system is perhaps as old as its civilizations have been. Each caste has had its own samaj visibly and inherently different from the others. The singular and most momentous contribution of post independence Indian governments is creation of a new samaj – the anglicized Indian samaj - visibly and inherently different from the Lok Vidyadhar Samaj. Yet, like the old times, there exists an organic link between these two and because of which the dynamics of anglicized samaj adversely affect those of the Lok Vidyadhar Samaj.

The Failed Experiment and the Dishonest Intent:

Before embarking on the development process based on Five Year Plans, the first Prime Minister of India requested Professor P C Mahalnobis to work on the alternative plans for socio-economic development of the people of India. Professor P C Mahalnobis, accordingly, submitted two plans, 1) capital intensive and 2) engaging crores of unemployed hands in productive activities. The then Prime Minister chose the former. An experiment based on the collective perception of those at the helm of the affairs then cannot be a matter of ridicule today.

However, the fact that this experiment had not yielded expected results and in fact had continued to inflict more and more miseries on the ever growing section of the populace, was ignored subsequently, is tantamount to dishonest intent that completely inhibited initiation of another experiment as proposed by Professor P C Mahalnobis the inspiration for which remained the Gandhian perspective of the Indian samaj.

Corruption on the Rise:

The big money temptations bred and nurtured the nexus between the politicians of the day, the big business, and the bureaucracy that also led to vast increase in the strengths of police forces and creation of ever growing paramilitary forces to inhibit/suppress any kind of protest, organized in any possible way, from the sea of humanity that perennially found itself exploited and left out of the process of growth and economic development.

In fact the annoyance at raising the issue of corruption was expressed by Pandit Nehru who did not like Sri Feroz Gandhi, the then Congress M.P., raising the Mundhra Deal scandal in the Parliament! Not only the seed of intolerance had been sown against anything that went against the Congress party, the hint that corruption was the last point on agenda for discussion subtly went across the Congress MPs. Smt. Indira Gandhi went many steps further to boldly declare in the Parliament that ‘corruption was a global phenomenon’!

While Bofors scandal opened the flood gates of corruption because it was the first time that the Prime Minister had been accused of accepting commissions, publicly honouring Sri P V Narsimha Rao for his literary contributions at a time when he remained implicated by a lower court and ordered to be imprisoned for 3 years, legitimized corrupt ways and corruption. Both the governments had one common feature and that was innumerable scandals. The flight of capital from this country to safe havens abroad was only a natural corollary.

The proposed Jan Lokpal Bill is essentially an attempt to eradicate, over a period of time, this corruption that essentially addresses this disease of ‘giving and taking bribes’. The reason why it has caught imagination of lakhs of people cutting across social, religious, class, and age barriers is that in addition to losing money by way of giving bribes it defeats all rationality to accept government employees demand of ‘cash for work’- the work he/she is employed to do! How much of it will succeed is not a matter for discussion here.

The Fallout:

A kind of respectability gets accorded to those millions of half-naked, starved, emaciated, and exploited lot when they are perceived as members of a samaj- the Lokavidhyadhar Samaj. This classification may be new, but the membership has lived through more than six decades (excluding the span of British rule because their intentions were honest in that looting India was their primary aim). It is a legitimate child of multifarious dishonest intents of the ruling class. This is a greater question. That the dishonest intent has given birth to a wholly deprived Lokavidhyadhar Samaj is a question that Jan Lokpal Bill fails to address. The fallout of dishonest intent is not that ‘garib aadmi’ is fed up with and/or against giving bribes because it eats in to his coffers, but that it has deprived him of his enterprise and consequently a dignified living based on his productive capabilities (It can be nobody’s case that institutionalization of Lokavidya will ensure a corruption free society, whereas it is bound to improve material quality of life for Lokavidhyadhar samaj).

Imperatives for LJA:

Therefore nothing defines corruption more poignantly than his quality of existence. Looking at it from this angle, the issue of corruption gets transcended to a plane from where giving and taking bribes becomes too mundane to be seized with.

Therefore, the movement for eradication of corruption, in the said context, would necessarily have to address to the extant basic structures of, socio-economic development, electoral politics and the mechanisms in place for elections, the mechanisms for deliverance of justice, socio-religious divide, etc; etc.

Hence, it is required of the Lokavidya Jan Andolan to define ‘dishonest intent’ and its fallout with reference to Lokavidhyadhar Samaj like, its exploitation creating abysmal poverty all across; systematic neglect and suppression of its knowledge base culminating in to production of millions of unskilled labourers forced to migrate to cities from their villages in search of livelihood just to subsist, and the process of dehumanizing concomitant with large scale migrations leading to increase in crime rates requiring more and more police force and judiciary for ‘managing’ law and order.

To articulate that the movement for establishment of honest intent is all about eradication of such systems/mechanisms which encourage and institutionalize dishonesty for personal gains is to ask for prime space for Lokavidhyadhar Samaj in the political, social, economical, and religious dynamics of Indian society.

The struggle for getting that ‘prime space’ is the genuine one against the dishonest intent and its by-product, the corruption.

Lalit Kaul

Some Observations and Some Questions on Lokavidya – A. V. Balasubramanian

2011-08-23T14:31:00.000+05:30

[What follows is an email sent by AVB to Sunil Sahasrabudhey]

As I had explained to you earlier I would be unable to participate in the meeting. However, I have gone through some of the background material and I have the following comments / questions.

1. Other movements and efforts

Over the last twenty five years or so there have been several other movements and efforts which in my opinion are addressing the very same or similar issues in specific domains. For example, LSPSS (Lok Swasthya Parampara Samvardhan Samithi) was formed in 1986 and was very active for about fifteen years and FRLHT (Foundation for Revitalisation of Local Health Traditions) of Darshan Shankar is an offshoot of LSPSS which is building on it. It is engaged with organizing gram vaidyas, getting a status for them, making them interact with classical scholars on Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani. Local health traditions have been put on the map of the planning commission which now has a sub group and a budgetary allocation for it. There are similar efforts of people who are working with metal workers, textiles, weaving, dyeing, design etc.

2. Indian context

In the Indian context Lok Vidya has by and large had a more friendly and symbiotic relationship compared to the west. For example, classical texts of Ayurveda explicitly recognizes the folk traditions or knowledge and a strong similar thinking runs through various other domains of knowledge including – language and grammar, dance and music, jyotish etc. This is a strong understanding that some people have been trying to build on like FRLHT.

3. What is the kind of space that Lok Vidya will occupy in today’s society?

While there may indeed be institutions particularly set up (or existing in the traditional domain) to nurture and support them, it is a fact that the bulk of modern resource and patronage is being cornered by the modern western system. Do we negotiate for spaces within these institutions for Lok Vidya? These kinds of efforts are already on. For example, when the planning commission sets up a sub group on local health traditions and the Ministry of AYUSH makes an allocation for it. Similarly IGNOU (Indira Gandhi National Open University) now has a programme on traditional knowledge and is seized with the fact that knowledge is not what is just created in Universities but there is also a certain “Pre existing knowledge” as the modern term goes and that needs to be recognized. IGNOU has formed a committee to find the ways and means to do this and Darshan and myself are both members of this committee.

In the 1980s during the early days of PPST much of our energy was spent in making a case to show to others (and also to ourselves) that there is tremendous cultural, geographical and civilisational specificity to knowledge that India had and still has these traditions of knowledge, sciences and technologies. Thirty years later today, I think that the present situation is that much of what we argued is readily granted but this is at the level of the sociology of sciences or epistemology of sciences and none of this is reflected in the way in which working scientists or modern institutions operate. Also since the 1980s various members of the PPST group have indeed gathered rich experience and some insights doing some active work in specific domains of science and technology both within and outside modern scientific institutions.

At the ground level, I feel that to practically address a whole range of problems and issues today, be it in the dimension of health or agriculture or housing or architecture it seems unlikely to impossible that all solutions will emerge from a single stream of science or technology either modern or classical, Indian or Lok Vidya. Most of us are making a synthesis with inputs drawn from various aspects of this knowledge for all our requirements such as treatment of diseases. Today this is taking place without any recognition, support or blessings from any formal institutional structure or expert practitioners. It seems to me that there is an urgent need to support these efforts institutionally. Sometime back I had authored an article with the title – Seeing With Two Eyes: How The Patient Is Trying To Integrate Medical Systems And What The Professionals Can Do To Help which I had published in the Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine. I had circulated it to a few friends including yourself and I am sending you a copy of it once again as attachment file for your ready reference.

SUMMING UP

I am happy to receive your mail and be on the know about various discussions and developments. However, my major questions remains in terms of how and where you are taking note of various of these developments (even if you have critical observations).

I am copying this mail to C. N. Krishnan with whom from time to time I discuss some of these issues and you may feel free to circulate it to others in the group who may be interested.

Best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

A. V. Balasubramanian

CENTRE FOR INDIAN KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS
No.30, Gandhi Mandapam Road
Kotturpuram, Chennai - 600 085, Tamil Nadu
Ph : +91-044-2447 1087 / 5862
E-mail : info@ciks.org / ciksorg@gmail.com
Website : www.ciks.org

On silence and cultural workers - Bojana Piškur

2011-08-21T09:38:00.003+05:30

For some time now we have been facing the new modulations and regulations of work in the field of culture, i.e. the unequal proportions between paid and unpaid work, work and free time, and the increasing fragmentation of the work experience, but also the self-precarization[1], which is happening on all levels of life, and the lack of class consciousness and solidarity among those working in the field of culture[2] / the new proletariat. This lack of solidarity is even more apparent when we look beyond the confines of the sphere of culture[3]; cultural workers rarely act politically when one has to risk one’s reputation or life for a political cause.

The question that comes to mind is: Why class-consciousness? The new proletariat has not achieved any improvement in working conditions since the 1980s, under the illusion that capitalism was developing towards a higher form of labour and production, despite the fact that in some parts of the world immaterial labor has replaced industrial work. Contrary to expectations, the working class has not disappeared; it only expanded to include this new class of “overeducated and underemployed,” which subsequently led to new forms of exploitation in the social fabric. Divisions within the working class have deepened, and the so-called cognitariat has become its most privileged section. What is more, the new hierarchy of struggle has given rise to another conflict which “fail[s] to anticipate the strategic moves by which capitalism can restructure the accumulation process by taking advantage of the inequalities within the global workforce,”[4] leading to friction within the working class, particularity of struggles, and the inability to interconnect.

Can our (cultural workers’) speaking be heard? To whom are we speaking? And what are we speaking about? Is institutional critique the most radical position cultural workers can adopt?

At the same time, however, we should not replace action with speech; as Althusser reminds us, we should ascertain the effects that our speech produces, which means all the effects, both the internal and external. Another question to ask ourselves is what the responsibilities of cultural workers are, especially those of us who are professionally linked to institutions. How can we actually make the transition from merely saying something to having one’s words effecting any real political impact?

Institutions consist not only of collections of art, archives, all manner of objects and other material as well as immaterial sources governed by the structural norms prescribing research, evaluation procedures, educational policies (and consequently their political and ideological dimensions), and displays of objects and documents (in this way constructing certain histories and values). They are also subjects, a work force, human machines with real bodies and emotions that are behind these processes. These subjects consist not only of the immaterial workers, but also of the very people who contribute to the development of both “weightless commodities” and material objects. To formulate this in traditional jargon: while some are enjoying the products of their work, others, within the same work process, feel alienated from the products of their labor.

What is missing in most discourses on this subject today is concrete and radical proposals on how to separate culture from ideology, and an understanding of how the different levels of hegemony, exploitation and power relations manifest themselves in culture. The problem is primarily how to identify these issues in a way that would allow the multiple struggles in one field (i.e., culture) to connect with the struggles in other parts of the social factory. Or, as the students of the UC Santa Cruz put it in their manifesto: a free university in an unfree world is worthless; it can hardly exist. That is why cultural workers must address, in addition to the particular issues concerning their status, also the broader social issues surrounding the revolution of the everyday.[5]

Another topic about which a great deal has been written lately is the new institutions[6]: what they should and could be and where their alliances lie. Art institutions, for example, have been reconsidering their constituent practices and possible associations between movements and institutions, reexamining their role in society, and promoting openness, transversality, critique, fluidity etc. What raises some doubt, however, is the fact that in so doing they have not only effortlessly adopted certain Deleuzian terminology but also obfuscated, particularly in the form of institutional critique, the potential for political transformation in the field of culture. There have been attempts in the sphere of arts to create a form of social configuration that extends beyond existing social forms, such as the many participatory-multicultural projects proposing different social relations and new communities but, at the same time, unable to extend to the “real” work environment of the place where the projects took place. However, such temporary solidarities, identifications between minorities, marginalized and other groups – “[the] projections of politics as other and outside [only] detract from a politics of here and now”[7]. Do we then believe that the new institutions could eventually become a field of “politics of experimentation”?

Such obfuscations as those described above enable capital to mobilize our unconscious potentials (ideas, creativity, affects etc.) and neutralize the “politics of potential” within the field of culture. What we need, here and now, is a new vocabulary for the constitution of political subjects with both social and political responsibilities: subjects that would not simply constitute an apolitical, narcissistic elite producing critical theory only to justify their disregard of the need for radical change in the social fabric, always waiting for some kind of authority to grant them “the power and the truth of experience”; but subjects that would be able to recognize the hegemony and power and to question the political status quo in the institutions, as well as to employ a kind of “strategic essentialism”[8] for common social action. We often hear about dissident subjectivities, about counter behaviors and the like, but do we really know how to become such dissidents? Political subjectivities that have arisen in recent years (within the alter-globalist movement, for example) are in crisis. This crisis results from drastic transformations in the production process and the (re)composition of the labor force, in the new modulations of work, the increasing criminalization of political subjects and, last but not least, in the speed with which capitalism foresees and forestalls any deviations in the ”molar machine”.

Cultural workers can speak. But in order for our speaking to be heard we should try and disentangle ourselves from the comfortable positions we maintain, from the safe places behind the institutional walls where we hide, from the calculable rationalism that we put on every time we go to our temporary or permanent job, and which is favored by every institution and every system in the world. Perhaps it is more emotion that we require, more enjoyment, which can be achieved only when we direct our creativity, our minds and our bodies - all our potentials - from our work back to our everyday life. And perhaps the bodies that resist, the dissident subjectivities and the protesting unconsciousness are to be found in those not so far away landscapes, where “everything we've been sold as facts, all of our bewildered times”[9], the social alienation and the loss of solidarity, is cleared for a different truth about our times in history that is not yet.

This is a modified version of the longer text Can we, the cultural workers, speak? which was written together with the Workers’ Inquiry Group from Madrid.

Bojana Piškur is a member of Radical Education Collective (http://radical.temp.si) and a curator at the Museum of Modern Art, Ljubljana, Slovenia.

[1] See: Isabell Lorey, 2006, Governmentality and Self-Precarization: On the normalization of cultural producers, http://transform.eipcp.net/transversal/1106/lorey/en#redir; (accessed on November 1, 2010)

[2] Cultural workers are usually considered those who are involved in “cultural production”. We would like to expand this notion to the whole field of culture, therefore including all the workers in cultural institutions, such as service workers, staff workers, technicians, security etc.

[3] What we mean here is the lack of solidarity between cultural workers and other “workers in struggle”.

[4] George Caffentzis / Silvia Federici, 2007, Notes on edu-factory and Cognitive Capitalism, http://eipcp.net/transversal/0809/caffentzisfederici/en

[5] Thanks to Tjaša Pureber for pointing out this to me.

[6] For best compilation of such texts see http://www.eipcp.net/transversal

[7] Hal Foster, The Artist as Etnographer, in The return of the real, MIT Press, 1996, p. 175?

[8] See Gayatri Spivak. The concept refers to using the group identity as a basis of struggle to achieve certain goals.

[9] Jasna Koteska, 2006, Against the pre-Archival Mentality, http://jasnakoteska.blogspot.com/2008/06/5622-2006-314.html

Lokavidya and Science

2011-08-14T20:47:00.003+05:30

When speaking of lokavidya, and science too, it would be less confusing if we can distinguish between two levels on which we speak.

One is the empirical level of description. By lokavidya, we refer to knowledge that is spread out in societies, communities and individuals. It may be knowledge of food, farming, health, child rearing, artisanship, mobile phones, steel, art, music and so on. Science also refers empirically to the various sciences. At this level there is a great variety among different kinds of knowledge within lokavidya as well as within science. Seen in this manner, lokavidya as well as science can be seen constituted by a myriad of knowledge traditions. As knowledge, they are all knowledge, even if with different ontologies, values, methods, etc. What is distinctive of lokavidya is that it is carried upon the stream of ordinary life.

In describing the matter in this way, we are already employing a particular perspective on knowledge. Lokavidya is also this perspective (presented here as I see it). This is the second level of talk about lokavidya. ‘Science’ (as a perspective on knowledge) described the situation in completely different way. According to this scientific perspective, society is the hotbed of superstitions, imaginative narratives, and some knowledge acquired through trial and error. In this perspective, the emancipation of humankind lies in slowly replacing all this pseudo-knowledge in society with proper scientific knowledge. It is this perspective, which has shaped the institution that is science and the place of science in society. One important feature of this perspective is that it does not recognize itself as a perspective. The way knowledge is produced in science is considered simply to be the most natural (and rational) way of pursuing knowledge, once we are ‘enlightened’ and free of all superstitions.

Lokavidya perspective is a contemporary perspective on knowledge and politics. It sees in society an abundance of knowledge. All societies are knowledge societies in some way. When this knowledge is denied, all initiative is sucked out of society, as it perhaps happened in more developed societies where any autonomous knowledge activity is seen as disruptive. In lokavidya perspective, there are no impermeable boundaries in knowledge. Knowledge travels both ways. In the ‘knowledge society’ that is being shaped today in the information age, knowledge travels from fields, farms, homes and workshops to the global network as well as from the labs, networks, etc. to ordinary life. The latter is termed piracy. In the WEB 2.0, social networking that is happening is structured to function on the basis of the knowledge of the people who are contributing. It is building structures to tap knowledge from the people. Science is part of this structure and contemporary scientists are worried that the knowledge they produce is taken away from the domain of the society and put into the hands of the profit-seeking and violence-spawning behemoths.

Science is two-faced, just as the Internet. Noble and the ignoble mix here. Roots of this entrenched ambiguity in matters of knowledge lie at least in part in the scientific perspective which evolved in 19^th and 20^th centuries. Even utopian thinkers of the Internet, ‘free knowledge’ advocates, are unable to extricate themselves from this conundrum.

Lokavidya standpoint on knowledge proposes equality in the sphere of knowledge as the basis for the making of an egalitarian society. This equality is posed in terms of locations of knowledge. Prima facie, knowledge at various locations in society, like university, religion, ordinary life, ethnic groups, political and social formations are equal. There cannot be a fiat that knowledge gained in this way or organized in that way only is knowledge. This equality goes beyond the relativism/absolutism debate. To someone schooled in the 20^th century philosophies of knowledge, the assertions of lokavidya may seem strangely positivist and plural at the same time.

An important set of questions need to be about how such a standpoint on knowledge (or some other) can translate into a political project by connecting to the struggles of those people who were excluded from the ‘developments’ of the 20^th century and are now again on the verge of being sucked into the global economies of exploitation and violence at massively unequal terms. Can staking a claim for lokavidya provide energy and direction for such struggles?

Avinash Jha

Librarian, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi &

Research Scholar, Centre for Exact Humanities, IIIT, Hyderabad.

The Shudra of the Modern World and the Lokavidya

2011-08-10T22:15:00.003+05:30

The protagonists and the apologists of the modern science and technology in our country have had very unique habitual indulgence- very tall claims of their own contributions in the realm of science and technology. They love to believe in their claims because it gives them sustenance notwithstanding the naked TRUTH that stares at their face that there has not been any contribution by them worth the name in the world of science and technology that puts India on its map. Nothing brings out this point more succinctly than the stark fact that India, as a modern state, continues to import technology through the process of either collaborations, one time purchase or business agreement. The situation is so pathetic that from design & manufacture of as simple a thing as sewing needle to ink pens, fan blades to any electronic gadget, power plant equipments, any state of the art machinery to the sophisticated medical equipments, etc., etc., nothing, just nothing has a stamp of Indian genius on it. This community has had only tall claims to make to bewilder an outsider to such an extent that these self styled scientists and technologists are held in awe by everyone and anyone.

The Grand failure:

The National Science & Technology Policy Document, 1975, among other things laid emphasis on Self-reliance and Self-sufficiency in scientific and technological pursuits. This document was brought out under the leadership of late Prime Minister, Smt. Indira Priyadrshani (Nehru) Gandhi. Prior to this document were the Five Year Plans that laid the foundations for the pursuit of modern science and technology in our country.

These were not just hollow words, but the intentions were made quite visible by the kind & quantum of spending the respective central governments took upon to help establish premier scientific laboratories, institutions, and infrastructure for pursuing science and technology development. This was done on the basis of the plans submitted by the ‘leading scientific minds’ of every generation and era ostensibly to fulfill the aims & objectives set forth in the aforesaid mentioned Policy Document and the Five Year Plans.

The resulting outcome was 1) buying of large chunks of real estate at prime locations in premier cities of India that definitely caused displacement of traditionally productive populace & on retrospect, a complete and total halt to any kind of productive activity, 2) building of huge laboratories equipped with the then state of the art equipments and duly air conditioned wherever required, 3) residential accommodations for the ‘brilliant’ minds who were to put India on the world map of Science & Technology, and 4) clubs and recreation avenues, parks, hospital facilities for health care, schools for emerging thinkers ,markets and what all you have!!

The enterprise stopped with large/medium scale recruitment of supporting staff and the scientists, technologists, etc. The biggest question that remained to be answered was- what to do with the established infrastructure and man-power? This question still remains un-answered, even though huge investments continue to be made in ‘indigenous’ ‘research & development’ activities.

Unable to relate themselves with the requirements of the Indian state, the manufacturing sector, the health services, the energy requirements for the near and distant future, etc., the natural outcome was a decent, quiet, and deep burial of the ‘self-reliant’ part of the National Science & Technology Policy.

Now onwards the catch word was to be ‘self-sufficiency’ and this meant never ending ‘assimilation’ of collaborated technologies and the so called R&D centre, big, medium, and small sized manufacturing units were to only absorb the manufacturing processes and churn out products that were bound to lose quality and market competitiveness and become stale –over the years- because of technological obsolescence. The classic examples are the Ambassador & Premier Padmini cars. The bankruptcy of Indian entrepreneur was overwhelmingly highlighted when LML Vespa (a two wheeler) was marketed with side indicators. Until then this feature of a two wheeler was incomprehensible to the native ‘entrepreneur’.

The affordable units went in for new collaborations whereas the lesser ones ended winding up their enterprise.

While all this happened before the era of ‘Globalization & Liberalization’ the engineering & scientific elite in the ‘premier’ institutions- christened as ‘… of Science & Technology’ or ‘Engineering’ remained as mute spectators to the whole scenario and never ever any worthwhile effort was made at a purposeful collaboration between Indian enterprise & institutions to tackle the issue of non-up-gradation of technology (manufacturing processes) by collective application of minds.

The Era of Globalization and Liberalization:

This era witnessed over flooding of Indian markets with technologically innovated products. Indian scientific and engineering community had long lost the race and that tantamount to colossal betrayal of the National aspirations enumerated by the then political leadership in the National Science & Technology Policy Document, 1975.

During the intervening one and a half decade the character of political leadership had also undergone a kind of metamorphosis in that it had no continuity with the leadership of the yore. The collaboration between the politicians of the day, the self proclaimed entrepreneurs and academicians was so innate and expedient that all the pretensions of product oriented research and development were divorced and the Indian markets were thrown open to multinationals. The Indian scientist, engineer, and technologist by virtue of their deeds over the decades in post independent India found themselves confined to the dustbin of history with no role to play in the modern ways of economic development except to implement the design of their masters for whatever their labour was priced at. The indenture labour was resurrected, in a seemingly dignified way though.

However, the ‘Temples of Modern India’ that lay in ruins had to be continued with for the reason that, it generated cheap manpower for the multinationals and their Indian caricatures to tap; its employees constituted a dominant and respectable section in the middle class; and the younger generations continued to aspire to join them as post training they would gain respectability from the society they belonged to. Therefore the character of these institutions underwent a wholesome change in that instead of project related technical reviews material budget reviews occupied the center stage because the governments of the day decreed that a basic minimum amount had to be spent on research and development activities. This led to expansions in terms of infrastructure; induction of more man-power, etc., etc,. The question “To What Use?” lost relevance as winning the race for spending the allocated funds was the new born aim and it got directly related to tax rebates. This vicious cycle of spending public money and misleading the very public is going on without inhibitions- no questions asked; none answered. The undocumented colossal waste of public money is going on unquestioned.

The major and most significant contribution of the era of Globalization and Liberalization lies in the classification of modern societies in to two castes: the Shudra and the Brahmin; the Brahmin personifying the Knowledge and Shudra the multitude of hands to perpetuate the dominance of Brahminical world view. The Brahmin originates from Europe & US while the Shudra is our own scientist, engineer and technologist.

The Lokavidya:

Quite contrary to the pampering of ‘emerging’ scientists, engineers and technologists of modern India by the governments of the day over the last 67 years, the native Brahmins (the owners of the knowledge of traditional science and technology) were all through treated as Shudra (ignorant, unknowledgeable and deep steeped in ‘superstitions’) deserving of contempt and ever usable as available commodity in the service of the new emerging class. What is strikingly remarkable, though, is that the designated Shudra (owners of Lokavidya) has managed to retain his productivity with the help of his Lokavidya against all odds and ever hostile conditions whereas the pampered ones languished in unproductiveness only to be relegated to a Shudra in the modern world.

Herein lays the difference between the two in that the owner of Lokavidya has survived all the onslaughts since the year 1757; has shown the capability to fight (within his means) injustice and oppression meted out to him; and is now trying to regroup to fight the predator in the garb of economic reforms that is threatening to deprive him of all his possessions; whereas the modern Shudra remained a rootless entity unable to identify with the modern ways, devoid of any spirit of ownership and therefore ever ready to capitulate for his survival. While the owner of Lokavidya draws his strength from his capability for independent enterprise, the modern Shudra is ever dependent on his Brahmin for survival.

Whereas, the designated Shudra has a valid claim over knowledge production, the modern Shudra can afford no such claim because the process of economic reforms has thoroughly exposed him. Lokavidya has roots in the soil of this land, whereas the modern Shudra’s knowledge system has roots in the alien lands; that is the reason why Lokavidya is here to stay.

Lalit K Kaul

The pirate parties in Europe and struggle over intellectual property regime - Marko Ulvila

2011-08-09T15:39:00.001+05:30

Recently an electoral political movement has emerged in Europe challenging specifically the century long trend of tightening intellectual property regime. This 'pirate' movement has its roots in youth culture where sharing of digital content over the Internet is considered a natural right that the entertainment industry tries illegitimately to curtail though copyright laws and litigations. At present the pirate parties have got representatives in the European Parliament and local councils of five countries in the continental Europe where proportional electoral system make it fairly easy for new parties to enter the arena.

The movement has taken its identity and name 'pirates' from a famous Swedish Internet web site the Pirate Bay that facilitates peer-to-peer sharing of digital content using bit torrent protocol. The group that runs the popular web site and operators that host the service have been taken several times to court by multinational entertainment industry for copyright violations. The court cases have became media events and the fact that the site is up and running despite several rulings against it have made the organisers almost mythical heros.

Against this background of popular struggle with the copyright regime in Sweden, the first Pirate Party was established there in 2006. Its aim was to reform laws regarding copyright and patents so that their realm in society would be limited in individual freedoms enhanced. The agenda also included support for a strengthening of the right to privacy and the transparency of state administration

In the national parliamentary elections in 2006 the Swedish Pierate Party got 0,63 % of the popular vote with no representation. However, the movement started growing fast. Joining the party was made easy over the Internet and membership has grown fast the traditional parties so that today it has third largest membership.

The Swedish Pirate Party got a surprising electoral success in the 2009 European Parliament elections when it got 7 % of the vote and 2 representatives. This can be explained by addressing a real political issue and creative mobilisation over the Internet. Also the fact that most Swedes disprove the European Union and tend to vote in the European Parliament elections outside traditional party loyalties is a factor.

The electoral success in Sweden in 2009 has inspired groups in most European countries to set up similar parties or movement groups under the same pirate title. In the past years the pirate parties have win seats in local councils in Gemarny, Spain, Switzerland and Czech Republic.

The pirate party movement has chosen to limit its agenda to a narrow set of issues important in the information society. Also it has chosen not to take a clear position on the traditional left-right continuum.

In my mind the narrow agenda of the pirate parties will limit their impact, since copyright and patent regimes can hardly be democratised unless there is overall societal democratisation. Just as the creation of the current exploitative intellectual property regime has been an initiative of the powerful elites, a just regime can be established only through democratic change in power relations.

Historically, making knowledge a realm of private property through copyright and patent legislation has been an important element of the capitalist world system. The Berne copyright convention from 1886 and Paris patent convention from 1883 were essential instruments in consolidating European power internationally. The infamous Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement from 1994 is the latest big leap in creating enclosures in the knowledge commons by the powerful.

Altering this trend requires noting short of revolution where the power of the capital would be replaced by the power of the people (democracy). The articulation of the private parties about the injustices in the intellectual property regime and new control technologies is very useful in understanding the challenges created by the digitalised technology. However, it is not enough to deal with the problems specific to the information era and leave aside the standing problems of the feudal and industrial eras that has origins in the same sources.

Marko Ulvila

The author is writer and democracy activist based in Tampere, Finland and an active member in the Green Party

More information about the pirate movement

The Swedish Pirate Party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party_%28Sweden%29

Pirate Parties International http://pp-international.net/

PRIVILEGE, POLITICS AND LOKVIDYA - P.R.K. Rao

2011-08-05T11:42:00.002+05:30

As one who has spent a major part of his life in the production and dissemination of knowledge classified as higher education I can enter the current debate on LOKVIDYA only through the detour of raising the question of what, if any, can be considered to accord privilege to one knowledge system over the others.

Any knowledge system on pragmatic, if not on epistemological or ontological, grounds, may be considered to be nothing more than an ever revisable series of space-time marked judgments occasioned by the dialectical encounters between our ‘imperfect’ intellect and’ imperfect’ senses. Our intellect is necessarily ‘imperfect’ because only a transcendental intellect, being necessarily self-sufficient, can never make a wrong judgment. Our senses are ’imperfect’ because ‘pure’ senses never make judgments and there is no figure to be seen without an implicitly postulated background.

All knowledge systems, to varying degrees of effectiveness, transform our understanding of ourselves and our relation with the world of which we are inescapably a part at least as long as we last. Suppose, counterfactually, the transformation afforded by a particular knowledge system is so thorough going that some amongst us can no longer recognize their former selves, the world they left behind and the rest of us who are not so transformed. In other words, by virtue of the knowledge they produced, they have totally forgotten their past. To us who have not forgotten their and our past, their current cognitive dispositions and material practices must appear ‘strange’ however ‘desirably’ or ‘undesirably’ effective those dispositions and practices may be in matters pertaining to them or us or the world at large. And equally to them our cognitive dispositions and material practices must appear ‘strange’. This situation may appear somewhat similar to the familiar anthropological problem of one culture encountering another. However it is different. In our situation, there is no spatial or time shift involved before the encounter. This counterfactual account of two knowledge systems encountering each other may help us to see that stagnant tradition is the eternal refusal to forget the past at all costs and modernity is the incessant anxiety to forget all of one’s past. And therein lies the' false' binary between (stagnant) tradition and (neurotic) modernity. The two faces of this abstracted coin of strangeness constitute two forms of life. There is no epistemic way of privileging of one form of life relative to the other. For all extant forms of life are conjointly real and the ontological power of the real always already excludes the claim of epistemic privilege. But strangeness makes communication(derived from the Latin word,’ Communicationem’ – to share, not merely the legitimacy of our judgments/knowledge but whole host of other things without sharing which one cannot share such legitimacy)between different forms of life difficult and rules out the practice of politics. The failure of our contemporary communitarian or liberal or post-enlightenment politics, even without the counterfactual premise of total 'forgetting' , already points to the complexity, if not the irrelevance, of any attempt to resolve the issue of according privilege to one knowledge system over the others. Colonization, globalization, hegemony, apartheid, exploitation and appropriation of resources, displacement, resistance, revolution, anarchy and violence are some of the manifestations of total ‘forgetting’. To say this is not to suggest that in the absence of ‘forgetting’ history will necessarily unfold differently.

Fortunately or unfortunately, for us, as historical beings, ‘forgetting’ is never total. It is unfortunate because as Hannah Arendt had noticed we are unable to forget what we cannot forgive and we are unable to forgive what we cannot forget. It is fortunate because ‘memory’ helps us in ‘recognizing’ what we cognized in our accustomed ways without losing our imaginative capacity to‘re-cognize’ everything in the world including ourselves in as yet unknown ways. If this ubiquitous tension between recognition and novel cognition is the marker which separates the past from the future it is also the inaugural moment of the political. For politics is the unceasing recognition of the necessity of owning up responsibility for decisive action which, even as it is informed of the human condition that cannot erase its past, is open to a future which is not yet made. A responsibility that has to be owned up prior to any knowing of the determinate content of putative knowledge claims or even of the possibly differing principles of organization underlying the various systems of knowledge production. A decisiveness that has the competence to straddle the salience of the past with the uncertain promise of the future in ways which can induce trust amongst those who are going to be effected by that decisiveness for better or for worse. An action which is based on the firm belief that solidarity and autonomy are not mutually exclusive and indeed realizing the former can facilitate securing the latter.

It seems to me that the enthusiasm for privileging LOKVIDYA over other systems of knowledge is as much an expression of the frustration with the specific form of the oppressive power exercised by the knowledge system of modern science and technology as it is due to the unwarranted belief that LOKVIDYA is innocent of coercive power because it is knowledge produced by 'people'. As if other systems of knowledge are not produced by 'people'. That enthusiasm, even more consequentially, seems to assume that LOKVIDYA has the generic capacity to equip people for political action in the sense elaborated above. I also suspect that according privilege to LOKVIDYA may be traced to the somewhat well deserved mistrust of ‘intellectuals’ indicted by W.H.Auden thus:

To the man-in-the street, Who, I’m sorry to say Is a keen observer of life The word intellectual suggests right away A man who’s untrue to his wife.

Sadly, we have partitioned integrity, into private and public domains. Be it as it may, as regards their apathy in respect of the recognition of necessity of owning up responsibility for political action and their indifference to forging solidarity both the ‘intellectual’ and the man-in-the street are on par. Perhaps, in the intellectual’s case, they are further aggravated by the excusable theoretical reflection captured in Pascal’s succinct pronouncement: ‘I have discovered that all human evil comes from this, man’s being unable to sit still in a room’. But the fact remains that existing institutions in contemporary societies do little to cultivate in the man-in -the -street and in the intellectual the capacity for political action. No wonder, Adorno lamented: ‘For millennia, man remained what he was for Aristotle: a living animal with the additional capacity for political existence; modern man is an animal whose politics places his existence as a living being in question’.

Prof. P. R. K. Rao

International Institute of Information Technology (IIIT), Hyderabad

2011-08-02T17:01:00.005+05:30

Farmers' Movement and LJA

One of the most important movements of the lokavidyadhar samaaj that LJA seeks continuity with is the farmers' movement. Not only is it the largest non-violent non-political movement in the most recent past, its genesis was in forging of a unity not imaginable within then existing modes of thought. The lasting nature of this unity is evident, if not in continuation of joint struggles on those scales, then in the continuing perception of identity of interests of all the farmers. Moreover, this perception is today shared by others both within and outside the lokavidyadhar samaaj. However, this unity can once again blossom only as part of a larger unity of lokavidyadhar samaaj.

The last quarter of the twentieth century was when the farmers' movement in the country arose, spread, peaked and then scattered into segments. Large states spanning the entire length and breadth of the country were engulfed by the movement. The country witnessed huge, determined gatherings of farmers in far-flung areas and state and the national capitals alike, putting forth clear demands. Issues raised ranged over agricultural prices, movement of agricultural produce, farm loans, farm subsidies, policies of import and export of farm produce, and land acquisition from farmers. While the movement started in the so-called green revolution areas, in its later stages it was actually the so-called backward regions which kept it alive. Organizations of farmers in different states differed in their emphases on issues raised and the debate on these never stopped. Yet a national coordination committee of these organizations functioned as a strong and effective body for a fairly long time and directed organization of major agitations.

The most important contribution of farmers' movement was its assertion that the reasons for rural poverty are external to the rural society. The exploitative mechanisms do not lie within villages but spring from official state policy. This policy sustained and deepened the Bharat-India divide. This understanding of genesis of poverty stood in direct opposition to the received wisdom of the time, which saw poverty as the result of anything from disparate land holdings to laziness and ignorance of the farmer. It is common wisdom today largely due to the farmers' movement. Moreover, it was clarity on this that made it possible for separate movements led by leaders with widely different personalities and outlooks to forge loose but strong alliance in the form of a national coordination committee.

The ideological expression of this understanding was the declaration that poverty is artificial, and the active principle, that the farmer is capable of taking care of himself once freed from the clutches of the demon of state policy. By this the movement rejected lock, stock and barrel all theories which put the blame for poverty on forces within rural society. It also declared the farmer as knowledgeable, the community of farmers as capable of organizing their life and society without any external aid. The practical expression of the understanding was the declaration of non-political creed. By this the movement resisted all tactics and machinations springing forth from these theories of poverty, recognising them for what they were - attempts at division of rural society and disruption of its unity in struggle.

Globalization proved to be the nemesis of the large unity forged by farmers movement. It created pathways of greater opportunities for those in more commercialised forms of agriculture, for those relatively nearer loan, finance and political structures. It also allowed the state leading the globalizing economy to pretend that it is the saviour of the farmer. The more backward regions knew better and farmers movement remained strong in these areas for relatively longer time. The unity forged by farmers movement came under fire. Today, after a period of sporadic and separate struggles the movement is again picking up. Two of the important issues are the question of dry-land agriculture and forced land acquisitions.

Even during the peak of farmers' movement there was no doubt that both in terms of ideological position and intensity of mobilization the question of dry-land agriculture was central to the movement. The dry-land farmer is the farthest removed from benefits of government programmes and subsidies. Most subsidies relate to fertilizers, seeds, insecticides and electricity. These are designed to increase marketable surpluses of food grain and industrial raw material and make no sense for non-irrigated agriculture. With the march of globalization and liberalization and the flight of popular politics from the concerns of responsibility toward rural poverty, it is now impossible to find even isolated measures, which can be claimed to have provided crucial timely helping hand to the dry-land farmer. That is to say that in a system, which is exploitative for all farmers, the dry-land farmer bears the greatest burden. On the other hand, it is precisely this farmer, who has sustained agriculture in face of all odds. It is he who devises novel strategies each season, each month and each day in order to face a new calamity and to continue to feed others. It is his lokavidya that makes this possible. A gyan panchayat held in Nagpur last year formulated this position by resolving to demand that the government must take steps to recognise the dry-land farmer the first researcher and to re-establish him as the engine of agricultural research. Recently the Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, one of the two leading agricultural universities in Maharashtra was put under the public scanner for having failed to come up with agricultural strategies, which could have prevented the spate of suicides by Vidarbha farmers. Under pressure, the PKV took a small step in the direction of conceding primacy of research by the farmer. It has announced that it will take steps to recognise 'need-based innovations' by farmers on their fields and that it will organize conferences of such researcher farmers. No doubt that is but a small dent in the arrogance of an official entrenched research establishment. No doubt also that there are any number of ways in which this start can, and probably will, be brought to an end. But it is a vindication of the lokavidya of the farmer in the public domain.

The question of land acquisitions has acquired huge dimensions. Restricted earlier to vicinity of large cities, today the epidemic has spread to widely scattered areas. Witness the displacement of farmers for bout a hundred thermal power plants planned for Vidarbha. Here the farmers losing their land are engaged in struggle for better compensation and other farmers of the region fear loss of water meant for irrigation. Land acquisition is disruptive of all that belongs to the affected, those who are displaced from their land as well as those others in the region who escape this fate. It affects farmers in ways essentially the same as those experienced by other lokavidyadhar communities. Even the most lucrative of compensations must make the farmer feel like the master stage actor who is asked to leave his stage and audiences and go and perform on the Moon because it is so beautiful. In one of the many novel protests that acts of acquisition of land of farmers for power projects has generated, the independent MLA from Amravati District of Vidarbha, Bacchu Kadu threatened jala samaadhi with his supporters.

The demands of dry-land farmers do not amount to segregation within community of farmers. Far from it. Their struggles must be seen from the point of view of forging, and must be taken forward with the aim of consolidating a much larger unity, where all farmers stand together as a large part of the lokavidyadhar samaaj. Nor can protests against land acquisition be seen as attempts to foist unprofitable backward agriculture on farmers. We must remember that no organization of farmers, engaged as it was against state policies which made agriculture non-remunerative, ever consented to large scale land acquisitions even if the price is good enough. Surely, this was because these organizations held that consent to sale of land was at best a distress measure on the part of the farmer. Who can be insensitive enough to think that those who hold in their hearts the courage to perform jala samaadhi do not know life as they can make it and that they can be led astray either by vain ideals of the glorious past or the virtual reality of the present?

Girish Sahasrabudhe

irigleen@gmail.com

ज्ञान आन्दोलन की भारतीय परंपरा

2011-08-02T10:31:00.000+05:30

चित्रा सहस्रबुद्धे
समन्वयक, विद्या आश्रम, वाराणसी

लोकविद्या जन आन्दोलन एक ज्ञान आन्दोलन है। यह सामान्य लोगों के ज्ञानी होने का दावा है। यह उन लोगों के ज्ञान का दावा पेश करता है जो कभी स्कूल-कालेज नहीं गए। यह किसान, कारीगर, आदिवासी, महिलाओं और छोटे-छोटे ठेलों-पटरियों पर सामान बेचने वाले लोगों के ज्ञान का आन्दोलन है। यह एक ऐसा ज्ञान आन्दोलन है जो यह दावा पेश करता है कि आज के युग की समस्याओं का हल आज के प्रतिष्ठित ज्ञान (साइंस और कंप्यूटर आधारित ज्ञान प्रबंधन) में नहीं है, बल्कि इन्हें हल करने का आधार लोगों की अपनी विद्या, लोकविद्या में है। यह कोई नया दावा नहीं है। वास्तव में समाज में ज्ञान आन्दोलन की लम्बी परम्परा रही है। हमारे समाज में लोकहितकारी परिवर्तनों का आधार ज्ञान आंदोलनों में ही रहा है। बुद्ध के समय से और शायद उनके पहले से भी इस परंपरा की निरंतरता को देखा जा सकता है।

बुद्ध का कार्य एक ज्ञान आन्दोलन ही है। ज्ञान आन्दोलन ही ज्ञान को उस युग की जकड़न से मुक्त करता है और एक नया प्रवाह प्रदान करता है। ८वी सदी से १२वी सदी तक भाषाओं के विकास का समय माना गया है। आज बोली और लिखी जाने वाली बहुत सी भारतीय भाषाओं का जन्म और विकास इस दौर में हुआ ऐसा माना जाता है। इसे भाषा आन्दोलन का समय भी कहा जाता रहा है। लेकिन यह तो ज्ञान आन्दोलन ही है। किन्हीं थोड़ी सी भाषाओं और लिपियों में ज्ञान को बांधने का विरोध इतना व्यापक और गहरा हुआ कि अनेक भाषाओं और लिपियों का जन्म और विकास हुआ। सामान्य लोगों की सक्रियता का उफान उठा और अप्रतिम साहित्य व कलाओं की रचना हुई। आगे १२वी से १८वी सदी तक देश के हर कोने में हर जाति और धर्म में संतों ने फिर एक ऐसे दर्शन की अलख जगाई जिसमें मनुष्य के उत्सर्ग व उद्धार के रास्ते में खड़ी की गयी हर बाधा को चुनौती दे दी गयी, लिंग, जाति, धर्म , धन, शोहरत, कर्मकांड, रस्म, सभी को। कबीर, रैदास, मीरा, नानक, तुलसी, चैतन्य और कई अनेक संतों के इस काल को इतिहासकारों ने भक्तिकाल का नाम दिया है। लेकिन यह तो ज्ञान आन्दोलन ही था। इसे भक्ति काल कहकर इसके ज्ञान की ताकत को धूमिल करने की कोशिश की गयी है, ऐसा लगता है। क्योंकि उस काल के प्रतिष्ठित दर्शन की धारा को चुनौती देते हुए देश के हर कोने से सामान्य मनुष्य के ज्ञान-दर्शन की अनेक धाराएँ बहने लगीं। इसे तो ज्ञान आन्दोलन ही कहा जाना चाहिए। पिछली सदी में गाँधी का जीवन, दर्शन और कार्य सामान्य जीवन के ज्ञान को पुनर्प्रतिष्ठित करने का प्रयास रहा है। सत्य, अहिंसा और स्वदेशी के विचारों की जड़ें यहाँ के मनुष्य के सामान्य जीवन में रही हैं। १९६० के दशक का राममनोहर लोहिया का 'अंग्रेजी हटाओ आन्दोलन' भी ज्ञान आन्दोलन की परंपरा में देखा जाना चाहिए। लोहिया ने लोकविद्या शब्द का प्रयोग नहीं किया है किन्तु सामान्य मनुष्य के ज्ञान की प्रतिष्ठा में अंग्रेजी की बाधा की पहचान मौलिक ढंग से की गयी और उसे सामाजिक आन्दोलन का आधार बनाया गया। फिर १९८० के दशक में एक ऐसा किसान आन्दोलन खड़ा हुआ जिसने अपने अराजनैतिकता के विचार के जरिये बड़े पैमाने पर किसान समाज से ही नेतृत्व उभार कर सामने लाया। इस आन्दोलन ने उत्तर प्रदेश में चौधरी महेंद्र सिंह टिकैत के नेतृत्व में इस विचार को प्रेरणा दी कि किसान खुद ज्ञानी और दार्शनिक होता है। इसमें लोकविद्या जन आन्दोलन की शुरुआत मानी जा सकती है।

सूचना का वर्त्तमान युग लोकविद्या जन आन्दोलन की मांग करता है और उसके लिए उर्वर भूमि देता है। इस युग में पूँजी का निर्माण मात्र श्रम के शोषण से नहीं बल्कि बड़े पैमाने पर ज्ञान के शोषण से भी हो रहा है। लोकविद्या के शोषण की नई-नई विधाएं और व्यवस्थाएं आकार ले रही हैं। इसके चलते पूंजीपतियों के मुनाफे में एक बहुत बड़ा उछाल आया है। इस अनाप-शनाप मुनाफे के चलते अपने ही देश में नहीं बल्कि दुनिया के कई देशों में बड़े-बड़े घोटालों और भ्रष्टाचार का पैमाना बढ़ा है। कई लोग वर्तमान दौर को ज्ञान का पूंजीवाद कहते है। यह ज्ञान के पूंजीवाद का दबदबा ही है कि एकतरफ ज्ञान को बांधने के नए-नए तरीके अपनाये जा रहे हैं, जैसे पेटेंट कि व्यवस्था, कम्पूटर में दस्तावेजीकरण और ज्ञान का संग्रहण, उच्च शिक्षा को महंगा बनाना, विश्वविद्यालयों को चहारदीवारी में रखना आदि और दूसरी तरफ ज्ञान के उत्खनन का काम जोरों से जारी रखना जिसके अंतर्गत किसानों, कारीगरों, आदिवासियों और महिला समाज से बड़े पैमाने पर ज्ञान का खनन हो रहा है। तरह-तरह की नीतियों और कानूनों से आम लोगों के लोकविद्या के इस्तेमाल पर रोक लगायी जा रही है और उनके ज्ञान के खनन में आक्रामक और गैरकानूनी तरीके अपनाये जा रहे हैं। इनके संसाधनों (जल,जंगल, ज़मीन) का छीना जाना, इन्हें बाज़ार में इनके ज्ञान (उत्पादन) का दाम न मिलना और राष्ट्रीय संसाधनों से इन्हें वंचित करना, इनके ज्ञान के शोषण से ही सम्बन्ध रखता है। यह सब एक लोकविद्या संगर्भित ज्ञान आन्दोलन की मांग करता है। ऐसे ज्ञान आन्दोलन का दर्शन, संगठन के प्रकार और संघर्ष के तरीके लोकविद्या यानि लोकस्थ ज्ञान के आधार पर ही विकसित होने हैं।

A Perspective from the European Students' Movement

2011-08-01T07:57:00.001+05:30

By Gigi Roggero
Edu-factory collective and Knowledge Liberation Front

Gigi Roggero is a founding member of the edu-factory collective (www.edu-factory.org) and teaches in the University of Bologna, Italy. He has written extensively on the new students’ and informal workers’ movements in Europe and is an active participant of these movements.

We're living in a revolutionary situation today. We could reformulate its classical definition in the following way: the governors of global capital cannot live as in the past; the workers, the precarious (informal) workers, the students, the productive multitudes don't want to live as in the past. The uprisings and revolts of the last year all around Europe (from Greece to France, from Italy to Spain or UK), as well as in other areas of the world, are happening in this context. And the movements in Tunisia, Egypt and North Africa put again the insurrection and revolution on the political agenda, but in a new way: they are definitely beyond and against the borders of the nation-state.

In fact, the context is the double crisis, that is the crisis of the university and the global economic crisis. Or we could say, the crisis of the global university. This term doesn't mean the emergence of a homogenous or flat world, but the existence of common trends and different forms of translation (as the Bologna Process in Europe). I want to emphasize that to talk of global university and cognitive capitalism doesn't mean to have a Eurocentric point of view, because the traditional dialectic between centre and periphery is definitely over: in India or in UK, in Brazil or US, in Australia or China and South Africa etc., we can see (with different grades of intensity and combination, of course) the whole complex prism of the forms of labor and exploitation, and the new paradigms of the production system. In a stenographic way, I'll point out four of the main trends.

1) The centrality of knowledge in the contemporary forms of labor and production. Talking of knowledge, we have to forget its traditional leftist mythology: in the contemporary capitalism knowledge is a central commodity. In fact, there is no neutrality of knowledge production, it is always a battlefield. But what happens when the knowledge becomes the central source and means of production? Capital cannot manage the social cooperation upstream, and it has to capture it downstream (through intellectual property laws, financialization, etc.). We call living knowledge the new quality of the contemporary living labor. It is the extreme resource and the mortal threat to capital. Since the production is more and more based on the common cooperation, the crisis becomes permanent.

2) The corporatization of the university. It doesn't mean only the entrance of private funds in the public institutions. Let's take the American and Anglo-Saxon models: the definition of corporate universities doesn't depend on their juridical status, they are both public and private, and both funded by State and corporations money. Corporate university means that the university itself has to become a corporation, to work on the calculus of cost-benefit, rationality of budget, to be based on profit-rent, to compete in the global education market. It means a university beyond the dialectic between public and private, State and market, because they are two sides of the same capitalist coin. On the point of view of struggles, this means that we have nothing to defend, but what is at stake is the construction of autonomous and common university. Paraphrasing Marx, the revolution has not to perfect the State machine, but to destroy it.

3) The rise of a new figure of the student. She is no more work-force in apprenticeship, but since she is a producer of knowledge she is immediately a worker, and a precarious (contingent or informal) worker. We could say that there is a continuous overlapping between education market and labor market (let's think of the "lifelong learning" or the accreditation system). Indeed, the issues of precariousness and devaluation (déclassement) are central in the university struggles in the last years. Also, it means that the capitalist progressive promises are crashed: the idea of the university as an elevator for the social mobility is definitely over. The precariousness becomes a permanent element.

4) The financialization of education and welfare. In various countries despite the increasing of the fees, there has been an increasing of enrolments as well: how is it possible, in the face of the general precariousness and impoverishment? The answer is, through the system of debt. In the dismantling of the welfare system, the debt was a way to access the social needs (house, education, healthcare, mobility, ecc.). We can talk of a financialization of the life. But if we think of the origin of the current crisis, the so-called subprime crisis, cuased mainly by a proletarian composition who refused to pay back or could not pay back the debt, we see the fragility of the system. We have to claim for a right to bankruptcy for the students and precarious workers, i.e. we have to take the money and not pay back the debt with banks and financial institutions. This is the new level of the struggle to re-appropriate the social richness that we produce in common.

To conclude: a couple of questions for our struggles. On one hand, the space of the struggles and social transformation is no more national, but it is immediately a transnational space. It is impossible to strive against the Bologna Process (process of privatizing and rationalizing universities across Europe) without a European network of struggles. And if we look at Tunisian or North African insurrections, we see a common composition with the European struggles: young people, higher educated, and unemployed or precarious. This networking process at the transnational level is what the Knowledge Liberation Front or the project edu-factory are trying to do. In this common process we have to experiment in a collective way, how to transform the insurrection in revolution, and the destituent power in constituent power. On the other hand, how to organize the collective autonomy? As I talked before, the common has a double status: it is what we produce, and what the capital captures; it is the potentia of a new social relationship, and what the capital exploits. So the problem is to build up the institutions of the common. They are not happy islands or utopia, but the institutions of the common are the collective organization of our freedom and autonomous cooperation. They have nothing to do with the bureaucracy or the classical idea of institution: on the contrary, they are the destruction of public and private machine of capitalist capture. How to become institution of the common? That is to say: how to organize our knowledge production and lokavidya not in the marginal spaces, but in the institutions of the common, i.e. in the creation of new world and social relationship? I think this could be a central question for our initiative.

The Question of Rationality : The Scientific and Lokavidya Perspectives

2011-07-27T13:00:00.001+05:30

Asoke Chattopadhyay

Professor of Chemistry,

Kalyani University (West Bengal)

My post is partly a reaction to Prof. Sayeed's post, and I shall keep referring to the one following it (viz. Dr. Ritu Priya's). How health and medicines are treated in the two systems ("modern" vis a vis "lokvidya") is quite instructive.

Modern medical system is based on a physico(-chemico)-biological paradigm which relies heavily on the "scientific" discoveries of the last 200-250 years: mainly arising from dissection of human and animal bodies, understanding various systems (circulatory, nervous etc.), tissues and how they function, leading to smaller and smaller units to cells, chromosomes and the nucleic acids. Near about this stage (about 100 years ago), "drug development" meant "making" (i.e. synthesizing/extracting) some compound and just introducing it in the market. That is how many analgesics and other drugs came to be known to us. No one knew of "side effects" or "after effects", and bothered about them. I am not talking of "underdeveloped" countries. I am talking of Great Britain and the USA.

Once antibiotics became known, a lot of lives could be saved. Experiments were still conducted – on prisoners in the USA or in Nazi Germany, on aliens and on poor people of Africa or Asia, usually without their knowledge or consent. That is certainly an advancement of human knowledge base and ultimately for a more dignified life! But limitations of this knowledge base becomes known when we see that the first "designed" analgesic (refecoxib / celecoxib), which led to its discoverer Philip Needleman becoming Senior Vice President of Monsanto (1989), developing unwanted side effects on heart patients – leading to banning of the drug (2004).

The same story pertains to neurological research. A lot of experiments are done with today PET (positron emission tomography) or fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging), which are supposed to tell us which areas of our brain become active during certain activities e.g. when we are speaking English / Chinese, when we are singing, even for thinking of specific images. This is expected to lead to "controlling computers by thought" or maybe to "identify what a person is thinking of" (and nabbing him as a would-be terrorist?).

Much of the data is of the form of correlations. Just because a North American male may have particular thoughts when seeing a particular picture for example does not mean that every human being on the earth would also have the same emotion. Also, just because deep brain stimulation may generate "out of body" feelings in some people may not mean that all such feelings must be generated by the same means. They can also be generated by meditation, or by some drugs (under controlled conditions, of course). Therefore what causes such feelings? Any comments?

I shall come to the point: today's medical science is dependent on a dissective analytical protocol, and is heavily supported by the blind acceptance of some hypothetical physico-chemical mechanism going on at cellular (or sub-cellular) level. The lokvidya way is totally opposite to this. Examples ---

We take tulsi (and basaka) leaves when we have cough and cold, often mixed with honey, ginger etc. If these fail, we take homeopathic or biochemic medicines. In extremely rare cases do we resort to anti-histaminics or antibiotics. Indigenous people in different regions rely on various things like this. For example, people in the upper / middle Himalayas have access to aconite and other herbs.

Even today, there are chiropractors and such people in rural areas who can set bones and fix broken limbs. Many of us have experienced this ourselves. These are documented, and even in the West there are such people who have a career as chiropractors.

If these people are able to cure a single disease without having to study Gray's Anatomy or Guyton's Mecical Physiology, then there must be some truth in their knowledge base. That is what is called lokvidya in our parlance. It is for others to find the "truth" and "logic" in their knowledge.

What happens when modernity "discovers" such wonderful new entities? They immediately dispossess the original owners of such knowledge and start marketing the products under new brands. Hence Ayush and Aloe Vera lotions etc. Unfortunately, the potential buyers of Ayush products know better and make (or get) the stuff themselves, without bothering to pay up market prices.

Those of us who have had University education (or IIT or whatever) think that modern science came out of the West from Copernicus, Galileo, Newton etc. etc. and the European powers "liberated" or "enlightened" poor people of the (erstwhile) third world countries by giving educating them in these thoughts (and certainly with western democracy). We neglect the necromancy of Newton or the astrology of Copernicus because we "believe" that part is extraneous to these personalities. Thus modernity and modern science is culture independent, ideal i.e. of "absolute value". Prof Sayeed's arguments smack of such a viewpoint. Once you accept these ideas in toto, you will talk of rationality of indigenous thoughts, or of logical fallacies in such thoughts. You forget that logic as we know today is a very specific entity whose necessity at a particular time in history was to explain (or justify) the Newtonian-Maxwellian world view (of modern science), and relate the entire mathematical (or at least arithmetic) apparatus with it. Maybe there was a need to justify the then societal structure in terms of "modern" science as well.

There is a growing body of evidence telling us that the people of India actually became poorer and educationally backward during the British Rule. These are new results and may seem startling to people holding the view stated above (that we were the "white man's burden"). But these facts correlate nicely with some older findings at least e.g. of R. C. Dutta regarding transfer of resources from India to England.

What really needs to be done is, as has been stated by others before me, to find links between lokvidyas of various peoples, their current status, their history, their struggles, everything we can know about them. Then we can look for similarities and attempt to forge stronger ties with these peoples. I deliberately use the plural to ensure the stress on plurality, because indigenous peoples in various parts of the world are poorer because of their isolation, and hence suffer from discrimination or tyranny, whether in the capitalist USA or Australia, or in socialist Venezuela or Brazil (or even in China). But facts and documents are what are needed the most right now.

लोक विद्या जन आन्दोलन-सभ्य और असभ्य समाज के बीच का संगर्ष

2011-07-24T18:20:00.001+05:30

ललित के कौल

लोकविद्या लोकविध्याधर समाज की पहचान है . लोक विद्या जनांदोलन केवल लोकविद्या से दूसरे समाजों को परिचित कराने तक सीमित नहीं, बल्कि मानो तो ऐसा करना भी कोई जरूरी नहीं . लोकविद्या आज के ज़माने में संगत है कि नहीं यह बेमतलब की बहस है . क्योंकि इस विद्या से जुडा समाज शोषित है इसलिए यह चिंतन का विषय है . इस शोषित वर्ग की दास्ताँ चिंतन का विषय है क्योंकि आधुनिक भारत की सभ्यता पे यह ऐसा अनमिट गहरा दाग है जिसे अनदेखा नहीं किया जा सकता . हजारों सालों की सभ्यता की दुहाई देने वाला आधुनिक भारत इसे अनदेखा नहीं कर सकता . यह आधुनिक भारत में बसे बसाये कुम्भकरण को जगाने का संगर्ष है . यह कुम्भकरण भी आधुनिक है क्योंकि यह जागते हुए भी देखी अनदेखी कर देता है . जब प्रकट वस्तु , स्तिथि , या फिर वस्तुस्तिथि न दिखे तो संगर्ष ज़ायज है . यह आधुनिक और प्राचीन के बीच का संगर्ष नहीं बल्कि आधुनिक और कल की कल्पना के बीच का संगर्ष है . कल के समाज की कल्पना का संगर्ष है जिसमे महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका लोकविध्याधर समाज की निश्चित है तो जायज है कि उसमे लोक विध्या की अपनी एक गतिविधि रहेगी .

आधुनिक विज्ञान की दुनिया के बारे में समज उसकी परिभाषा और उसके अपनाये गए तौर तरीकों की कसौटी पे लोकविद्या में निहित लोक विज्ञान का दुनियायी नजरिया और उससे जुडे तौर तरीके कितने खरे उतरते हैं यह सवाल स्थिर सोच और बंद नजरिया को दर्शाता है . इसमें एक प्रकार का अहंकार भी है जिसने यह तै कर लिया है कि जीवन से जुडी कोई भी प्रक्रिया जिसपे 'आधुनिक ' का पट्टा लगा हो सिर्फ वही सही है क्योंकि इनके मुताबिक यह केवल विवेक के जागीरदार हैं और इनके दायरे से बाहर की कोई भी जीवन संगत प्रक्रिया अविवेक पे आधारित हैं . इनके नज़रिये का सार यह है कि कोपेर्निकुस से पहले का सारा विश्व अंधकारमय था और हजारों सालों पुराणी अन्य सभ्यतायें विवेकहीनता पे आधारित थी .

‘सत्य की खोज’ में इस आधुनिक विज्ञान का यह मानना है कि जो आंखों को दिखता है जरूरी नहीं कि वह सत्य हो जैसे कि सूर्य का धरती के इर्ध गिर्ध घूमना लेकिन हर प्रकार की स्तिथि के लिए ऐसा मानना सही नहीं है . जैसे कि जब हर तारा सूर्य समेत गोल आकार का दिखता है तो साधारण समझ यही कहती है कि प्रथ्वी चकोर नहीं हो सकती और इसके लिए किसी कोपेर्निकुस का होना ज़रूरी नहीं . जैसे कि भारत में ९० से ९५ करोड़ की जनसँख्या जो गरीबी भुखमारी और नंगेपन से जूज रही है यह आखों को दिखता है और यही सत्य है . इस तथ्य और सत्य को प्रमाणित करने के लिए किसी प्रयोगशाला या फिर किसी गणित विद्वान की जरूरत नहीं .

ऐसे उन्नति और विकास के मार्ग जो दशकों से एक बढती जनसँख्या को निरंतर असक्रिय करते चले आ रहे हैं मूल रूप से सभ्यता सभ्य देश और समाज पर कलंक हैं . इनके मार्गदर्शक कितना भी वैज्ञानिक सोच का वास्ता क्यों न दें लेकिन जिन तरीकों से करोड़ों बेकार और बेरोजगार हो जाएँ वह तो असभ्यता के वाहन चालक ही कहलायेंगे . इस सन्दर्भ में जब देश की उन्नति और विकास की बात होती है तो प्रश्न यह उठता है कि देश की परिभाषा क्या है ? यदि देश को उसके बुगोलिक विस्तार प्राकृतिक सुन्दरता और संसाधनों से परिभाषित करें तो जायज है कि प्रकृति का विकास देश के चालकों के आधीन नहीं क्योंकि वह तो खुद विकसित होती रहेगी यदि कोई स्वयं घोषित वैज्ञानिक सोच से लेस उसका विनाश न करे तो . पर अगर देश की परिभाषा में उसकी जनसँख्या भी शामिल है तो उन्नति और विकास की परिभाषा केवल एक ही हो सकती है: प्रकृति के संसाधनों का इस्तेमाल जनसँख्या के हित में करना. देश की जनसँख्या को विभाजित करके केवल किसी विशेष वर्ग के हित में सोचना अवैज्ञानिक और असभ्य व्यवहार है .

इस घोर अन्याय की पकड़ विकास के दायरे से बहार की जनसँख्या की कभी न बने इसके लिए भेद भाव और अलगाववादी राजनीति का नियोजन करके लोगों को धर्म और जाती के नाम पे भिड़ाना इंसानियत की तौहीन है और एक सभ्य समाज में किसी भी जुर्म से कम नहीं .

भारत की बड्ती आबादी को हर धर्म और जाति के लोगों में बढती हुई गरीबी का कारण बताया गया और यह ऐलान किया गया कि प्राकृतिक और भारतीय संसाधन इस बढती हुई आबादी की उन्नति और विकास के लिए उपलब्ध नहीं . इस विकास के दायरे से बहार के वर्ग का ध्यान कभी उनकी गरीबी के असली कारण पे केन्द्रित न हो इसके लिए एक और बेईमानी की राजनीति का जन्म हुआ : गरीबी की रेखा का नामकरण . सार्वजानिक स्थर पर जातिवाद की आलोचना करने वाले आधुनिक वर्ग ने अब समाज के बटवारे का ऐलान आर्थिक कुशलता और मुफलसी के आधार पे किया . मुफलसी में जी रही बहुत बड़ी जनसँख्या को आधुनिक भारत पे एक भोज करार देकर उन्हें लूट की व्यवस्था में उत्पन हुई धन दौलत में से कुछ टुकड़े फैंकने वाली योजनओं का ऐलान किया गया और इनको निर्मित किया गया. यह और बात है कि बड़ते हुआ भ्रष्टाचार ने इनके टुकडों को भी जनता तक पहुचने न दिया .

करीब दो दशक पहले आधुनिक विज्ञान और उसके तरीकों की परिपूर्ण समझ पे दावा करने वाले आधुनिक भारतीय वर्ग ने यह तय किया कि जब तक भारतीय आर्थिक व्यवस्था विकसित देशों की आर्थिक व्यवस्थओँ के साथ संगठित न होगी तब तक बेरोजगारी और मुफलसी का कोई समाधान संभव नहीं . बहार के देशों के उद्योगपतिओं और पूंजीपतियों के लिए भारत के बाज़ार खोल दिए गए और अपने देश में सब कुछ विदेशी छा गया . संस्कृति तहज़ीब रहन सहन का ढंग रोज्मरा की चीजें यानी कि जीवन के हर दायरे में बाहरी प्रभाव से ऐसा अभूतपूर्व बदलाव आया कि गयी पीड़ी के लोग अपने ही देश में अजनबी से हो गए .यह ऐसे लोग थे जो आधुनिक भारत में पूर्णरूप से अपनी पहचान बना लिए थे . प्रगति के नाम पर भ्रष्टाचार और

भारत में उपलब्ध संसाधनों के लूट की कोई इन्तहा न रही . आधुनिक भारतीय समाज में मध्यवर्तीय वर्ग का पतन हुआ और धन सम्पति और प्राकृतिक संसाधनों के हकदारों की गिनती में और भी कमी नज़र आयी

विस्थापन का दौर ऐसा शुरू हुआ कि उद्योगपतिओं पूंजीपतियों और सरकारी गठबंधन को मानो किसी की भी निजी सम्पति पे पहला और असीम अधिकार हो . किसानों की ज़मीनें आदिवासियों के रोजगार के साधन इनसे छिन गए . रोज्मरा की चीजों में व्यापर करने के पारंपरिक तरीके कहीं खो गए और इनके स्थान बड़े बड़े एक जगह केन्द्रित बाज़ारों ने ली . खाने पीने और रोज्मरा की इस्तमाल की चीजों के धाम बे-इन्तहा बढते गए लेकिन दो और चार पहिये के वाहनों और फ्रिज टी व् आदि जैसी वस्तुओं के धाम या तो घटते गए या फिर कहीं कम धर से बड़े. एक तरफ से व्यवसाय के साधन घटते गए और इनके विपरीत अत्यंत जरूरी चीजों के धाम बढते गए . इन सब शर्मनाक और दर्दनाक गतिविधियों को देश की उन्नति के लिए जरूरी बताया गया . प्रश्न फिर से वही : किसका कोनसा और किनके लिए देश ?

लोकविध्याधर समाज की भूमिका :

यह आज की व्यवस्था जो झूठ धोखा भ्रष्टाचार और प्राकृतिक व मानव संसाधनों के लूट पर निर्धारित है इसे बदलने की योग्यता कौन रखते हैं ? आधुनिक भारतीय समाज का मध्यवर्तीय या और कोई वर्ग तो नहीं क्योंकि यह समकालीन व्यवस्था मे ही अपना भविष्य देखते है .

इस व्यवस्था के खिलाफ यदि बहुसंखित शोषित वर्ग आवाज़ नहीं उठायेगा तो इसे चुनौती कोई न दे पायेगा . यह आवाज़ असभ्यता झूठ और शोषण के विस्थापन और सभ्यता सत्य और मानव विकास के स्थापन के लिए जरूरी है . यह संगर्ष एक ऐसे कल की कल्पना के लिए जरूरी है

जिनकी व्यवस्थओँ में हर एक को न केवल अपने तरीके से ज़िन्दगी जीने का हक नसीब होगा अपने हुनर और विद्या के मुताबिक सामाजिक विकास में योगदान का बे-रोक-टोक अवसर भी प्रधान होगा.
धर्म और जाति के नाम पर अलगाववादी राजनीति कार्यान्वित न होगी बल्कि हर जाति और धर्म के बाशिंदे के हुनर और योग्यता को सार्वजानिक प्रतिष्ठा प्राप्त होगी .
हर क्षेत्र में उपलब्ध प्राकृतिक संसाधनों पे पहला अधिकार वहां की स्थानीय आबादी का होगा और उनके इस्तमाल के तरीके भी वही तय करेंगे .
हर क्षेत्र का विकास वहां के वातावरण प्राकृतिक संसाधनों और इंसानी योग्यताओं के अनुसार होगा और ऐसी संस्थाओं का निर्माण होगा जिनसे पूरी आबादी विकास के कार्यों में सक्रिय हो पायेगी.
‘पुरुष के समान नारी जाति को दर्जा ' इस प्रकार की नारेबाज़िओं से नारियों का अपमान न होगा

बल्कि विकास की योजनाओं को कार्यान्वित करने के लिए उनकी एक कुदरती भूमिका रहेगी क्योंकि केवल मर्द या नारी से जीवन अग्रसर नहीं होता . जीवन की अग्रसरता के लिए दोनों का योगदान कुदरती है और इसके विरुद्ध कोई भी विचार असभ्य है .

नारी जाति का दर्दनाक अपमान जिस्म की सौदागिरी में है . कल के समाज में नारी केवल एक चीज़ की तरह नहीं मानी जाएगी कि जिसका जब जी चाहे खरीद फ़रोक्थ हो .
शारीरिक परिश्रम को उतनी ही मान्यता प्राप्त होगी जितना कि दिमागी काम को.
किसी भी प्रकार का श्रम इज्ज़त का हकदार होगा और कोई भी काम नीचा न समझा जायेगा .
हर एक गाँव कस्बे या क्षेत्र में बसी जनता को स्वयं अपना एक ऐसा प्रितिनिधि चुनने का अवसर मिलेगा जो उनमे से ही एक हो और उनकी रोजमरा की जिंदगी की गतिविध्योँ से झुडा हो. जो उनका मार्गदर्शन करने की योग्यता रखता हो नाकि किसी राजनीतिक दल का बहार से थोपा गया अजनबी.
.........

लोक विद्या जन आन्दोलन असत्य से सत्य और असभ्य से सभ्य तक की परवाज़ है . यह समझने की बात है केवल बहस करने की नहीं .

With Lokavidya Lies the Solution

2011-07-21T08:13:00.001+05:30

Sunil Sahasrabudhey

A great fact about lokavidya is that it is located in society. Take it away from there and it ceases to be lokavidya. Entered into knowledge registers, stored in computers, patented, privatized and reoriented for export or for up market, it turns into a body of information and/or artifacts to be pressed into the advantage of those who are not part of lokavidya world, who do not share the logic, ethics and aesthetics of the world of lokavidya, on the contrary, very often look down upon it as something base, primitive, uncivilized. The fish in water when taken out is either eaten away or is kept in an aquarium. The agaria, the preservers of the world famous ferrous technology of India, are taken away from the hills of Surguja or the forests of Mandla, either to be turned into the cheapest labor on earth or to be housed with their living art as a show piece in the Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya in Bhopal. Nothing does greater damage to lokavidya than documentation.

Foundations of imperialism and colonialism were laid by the mapping of resources across the world, science providing the knowledge basis to make it possible. It destroyed the economics, politics and society of the people the world over. Now the maps of knowledge. Mapping the knowledge with the people is to provide the foundations of the New Empire, this time based on the knowledge basis provided by the science of information, computers and communication. This is to rob people of the last bastion of strength they still command, namely lokavidya. First time as tragedy and second time as farce! Little do they know that this time they have embarked on an enterprise that is doomed to failure.

Lokavidya can not be alienated from the people. There were workers in the city because there were peasants in the country side, there is the adivasi cheap labor on construction sites, because there are adivasi communities in the remote areas. The state and the university, the corporations, politicians and the managers of knowledge are up against a mountain which they do not know how to scale, because they do not understand what is lokavidya. They see it as traditional knowledge, indigenous knowledge, ethnic knowledge or as community practice. Little do they know that the depth and the variety of the genius of lokavidya has kept the world going from day one and shall live as long as the humanity does. The new assault is just about two decades old. And we already have the resistances tuned to derive strength from lokavidya. The farmers movement that had started as a movement to secure price for the farm produce has now moved on to struggles against displacement, to save lands of the farmers and creating new ideas like ‘food sovereignty’. The environment movement has moved on to the question of people’s control over natural resources and is generating new ideas like Rights of Mother Earth and Rights of Nature. The celebration of the demise of the trade union movement was barely over when a student movement started taking shape against the ‘dead knowledge’ of the university and in favor of the ‘living knowledge’ with the people, their autonomous organizations and the practice of self education. Lokavidya is where all knowledge starts and to which all knowledge must return. Universities may come and go, corporations may come and go, the state may rise and fall.

Lokavidya Jan Andolan is the recognition of the fraternity of such struggles across the world. It is to reshape the relations of property, the relations of power and the public discourse, so that people are heard, their initiatives are respected, their knowledge finds a new legitimization to reshape the world. Gandhi is reborn to assure that the struggles for and by lokavidya are indeed the struggles that can deliver the mankind from the traps it is in.

Sunil Sahasrabudhey

Vidya Ashram, Sarnath, Varanasi

LOK VIDYA FROM A PUBLIC HEALTH MOVEMENT PERSPECTIVE - Ritu Priya

2011-07-20T11:58:00.001+05:30

Every society, community, family and individual attempts to understand and grapple with its health problems to minimize them. All attempt to maximize their own health and wellbeing. Historically, expertise in health emerged with persons who keenly observed the experience of health and ill health in their own body and of those around them, whether humans, other animal species or even plants. Birthing processes have been one of the natural phenomena requiring support of others and therefore are one of the commonest sites of skill and knowledge accumulation. Childcare, food and nutrition are other similar areas of knowledge development.

As the expertise grows in one area, and expert knowledge gains credence and trust by evidence of its effectiveness, both the expert and the knowledge become seats of special power and dominance. However, the people, who now become ‘lay people’ in relation to the expert, do retain their own rationality and agency. Besides being socialised into a certain way of life (which includes health related practices) by their family and community, people add to or modify the practices and knowledge they were socialized into as a result of their own experience and their interaction with the expert system(s). Thereby a third body of knowledge and practice arises that is in consonance with their prevailing social, economic, environmental and cultural context. This is Lok Vidya about health. It is passed on across generations, through oral communication and practice, but is not a static entity. Remaining responsive to the changing context and addition or modifications in available and accessible resources for health, Lok Vidya is a dynamic body of knowledge and practice.

Thus, Lok Vidya about health develops from multiple roots. It is pluralistic in its epistemology and practice. Starting with the traditional or conventional practice in the family or community, people add on new practices according to their perceived needs which the conventional system fails to fulfill. These could be through personal experience of ones own body at individual level, as in modifications of diets and daily routines. On the other hand comes new knowledge from sharing of the collective experience and various systems of expert knowledge.

In India, we have textual knowledge and expertise of Allopathy and seven officially recognized other systems--Ayurveda, Yoga & naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa Rigpa and Homeopathy (AYUSH being the official acronym in present use). There is a clear dominance of Allopathy over the AYUSH in official policy of knowledge generation, knowledge transmission and service delivery. However, informal providers abound, both traditional practitioners and modern forms of them-- the dai, the bone-setter, the snake-bite healer, herbalist, the shamans and faith healers, the 'bengali daktar' or Rural Medical Practitioner (RMP). Then there are the traditional home remedies and self-care using modern medication. Finally, there is the din charya and rtu charya, that are designed and adopted for promotion of health and wellbeing, prevention of disease at collective and individual levels. All these practices have an explanatory knowledge base. So there arises the question--Where is the boundary of Lok Vidya?

Social stratification based on caste, class and gender leads to a wide variation in the nature and context across social and economic sections in any society. While the conventional roots differ because of historical disparities, a body of common knowledge that is similar across the sections is also evident. For instance, the medicinal value of certain plants is found to be widely prevalent across the length and breadth of the country even today. However, the discriminatory caste based norms have led to differences in health related knowledge and practice among the dalit and other castes. The extent of exposure to modern medicine, through public health programmes at a mass level and through personal doctors services being availed, has led to new knowledge and practices reaching even the non-literate, non-school going populations. Some extent of demystification of modern medicine and its diffusion has also happened through paramedical personnel who come from lower socio-economic and rural backgrounds. All this makes the task of defining Lok Vidya in health even more complex.

Lok Vidya Jan Andolan

Social movements have historically, addressed issues of health and healing. Gandhiji, subsequent Gandhian organizations, the women’s movement both internationally and nationally, have introduced the notion of ‘control over ones own body’. Environment related movements have highlighted the relevance of local ecology and health-related practices. Workers’ organizations have raised issues of occupational hazards, safety and healthcare, though not in the same way or to the extent that the worker’s own experience and knowledge, i.e. Lok Vidya, require them to. People’s science movements tend to ‘take science to the people’ but not take people’s knowledge as legitimate in its own right. However, the People’s Health Movement-India chapter (Jan Swasthya Abhiyan) does recognize the value of traditional medicine due to its wider base of political ideologies and because the practice of traditional medicine is so pervasive in our society and has so many textual forms.

The dominant knowledge systems of medicine and public health are beginning to get sensitized to the significance of Lok Vidya as legitimate knowledge, rather than viewing it only as a negative force based on ignorance and superstition, as has been the conventional medical perspective over the past century. This holds true for the industrialized societies, as much as to those such as ours. Modern medicine and public health has two faces, the authoritarian and coercive as well as the progressive, liberative one. So do all the other expert based systems, as evident by the observation that AYUSH officials genrally tend to undermine the LHT (local health traditions). Relevance of Lok Vidya is recognised by the liberative stream of all systems, being viewed as mutually supportive and inter-linked, while it tends to be denied by the authoritiarian stream.

Therefore, there is at this juncture, great value in recognizing, strengthening and promoting the health related dimensions of Lok Vidya. From ensuring agency in the framework of ‘personal is political’, to rights based campaigns, to generation of context specific, decentralised forms of knowledge, Lok Vidya is today of greater significance than ever before.

18th July 2011

Ritu Priya
Professor
Centre of Social Medicine and Community Health
Jawaharlal Nehru University
New Delhi-110067

Phone: +91-11-26704615 (off), 26742102 (res), 9313350186 (m)
Email: ritu_priya_jnu@yahoo.com

Response to ‘Inductive Knowledge Reasoning and Lokavidya' - Syed Sayeed

2011-07-19T11:02:00.004+05:30

I am sorry but the difference in method of reasoning between scientific knowledge and lokavidya (folk knowledge?) is not clear to me. What is the conception of scientific knowledge employed here? I think this is a derivative notion. There is only scientific method and it is purely validatory in function (This might be unregenerate Popperism but what exactly is the alternative we are positing?). It is of course possible to argue that there are indigenous knowledge systems whose elements may not be amenable to existing protcols of scientific procedure. But that can only be an argument for an expansion/reform of scientific method. Whether it would justify a classification and whether such a classification would be of great practical value, I am doubtful.

I have problems also with the idea of rationality or method of reasoning used here. It is true that a completely contingent content has been given to rationality, making it conform to certain western forms of life. What we need to do in this context is to insist on a less substantive, more rigorously formal notion of rationality. I myself prefer to insist on defining rationality in terms of being in possession of good reasons for one’s behaviour, grounding what constitutes ‘good reasons’ in diverse ways of life without necessarily lapsing into arbitrary relativism.

The second paragraph I find frankly poetic in the sense of being suggestive and evocative but full of hermeneutic pitfalls. The underlying idea seems to be draw an analogy with or extend the idea of instinct to human behavior in certain situations. This seems to me to be bristling with dangers. The invocation of instinct in human contexts can entail all sorts of bizarre consequences. Moreover, why should we take the confessedly atypical behaviour exhibited in extreme or abnormal situations as constituting the norm even for those group of people? Are we not risking reducing lokavidya to survival oriented unreflexive responses?

I have not understood the specific way in which the contrast between inductive and deductive reasoning is sought here. I must confess that I find the third paragraph even more problematic. It is one thing to say – using my own paradigm – that agents may not be conscious of the good reasons that prompt their action, and quite another to equate that action with unreflective behaviour that may not be in any way rationally or ethically justifiable according to the norms of that very group of people.

It is all right to use of the context of diplacement to understand the rationale of a certain behaviour but beyond that I do not see how we can relate the question of such action with the issue of displacement per se, the latter being an issue for a debate on models of development. Here my position is that it is simplistic and counterproductive to declare development as evil. We have to unpack the notion of developoment and return its various strands to where they belong – such as some vested interests and some thoughtless and insensitive policies originating in a certain kind of governmentality.

I must also say that the rhetoric of the concluding statement makes me uneasy. It is not clear to me what it is supposed to entail. It is possible that in saying all this I have been guilty of precisely the way of thinking implicitly under criticism in the lokavidya approach. But it would be useful to have a more explicit criticism.

I am sure that those who have been thinking about the idea of lokavidya and related issues have clarity on all these questions and have good answers. But I am also sure that there are a lot of people who are not clear on these questions and a debate on them will help them understand and join this movement with greater conviction and enthusiasm.

Please treat these remarks only as an attempt to initiate such a debate. This may not be the most important debate in this context but it will certainly help many others like me.

Syed Sayeed

Professor, Art Aesthetics and Comparative Philosophy,

English and Foreign Languages University,

Hyderabad

Inductive Knowledge Reasoning and Lokavidya

2011-07-17T08:08:00.009+05:30

Surendran K. Karippadath
------------------------------------------
It is necessary to reflect on the existence of any fundamental differences in the method of reasoning / rationality between lokavidya and scientific knowledge ( university knowledge / organized knowledge ). Why? Is the template of 'the rational human being' somehow useless for understanding the specter that is haunting our people?

It is clear that an individual anywhere, in any group and economic stratum, use the brain ( think) as a human being - may be like a leopard or crocodile when trying to be a predator and like the harmless beautiful swan or gazelle, free or ready to fly if left in peace. Now, recent research on animal behavior has come out with, long suspected, another type of thinking, group think - such as exhibited by a school of millions of small fish swimming together in the shape of a very monstrous fish to scare the big predator, extending the group think of ants and honeybees and their tribes known still earlier. So, can it be that such group think is generally present also in human beings to a smaller or larger extent depending on how they experience their situation in the society? Moreover, is it that, this aspect is limited to the refined art of bargaining as in the case of the political class, business class, government service class and so on? May be not. An extreme form of this reasoning appears to manifest when the existential condition of the owners of lokavidya is reduced to mere survival, when the group resorts to something like purely inductive reasoning, as deductive reasoning does not lead to any actionable solution , as no rational explanation seem possible.

That is, members of the samaj (group) instinctively make the group choice , often as one person, and only subsequently try to 'understand the reason' behind the choice! An observer would say - as if to justify to themselves, or for propaganda purpose, or to convince members of their family! That was almost obvious when the people are forced to leave an area of a disaster, holocaust, ethnic violence, and so on. But, it is much more acute when forced to give up their village for some huge project for 'development of the country', which kept them asking to themselves the question - whose country? who are we? Often it goes like this : All the able bodied from one village have fled by the morning fearing police reprisal, fearing reprisal from those who are higher up in the hierarchy of the village. For, in a fit of anger at the inaction after the rape and murder of one of the community at the police station, the community vent their anger on the policemen directly. Elsewhere, today is the continuation of the same yesterday as it happens in Bundelkhand these days. At night the head of the family announces : 'Listen, X is leaving the village with his family at 3.30AM passenger to Nizamuddin ;...we should also leave along with them. Pack everything into two bundles, one will go with you and children; one will be in the cart and Y will come along with me in it, etc'. X had spoken the same words at home to his anxious wife and children.

We are trying to imagine the thinking of people suffering certainty of impending displacement. It is not rational, it is not for X, Y individually to decide - they see very little scope for individual action here! We thought we knew why there was no scope of individual rational decision making in some villages in Pakistan and India during Partition, Jews in Hitler's Europe, Gujaratis in Idi Amin's Uganda, the Hutus in a dominantly Tutsi land in Africa, the families from Bangladesh in Sealdah station in 1972 or those from Bundelkhand in Jhansi station in 2011, and other railway stations in India, may be in other countries of Asia, Africa or Latin America. But to experience the same because you are cultivating some land in the plain and is given only the choice less prospect of ignominy and sudden loss of self respect, to be picked up, as some unknown, unreliable contractor's wage labor in some unknown town - like the cattle at the weekly fair in his village!

We are interested in knowing how much of lokavidya knowledge is inductive. We are interested in knowing how much of the Truth for Ordinary man is Above all Ideas!- ideas formally argued out, deduced from existences for rational explanations, from evidence ( gathered even beyond the span of his own life ) in law for deciding the crime and punishment, .... May be for the social scientist or philosopher this march is not really new; it has just touched the exponential head. Then, the question arises : Is a large part of the Human Knowledge simply generated inductively in time, like the spread of a religion, by the inevitable sufferings of the lokavidya samaj ? And in raising the question thus are we getting enlightened about nature of religion and nature of truth simultaneously - through lokavidya? It appears that the life cycle of lokavidya is either incomprehensible like life itself or it is comprehensible like the conflicts of human life, wherein lokavidya is in eternal conflict with exploitative wage labor?

k.k.surendran@gmail.com