Upload
anisio-leite
View
230
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/15/2019 Cultivating Science as Cultural Policy a Contrast of Agricultural and Nuclear Science in India
1/14
Cultivating Science as Cultural Policy: A Contrast of Agricultural and Nuclear Science in IndiaAuthor(s): Robert S. AndersonReviewed work(s):Source: Pacific Affairs, Vol. 56, No. 1 (Spring, 1983), pp. 38-50Published by: Pacific Affairs, University of British ColumbiaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2758769 .
Accessed: 05/12/2012 11:02
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Pacific Affairs, University of British Columbia is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Pacific Affairs.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.61 on Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:02:24 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ubchttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2758769?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2758769?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ubc
8/15/2019 Cultivating Science as Cultural Policy a Contrast of Agricultural and Nuclear Science in India
2/14
CULTURAL POLICY IN INDIA
Cultivating
cience
as
Cultural
Policy: A
Contrastof
Agricultural nd Nuclear
Science in India
Robert . Anderson
G-IVEN
HE
WIDESPREAD conviction hatthe conductof science s
indifferent o culture, or that the sciences themselvesproduce a
separate culture,why hould sciencebe discussed na context f cultural
policy?
Does not a review
of
science
policy
iterature
lone
fully
eveal
why
the
state
supports
scientificnstitutionsnd scientific esearch?
No,
it does so only
n
part; and this rticlewill how that
he
state's upport
of
the sciences
in
India cannot properly
be understood
except
in
the
contextof cultural
policy.
Most
science-policywriting
ails to acknowl-
edge a cultural ontext.
This
shortcoming,
ound not
only
n
India,
need
not and should not be a permanent
feature f science
policy.
Nor should
the omission of the cultivation f science by the statebe a permanent
featureof the literature n
cultural
policy.
There
are four claims about
the sciences
I
intend
to
establishhere.
First,whereas at the beginningof the century he colonial government
perceivedthe sciences as worthy
f state
upportas they
were
n
Europe,
by mid-century following ndependence)
the
state had assumed an
obligatory esponsibility
or
and
pre-emptory
nterest
n
cultivation f
the
sciences.
This
relationship
between the state
and
science is here to
stay-at least so long as state and science are presently onceived and
constituted.
Secondly,
the
general
term
science is
too
bulky;
when
analyzed
as two
separate
traditions
f
agricultural
cience and nuclear
science,
t
becomes clear that the cultivation f
different
ciences
n
India
has spoken to different
ultural
and social
interestswhich
required,
from
the
point of view
of
statecraft, uite
different
reatment.
The
third laim s that,
while state nstitutions
nd
state
officials
ere
usually
sincere
in
their adherence
to
the rhetoric f national
advance
38
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.61 on Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:02:24 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/15/2019 Cultivating Science as Cultural Policy a Contrast of Agricultural and Nuclear Science in India
3/14
Agricultural
nd
NuclearScience
n
India
through the cultivationof science, this very policy was perceived by
significant arts of their public as of dubious value.
Officials
nd
politicians mployingthe rhetoricmightnot understand science
in
the
way that cientistswould like themto; nevertheless, heyhad toinsist n
the advantages of science even while some of their own constituents
sought to resist ts cultivation.Finally, he cultivators
f science had to
account
for and adapt to this doubt
and
resistance, ecause
science
was
at
the
centre
of
the state'sother
major undertakings-military,ndustri-
al, and demographic, for example. Scientistshave also had to address
these same doubts and resistance, nd to argue vigorously or the goals
of
nationaladvancement. My final uestion arises from his ondition:
when
the state nd the sciences are so
closely oined,
is the
responsibility
of
science for the critical ssessment
of
the state thereforediminished
and too easily under control ?
WHAT IS CULTURAL POLICY?
Cultural
policies,
for the
present purpose, address perceived prob-
lems in
state-formation-in particular,the interplayof domestic and
foreign influences; and the interplayof state objectives, conflicting
groups and social values, and the desire for state controlof certainkey
activities.The cultivation
of
the sciences as a cultural
policy
is not
concerned with direct increases in revenue (for whichthe state has a
voracious appetite), nor with economic gains for favoured groups and
classes. It is
not, therefore, version
of
economic policy, lthough
t
has
some
consequences for the economy.Cultural policy
s
constitutive
n
the
way Rudolph suggests
n
his
introductory ssay-that is,
t
proposes
what should constitutepart of the national identity.As science is also
pre-eminently public philosophy, ts cultivationby the state results
from decisions
in
the nineteenth entury o stimulate cientific duca-
tion.But
culturalpolicy s
not
simplynormative,
s the constitutiveense
implies: t also addresses continuingpoliticalproblems,
nd
is
pragmatic.
Thus, cultural policy s an overall cost which the state cannot avoid,
because
the
state s seen as responsible
for the
development
of modern
Indian society.
t
is amusing to recall thatone
of the
arguments
or tate
supportmade frequently o me in India by theoretical cientists nd
mathematicianswas that science
is
ust like classical dancing.
As there
s
no
burden on dancers toprovethe economic benefits
f
classicaldance,
so
there should be no such
obligation on, say,
mathematicians:
mathe-
matics
exists, and
it
has
been an
Indian tradition, lthough lapsed.
Science
is an essentialproperty f modern societies nd intellectualife,
they rgue, and therefore hould be supported bythestate. Erdman's
39
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.61 on Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:02:24 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/15/2019 Cultivating Science as Cultural Policy a Contrast of Agricultural and Nuclear Science in India
4/14
PacificAffairs
paper
in
this panel would
be of
great
nterest o
these
scientists.) hey
often use other, more utilitarian rguments,
ut
many would
not
press
these argumentswithnearly s
much
conviction s
the
argument
of the
intrinsicworthof the sciences.
CULTIVATING AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE
At first lance, the cultivation f agricultural cience is profoundly
different romthat of nuclear science.
These differences
re expressed
in the tensionsbetween the path of rural and agrarian development, n
the one hand, and the path
of urban and industrial
evelopment,
n the
other-tensions which have characterizedthe histories f SouthAsian
nations since 1947.
The modern conception of a thoroughly scientific griculture s
characteristic of nineteenth-century urope and
North America.
Though there have been very ignificantdditions
to
geneticknowledge
and
agronomy
n
recent
years,
the well-known
onfiguration
f scien-
tists, state agricultural bureaucrats, and progressive farmers took
shape
in
the
nineteenth century,
nd
was expressed
in
phrases
like
economicbotany and plant ndustry. Organic chemistrynd botany
were
already being taught
n
universitiesike Calcutta and Madras at the
turnof the
century, nd entomology, athology, lant genetics,
nd soil
chemistry ere studied before
ndia and Pakistan
gained
their
ndepen-
dence
in
1947.
The first
pecial
research institutes
or
wheat and
rice
were established before
1910,
and
by
1947
almost
every significant
commodity
nd
crop
had a
special laboratory. rops
destinedfor
export
received much more support than domesticfood-grains.Applications f
science to agriculturebegan in India in thetwentiethenturywithout
pre-existing ommunity
f
pure researchers, nd
these
applications
relied heavily n evidence and opinions receivedfromBritish, uropean
and, eventually,
American scientists.'
What were
the
interests of
the
state
in
cultivating agricultural
science? Remember
that the initial impulse came at the end
of
the
nineteenth
entury, ollowing series of famines.
Science
was seen as a
possible solution-perhaps
the
only
solution-to
a very pressing prob-
1
For
an
excellent account
of
botanical
and
agriculturaltechnology-transfersn the
eighteenth nd nineteenth enturies, nd India's place
in
them e.g., botanical gardens n
Calcutta, cinchona plantations
n
the
Nilgiris),
ee Lucile
Brockway,
cience
nd
Colonial
Expansion:TheRole of
he ritish
oyal
BotanicalGardens
New
York: Academic
Press, 1979).
See also Russel
Dionne,
Government
Directed
Agricultural
nnovation in India:
The
BritishExperience (Ph.D. dissertation, uke University, 973), whichprovidesthe best
account of the practical nterpretations
f
scientific griculture by
colonial
administra-
tors until the 1940s.
40
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.61 on Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:02:24 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/15/2019 Cultivating Science as Cultural Policy a Contrast of Agricultural and Nuclear Science in India
5/14
Agriculturalnd NuclearScience n India
lem. No matter how much certain groups wished to industrialize he
country, thers were convinced that agriculturewas its economic
base
and the state's major source of revenue. They argued, therefore, hat
the ancient practices f farminghad to be changed through pplications
of
science. Such applications required sustained
interactionwith
the
broad mass of the rural population.
In
fact, xistingfarmingpractices
were already a complex response to and part of extremelydiverse
ecological and cultural conditions. State officials hen-as now-under-
stood the application of science to
be
a very complex
undertaking,
because of the values and assumptions whichunderlie the agricultural
practices f millionsof farmers.To be effective, herefore, gricultural
science needed to be extensive and decentralized
in
character. Any
changes would have extensive ffects n the existing ocial structurend
the
access to resources, ncluding and, labour, and
technology.2 his
objective
of
an extensive application
of science
paralleled
the
state's
attempts
o extend
social
control across
the
landscape, permitting
he
extraction f resources and thus generating
evenue.
If
the statewere to
be fully ormed nd integrated, herecould
be few
xemptions
from his
drive. This local quality of agriculture nd the extensive nature of its
science are reflected
n
the fact that agriculture
was
preserved
as a
provincial or state subject
in
the constitution.While there
have
been
attempts
to
centralize agricultural science,
there
are
limits to
this
tendencywhich arise fromagriculture tself.
CULTIVATING NUCLEAR SCIENCE
Nuclear
science,
on the other
hand,
has
always
been a central
government r federal concern in South Asia. It relatesnot to rural
but
to
urban interests.
It
requires interaction
with thousands,
not
millions. Whereas agricultural science is extensive, nuclear science
concentrates n matters f minuteproportions.
t is
thoroughly
wenti-
eth-century
n
conceptionand undertaking. ewpeople
hold considered
opinions
or
assumptions
about nuclear
science,
whereas
many people
have
had different pinions about
the correct
way
to modernize agricul-
ture.
There were no existingpracticeswhich the application
of nuclear
sciencewas supposed to modernize. Whether one was boilingwater to
2
An example of the effects f centralization an be seen in the analysisby
Paul Brass
of
the history f the agricultural niversity t Pantnagar, nd the replyto Brass by a former
vice-chancellor f the university, .P. Singh. I have also written n the unnecessary
limitations mposed on science's contribution o agriculturaldevelopment n Bangladesh
by a more centralized model of research. See Robert S. Anderson, et al., eds.,
Science,
Politics, nd theAgricultural evolutionn Asia (Boulder, Colorado: WestviewPress, 1982).
41
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.61 on Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:02:24 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/15/2019 Cultivating Science as Cultural Policy a Contrast of Agricultural and Nuclear Science in India
6/14
Pacific Affairs
make electricity r designing nuclear weapons, therewere few nstitu-
tionsto offer esistance.Cultivating uclear science was originally state
monopoly n every ountry. t appears as ifthe whole nuclear enterprise
was
created
de
novo. While there was an
existing
ndian
community f
pure physicists nd mathematicians
n
the 1940s, nuclear
science also
needed completely new specialists
ike
plutonium engineers, and
re-
quired a vast network
of new
institutions,
ot
one
of
which existed
before 1950. The work was intensive, oncentrated
n
a fewbuildings
n
a few
cities,
where
scientists
ould interact
ogether
nd with
foreigners.
For many years, t was felt that there was absolutelyno substitute or
foreigntraining; nd it was presumed thatknowledgeof Indian con-
ditions nd culturewas peripheral r unimportant
o
nuclear science.
The state's decision (supported by
the
privateTata and Birla trusts)
in
the 1940s to develop nuclear science was not simply response to a
pressing domestic problem, but was based on the perception of an
opportunity-namely, hat
the
application
of
atomicenergy would
be
helpful
n
India's overall development, ying t to worldwide echnologi-
cal
changes. Beyond
the
glamour
of the cultivation f nuclear science
ay
thequestion of power: as Homi Bhabha quipped, there s no powerso
costly s no power. His listeners oncluded thismeantbothindustrial
and
military ower. Cultivating
nuclear
science, however,
meant creat-
ing communication inks betweenstateand society uite different
rom
those involved
in
the cultivation
of agricultural
science. Different
traditionswere involved, and different nterestswere at stake. For
example, nuclear science and
its
applications
offered no immediate
political
base
for
group
activitieswhich could threaten
the
long-term
coalitions whichthen supported the state. The applicationof agricul-
tural
science,
on the other
hand, brought changes
which offerednew
political tatusforthe middle-peasant/kulak ousehold, and this ffected
importantcoalitions (as the rise to national power of Charan Singh
demonstrated), s well as many state governments.
COMMON ELEMENTS
IN THE
CULTIVATION OF SCIENCE
Beyond these differences,what were the common perceptions of
science held by state officials,politicians,their advisors, and their
3
This is not to implythat there were no
politics surrounding
the applications of
nuclear science; forexample, see Ashok Kapur,
India'sNuclearOption New York:
Praeger,
1976), chs. 7 and 8.
Regarding how
nuclear
scientists
overned their wnlaboratories, nd
attempted o manage theproblem of balance between
foreign
nd
domestic
nfluences, ee
Robert S. Anderson, The
Government of
Scientific nstitutions:Case Studies of Two
Laboratories
in
the Late 1960s, in Satish
Saberwal, ed., Process
nd
Institutzonn
Urban
India:
Sociological tudies Delhi: Vikas
Publishing,
1978), pp. 137-68.
42
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.61 on Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:02:24 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/15/2019 Cultivating Science as Cultural Policy a Contrast of Agricultural and Nuclear Science in India
7/14
Agriculturalnd NuclearScience nIndia
publics?The
focus
was mainly
on the benefitswhich the cultivation
f
science wouldbring
to
the formation
nd
integration
f the state.
Firstly,
itwas hoped that he cosmopolitanor world character
f
sciencewould
serve as a cultural bridge across the chasms of language, ethnicity,
religion, nd regional loyalties f South Asia.
Cultivating cience would
encourage the formation f a new identity,which might
overcome the
multitude of social and cultural divisions. Secondly, a new
group
of
experts would
be
mobilized to oin
the
technocratic lass
which
guides
the state. The perception was of an easy coalition which would further
the ntegration f the state,because after 1947 the government
egan
to
invest n and seek control of many of the
applications
of
science
in
agricultural nd nuclear areas, as well as
pharmaceuticals, lectronics,
aviation, tc. While the mixed characterof the economy has
resulted
n
very vigorous participationby the private sector
in
scientific
evelop-
ments,nevertheless hroughoutthe modern period the statehas com-
manded most scientific xpertise.
The corollary of the integrationof state power in
India was
the
objectiveof reducing dependence on foreign upply and
influence. n
agriculturethis meant the pursuitof self-sufficiencyn food and the
reductionof grain mports.Agricultural cience,though
foreign
n
its
origins,
could lead
to
domestic
surplus-or
so it
seemed.
In
nuclear
science,
the
objectivewas independence
from
foreign
ources
of
nucle-
ar-power technologies,
nd even
nuclear
weapons.
At the time of the
1974 nuclear explosion, the Departmentof Atomic
Energy
was
planning
to try o sell CANDU-type component parts made in
India
to
Canada.
In
addition to the bridging character of science and
its
potential
contributiono thegoals ofself-reliance nd self-sufficiency,hecultiva-
tion of science was attractive ecause itoffered o South
Asian nationsa
way
to
re-enter
he world
at a level
of
greater
nfluence.
They
saw
that
the
world system,whichhad penetratedSouth Asia so
deeply,
was awash
with the
achievements of science-based nations.
The international
character
of science offered a world mainstream which
South Asian
nations could enter competitively. he motivesforentering hat main-
streamwere varied. For
example, some
who
argued
for the cultivation
ofscienceprobably ensed thelimitationsn India's well-known ontri-
bution to another world mainstream-that is, universalreligiousvalues.
While the contributions f such
figures
as
Vivekanada, Tagore,
and
Gandhi
no doubt pleased people
imbued with
ndia's
Hindu
traditions,
impatient ecularists aw a new and
more
significant
pportunity
n
the
sciences, particularly ollowingRaman's receipt
of the Nobel
Prize
in
1928. The excitementcaused among young people in
South Asia by
43
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.61 on Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:02:24 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/15/2019 Cultivating Science as Cultural Policy a Contrast of Agricultural and Nuclear Science in India
8/14
PacificAffairs
such world recognitioncan be as influential s
the
state's policy-for
example, witnessthe public reactions
to the
recent awarding
of
Nobel
Prizes to Hargobind Khoranna and Abdus Salam.
It
must be remem-
bered thatthe bridging haracter
of
science is one
of the characteris-
tics f the world system.
While it tolerates nd utilizes ocal
variation,
he
world system also provides a coherent cosmopolitan ideology and
identitywhich must be adopted by participating tates.
Thus, notonly did theapplication
of
agriculture nd nuclear
science
promise to generate a surplus which would ultimately llow exportsof
food and nuclear technology
to the
world,
it also
appears
that the
cultivation f sciencewas intended toallowIndia and other South Asian
nations to export their best achievements
n
modern abstract hought,
and so to
find
recognition
f an
intangible
but
profound
sort.4
Finally,
we
must remember
that the
major foreign supporters governments,
foundations,corporations, universities) ncouraged the cultivation f
science
in South
Asia,
and underwrote some of the costs. These same
countriesdid not encourage or support the developmentof indigenous
enterprises o the same extent. Cultivating cience
in
South Asia thus
looked attractive oth internally nd externally.
CULTURAL
RESISTANCE
TO
THE
CULTIVATION
OF SCIENCE
Given these
perceptions
nd
calculations
f
state nterests,
hatwere
the constraints nd fears whichaffected heirrealization?At the
turn
of
the twentieth entury, he only model available to South Asia was that
of
a
colonial
science.
While
it was well known
that
Japan,
Russia,
Germany,
and
the United States
were
vigorously ultivating cience,
n
South Asia
4
The desire
of
agricultural cientists or recognition qual
to
thatgiven to nuclear
scientistswas expressed repeatedly
in
statements
following
the suicide of V.
Shah,
principal nvestigator n
a national maize-improvement
roject at the Indian Agricultural
Research nstituteIARI)
in
1972.
This
desire
for
parity eflected
widespread
conviction
that the state
undervalued agricultural science. Questions were subsequentlyraised in
parliament about the
social relations and working conditions
in
IARI, one of India's
biggest
research institutions.
An
inquiry committee nvestigated ARI
and six
other
national agricultural
nstitutes, eard 187 witnesses, nd
surveyed 2,667 scientists. his
committee's ritical
eportobliged the minister f agriculture o announcea new personnel
system nd increased salary-scale. But the inquiry also necessitatedre-examining he
claims of Shah's superiorand the
most senior
Indian
agricultural
cientist,M.S.
Swami-
nathan, regardingthenutritional alue of a wheat varietyhe
developed
and forwhich
he
had received a
prestigious nternational ward in 1971. In the New Scientist,here were
charges Swaminathan
had published false data,
and
distinguishedplant breeders like
Norman Borlaug
came to his defense. As a result,the
Ministry
f
Law
investigated
he
actual
conduct
of
group research,
and
the Cabinet reassessed
the
regulation
of
genetic
materials. What is
important s that the normally secluded
activities f
scientistswere
thrownopen to state
scrutiny, evealing deep
structural
leavages among
scientists nd
widespread public ignorance about
how research s conducted.
44
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.61 on Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:02:24 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/15/2019 Cultivating Science as Cultural Policy a Contrast of Agricultural and Nuclear Science in India
9/14
Agriculturalnd NuclearScience n India
the costs of science were first
nderwritten
y
a
colonized
state
appara-
tus. Untilthe 1950s, protagonists ound
t
hard
to
popularize ndigenous
experiments-not only because
therewerefew,
but more
because of the
overwhelming orce of the colonial tradition.
This fact underlays a popular ambivalence,
if not fear, about
science-an ambivalencesummed up
in
Gandhi's answer
to
the question
And what do you
thinkof Westerncivilization,
Mr.
Gandhi?
He
said,
Well,
t
sounds
like
a good idea.
Somehow
science was
inherently
un-
Indian. Indeed, it was an expression
of another noble traditionof
learning-but learning about what?
n
addition to being alien
in
origin,
science was seen by some to be godless, and also disrespectful f
authoritativeknowledge. So even while the state cultivated science,
sectionsof the
population
were fearful nough
to wish to
contain
t.
That science seemed to institutionalize
cepticism, nd seemed to be
simplyunpredictable,
made this containment
he more
desirable.5
The
fact hat he
representatives
f
thisnew
traditionppeared
to come from
such a
diversity
f castes and
communities-speaking
a mixture of
mother-tongues, ut all working
n
English-only
confirmed he fearsof
those who
depended
on an established
hierarchical
rder.
These fears
were shared even bysome groupswho stood to benefit romthe state's
cultural policy
in
secular education,
and by some individual officials
involved
n
the daily running of
the
state.
In
what ways was science contained?
First of
all, there were
the
popular
efforts o Indianize
the
practice
of science-for
example,
in
comparing
science
favourably
with some
elements of
classical Indian
philosophy, r trying o humanize
biologicalresearch sJagdishchandra
Bose did.6
Secondly,
there were attempts
o revive Indian
systems
f
5 There was a striking xample of this containment n 1979, when a science
and
technology xhibit n New Delhi was
suddenly dismantled
and removed
(see Science, 7
April 1979, p. 393). Designed for the
U.N. Conference
on Science and
Technology for
Development in Vienna, the exhibitwas
critical f holymen sadhus, ishis, wamis, tc.)
and of the traditional ayurvedic)ystem f medicine. The
report says mages
which were
believed
by
the
exhibit's ritics o
have
nothing
to do with science-that
is, pictures
of a
recliningfemale (dreaming of tachyons)
nude
a
la
Picasso,
and
portraits f Marx
and
Lenin (users of scientific rinciples)-were
displayed to reinforce onceptionsof science.
Scientists emanding the restoration f the
exhibit
re
reported
to have
said the country
is sinking deeper and deeper into
superstition,fatalism,
and
religious hypocrisy.
Another unnamed) professorustified heremovalof the exhibit s a rejection f its lien
quality: We
have no
tradition
f
genuine
doubt
in
our
philosophy,
he
said;
one
may
.
. .
accept, reject, r remain passive,butmay not doubt or enquire.
It will
be remembered
that this was a time of crisis for the ultra-conservative actionof the
Janata
coalition
government.
6
We
are
fortunate hat Ashis Nandy
has
completed
his
very nsightful omparison
of
JagdishchandraBose, the biologist, nd Srinivasa
Ramanujan,
the mathematician.
ose,
he
argues, formalized into a scientific diom and a research ideology key elements of his
personal and cultural urroundings.The
study
ncludes excellent
nalysesof elite Bengali
45
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.61 on Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:02:24 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/15/2019 Cultivating Science as Cultural Policy a Contrast of Agricultural and Nuclear Science in India
10/14
PacificAffairs
learning and technique. The state's response was to cultivate and
preserve some traditional
sciences such
as ayurvedic
medicine
and
even astrology though support of the latter was sometimescovert).
Curiously,
there was littleeffort o
present
the
precolonial history
f
science
and technology
n
an
organized way.
The
study
of this
history
has
been carried out
by
historians
n the
face
of official ndifference.
These demands for containment,which were responses to the alien
character
of
science,
have
made
the
proponents
of
science fearful f a
popular
movementwhich would
ultimately
e anti-science
ecause
it
sought
to make the sciences
completely ndigenous.
In
addition
to their
fears about Indianization, staterepresentativesre apprehensive that
the state's ultivation
f
unpopular science mightfurtherwiden thegap
between
he ivesof the
masses and
the
objectives
f the
state.7 ust s the
cultivation
f science seems to be
enhancing the integration nd power
of the
state,politicalplanners
are fearful hatthe same
process might-
for some
significant roups
at
least-widen the
state's
already large
credibility ap.
CONCLUSIONS
Which
of these
perceived
benefits f the
cultivation f science
have
actually
been realized?
It
is
clear
thatthe
practice
of
science
has, by and
large, avoided
ethnic
capture and retained ts bridging, osmopolitan
character
n
South
Asia.8
In
addition to
the
effects f
thirty ears
of
politicalprocess (national
news of
elections,
tate and
cultural achieve-
intellectual
esponses to Bose, and of the rise
and decline of Bose's
reputation
n
Europe.
The comparisonwithRamanujan makes the book an even richersource. Ashis Nandy,
Alternativeciences:
Creativitynd
Authenticity
n
Two
Indian SczentistsNew
Delhi: Allied
Publishers,1980).
7
This view is also held by some
scientists, ut
in
a slightly
ifferent orm.
See, for
example, the views of K.R.
Bhattacharya, food
scientistwith great
experience
in
the
politicsof science:
Science,
Technology
and
Society,
n
Satish
Saberwal, ed.,
Toward
CulturalPolicy Delhi:
Vikas,
1975), pp. 185-91. He
argues that,
given the alien and
alienated character
of science in
India, one must ask
Who
in
India
needs science? and
must
orientthe choice of problems
and the
conduct
of
work on the
basis of the
answer to
thatquestion.
This,
he
argues, would move
researchers away from their
orientation o
technology, bsession with
obtainingforeign
ollaboration, nd uncritical
articipation
n
thecommandingheights of the economyand state. For a recentstudyof scientistsn
India, made more
revealingbycomparisons
withKenya,
see Thomas Eisemon,
TheScience
Professionn theThirdWorld
New York:
Praeger, 1982). Compare his
interesting
escrip-
tion of
scientific
ife at the
University
f
Bombay (chap.
5).
8
It
is
common to hear scientists n India
respond
to the
assertion hat ndian
science
has,
by
and
large,
become
cosmopolitan, by saying that
they nevertheless remain
peripheral to
the
major
world
research-centres.
hey
should read how
the Danes think
about
transcending
he burdens of
peripherality
n
fundamental
research,
n
Thomas
Scott, Fundamental
Research n
a Small
Country:
Mathematics
n
Denmark,
1928-1977,
Minerva, ummer
1980, pp. 280-3.
46
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.61 on Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:02:24 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/15/2019 Cultivating Science as Cultural Policy a Contrast of Agricultural and Nuclear Science in India
11/14
Agriculturalnd NuclearScience n India
ments, nd so on), comprehensive ecular education, widespread use of
the
radio and cinema, and
an
extraordinary mount
of
railwaytravel
amongthe middleand lower-middle lasses,the cultivation
f
science, s
well, has played an importantrole
in
integrating arious parts
of
the
country. ndia has one
of the
world's largest scientific
ommunities.
Agricultural cientists nd nuclear scientists re
in
slightly
loser
com-
municationbecause of the need for common planning at the national
level. None but the most cynical would claim that science has not
contributed to national advancement, mixed though some of the
blessingsmightbe. Many critics nsist hat hese contributions re
still
oo
limited, ecause of either he narrowness' f science or the ntractability
of
social problems.9
Finally, et us consider the importance of public doubts about the
cultivation f science by the state: one key to science's success has been
the
autonomyconferredon
it
by the state, nd maintainedby
the
state
and
by
the scientists' wn values. This
autonomy
s
a
basic feature
of the
state's
science
policy.
Of
course,
a
big
risk to social
development
and
cultural ntegrityies
in
the fact that the state can conferautonomy
on
science in such a way thatthe scientists' esponsibility or criticizinghe
state
or
society
s
totally
nder
control. This kind of
autonomy s,
as
in
many spects of statecraft, nly a semblance of autonomy. uch general-
izations must be examined case by case. There are, of course, cultural
benefits
rom uthentic utonomy,
f
t
can
be
achieved-not
the
east
of
which s
keeping
alive
an
independent
and critical
pirit.10 nd,
while
there re diffuse enefits or culture, hose who enjoy the authorityf
the
state frequently ppose the workings f a critical pirit.
On the one hand, the state shouldbe evaluated on matters n which
scientists
ften have exclusive
or
privileged nformation-for example,
9 On returning o office, rime
Minister ndira Gandhi
acknowledged
this riticism
nd
directly sked scientistshow the country'sresources would cope with the addition of a
million children a month. [O]nly science can find a solution, she asserted. So the
political system should improve its methods of supporting, encouraging
and
making
proper use of science
...
We have not yet wholly ucceeded in providingfacilities r a
general climate which gives full encouragement to intellectual nquiry
...
The
qualities
our
countryneeds are inquiry nd innovation-in science,
n
education,
n
administration,
in all branchesof ife.Scientific emper an onlycome with cientifichinking nd scientific
living. Address to Indian Science Congress,January 1982, excerpted n Departmentof
Atomic Energy,Nuclear ndia
[January
1982], pp. 4-5.) It is terms ike scientificiving
which most disturbthe people who dismantled the science exhibition n 1979.
10
With respect to cultural policy,
A. Rahman
argued that
f
science
and
technology
were to achieve genuine self-reliance, verything hat led an Indian
to
express
his
distinctive dentity y ustifying utmoded practices,beliefs and world
outlook would
have to be set aside. In addition,within cience, the cultureof obediencemustyieldto the
culture of the critic. A. Rahman, ScientificKnowledge as the Base
of
New
Cultural
Development, n Saberwal, Towards Cultural olicy, p. 195-6.)
47
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.61 on Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:02:24 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/15/2019 Cultivating Science as Cultural Policy a Contrast of Agricultural and Nuclear Science in India
12/14
Pacific Affairs
on
the
question
of whether to undertake research on nuclear fuel
reprocessing.On the other hand, science tself hould be evaluated, and
thismustoftenbe
done
by people who
have no
privileged
nformation-
for example, regarding
the
desirability
f
adopting
the state's recom-
mendations f a newagricultural echnique.
Those
who evaluate
will
not
find that a knowledge of science policy
s
enough
for their task. 1As a
matter of fact, most science policy
in
South Asia-like science policy
elsewhere-bears as little relation to
the actual
conduct
of scientific
research s theology
does to the
practice
of
religion.
That is
why
cience
policy
finds ts
relationships
with he
state o unsettled.
t should
come
as
no surprisethat the varioussciences are treateddifferentlyy the state,
and that
the state
should seem
simultaneously
o cultivate he sciences
and hold them at arm's
length.
The conduct of scientific esearch and its variousconsequences for
society
re
unsettling.No
cultural
policy
can
possibly
guarantee that all
the alleged benefits orsocietywillbe realized; no policy an ensure that
scientific
alent
and
resources
are used to their fullest
apacity.
What
separates
science
n
India from
cience
elsewhere,
friend emarked
n
Calcutta, is thatour mistakendeas, our incompetent cientists,nd our
naive excesses, are not drained away, but collect
n and inhabitall our
institutions. his expands our
research nstitutions
t
a
great
rate. What
we need is a betterdrainage system
n
science.
A
cultural policy
can ensure that
mathematics,
ike classicaldance,
exists nd
persists.
his will
hardly atisfy
he
calculatingpractitioners
f
statecraft
ho look
for
certainties.
Will
science not ead inevitablyo new
applications,they ask,
which will
in
turn
promote
accumulation and
thusbreakthevicious circlesofpoverty nd ignorance?The state an, of
course,
directthe
attention
f the sciences to
certain
pressingproblems.
Bhaneja has correctly ointed out
that
not only
have a
large number
of
researchers
in India become government cientists, ut also, due to the absence of an autonomous
sectoroutside the government cientificnstitutions, Ps
have
no assistance
n
forming
judgement
about the scientific
uality
f
work
done
in these
nstitutions.
hey
thusdo not
know what to do about the frequent complaints they receive about injustices n labora-
tories. Balwant Bhaneja, Parliamentary nfluence on Science Policy n India, Minerva,
Spring 1979, p. 96. This difficultynforming judgement wasrevealed
n
the Shah suicide
affair iscussed above; it has also reinforced he role of foreign cientificdvisors.Bhaneja
also
points out how rarely people
with scientific
raining
enter
politics
or
have any
sustained career in it-unless, of course, they completely bandon their connection to
research.
So
science policy
n
parliamentremains argelyformalistic
nd
uninformed.Of
course, some expertise comes to rest on
the
border between the civil service and the
scientific ommunity,
where
a few individuals try
to create
and sustain
a
modicum of
autonomyfor themselves. or a recent
review
of science policies
n
India,
see the
excellent
articles
by
one
science-policy dvisor,
Ashok
Parthasarathi, Technological Bridgeheads
for Self-Reliant evelopment, and India's Efforts
o Build an
AutonomousCapacity
n
Science
and
Technology
for
Development,
n
Developmentialogue Uppsala),
1979:1.
48
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.61 on Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:02:24 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/15/2019 Cultivating Science as Cultural Policy a Contrast of Agricultural and Nuclear Science in India
13/14
Agriculturalnd Nuclear
Science
n
India
Scientists re frequently ngaged
in the definitionof problems
(for
example, the food problem ), and the state can
exhort them
and
pay
them to work in those areas. This goes on all the time, although
observers
n
India can point to manypressing ssues
whichhave failedto
attract he attention f scientists.
ut
stateofficials
mustunderstand
that
the scientists lso follow their own noses, and that coercion (to pursue
only
the state's
problems) may
have
veryhigh
costs
n
the
ong
run.
With
state
pressure nevitably omes resistance, requently
xpressed by
a
sort
of ntellectualwork-to-rule attern ound
n
some research nstitutions
in
South Asia, where scientific ducation and research s
treatednot as a
calling but simply as a job. It is interesting hat therehas not been
more evidence of the withdrawal f services by scientistsn India-as
therehas been by doctors,for example. On the contrary,
ome scientists
have complained of the state's neglect of the sciences-of
a lack of
interest xcept when some obvious reward can be claimed.
Most unsettled nd problematic s the role of the critical
radition f
science, and the persistenceof public doubt about science'slegitimacy.
There is clearlythe need for continuous evaluation of
public policyby
scientists, lthough the state has never been anxious to hear this
evaluation. There has been well-informed valuation
of
this
type
in
India but, because of the enormous dependence of science
upon state
support and goodwill, scientific riticismcan be
controlled and/or
rendered neffectual. n the other hand, the doubts expressedpublicly
about
the legitimacy f science contain an anti-intellectual
pirit
which
rises from he same bed as the deology of scientism. he
insistence hat
we do not doubt, and the hope that only cience can lead us out of this
darkness, both spring from n excessive commitmento attractive nd
deceptive
certainties.12
Each concept has its proponentssomewhere
n
12
Edward
Shils
has
recentlywritten that, although the
sciences
have
their
own
traditions, ll scientistsmust also account for the
persistenceof other
traditions.
As
a
matterof fact, natural scientists
were not as hostile or
indifferent o traditions s their
detractors nd the positivistic
hilosophy f science whichwas attributed o
them
declared
and
which ome of them espoused. They by no means
spurned the great accomplishments
and heroic figuresof their
past....
Nonetheless,
natural scientists ended to be on the
side of
enlightenment nd some
were
in
fact ggressive
progressivists. he
latter
hought
that raditionwas a 'reactionary orce'holding back theprogress f the humanmind.They
shared
the disparaging view of 'tradition' as
superstitious prejudice. Many
natural
scientists, roud of their solid
accomplishments nd
contemptuousof theuncertainty f
the
results of other intellectual ctivities, hought that
their science was
an
intellectual
undertakingutterly nlike and
completely uperior to all
those others which
were in the
realms of arbitrariness,
ubjective fantasies,
superstition, nd uncriticalreception of
traditionalbelief. (Tradition
Chicago: University f Chicago Press, 1981], pp.
106-7.)
What
Shils does not describe is
how the state,
in
India and elsewhere,
has
been the
mediating nstitution etween
scientists' endenciesand social reaction, ultivating
cience
(in part) as a
means of modulating ts relationswithother
cultural traditions.
49
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.61 on Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:02:24 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/15/2019 Cultivating Science as Cultural Policy a Contrast of Agricultural and Nuclear Science in India
14/14
Pacific
Affairs
the state pparatus,
given
the
atter's imultaneous ntolerance f critical
scepticismand naive
enthusiasm for technical solutions. The critical
traditionof science must findexpression,if not a steady role, in this
uncertainenvironment, nd scientistsmust guard against unrealistic
claims made for
science as
well
as attacksupon
it.
This peculiar triangle (the diversity f
the
sciences, the shifting
interpretation f the state's nterests, nd the dubious public) will be a
significant eatureof
India's
cultural ife for a
long
time. Its unsettled
quality
s
due to
the fact that culture is not fixed but
is dynamic,
nd
evolves through
the
relationships
n
this
triangle. Science
itself will
increasingly eed its critics-not those who threaten ts autonomy but
those who would
keep
it honest
and dedicated
to
fundamentalnational
change. People's
criticisms bout the objectives and procedures of the
scientists
must be founded
in
a
better
understanding
f the differences
between
sciences, and of
the
history
f
the state's
uses and abuses of
scientists' bilities.
And
these verydoubts,
f
they
re to
have any validity
whatsoever,must be evaluated
in
the context f
the
state's ultivation f
science as
cultural
policy.
Simon raser
University,anada,
November 982
50