By Rakesh Popli and Ashok Sinha (Vikas Bharati, Bishunpur, Bihar) 1989.
This book is based on the Science popularisation work being carried out by Vikas Bharati in Bishunpur (Bihar) and its sister organisations in the Chhota Nagpur District, with support from the National Council for Science and Technology Communication (NCSTC) of the Government of India. It attempts to provide an answer to the following query sent out by the NCSTC to various voluntary organisations in Oct. 1986 "...’ is there not, or should there not be, a bare minimum of ‘science’ and a bare minimum of ‘technology’ that every man, woman and child (over a certain age) should know and understand, irrespective of who they are, what they do and where and how they live?... There is an immediate need to conceptualise and work out the details of this minimum/core package (that contain) the very minimum that everyone ought to know and which will be of practical use in daily life’. After outlining the conceptual framework assumed and the methodologies employed, the book does provide a list of what the authors believe to be a minimum package of sciences and technologies that should be popularised throughout the country.
Common Man’ Science Vs Scientist’ Science
In arriving at such a package, the authors make extensive use of their definition of "common man’ science" as against "scientist’ science". The authors clarify that by "common man" they “do not mean the stereotyped image of a dhoti-clad, semi-starved man with many children”. They are firmly against the view (widespread amongst many involved in People’ Science Movements), that - "common man’ science" is nothing but "the first few chapters of the scientist’ science". It may be instructive here to quote their understanding of "Common man’ Science" at some length:
It deals with the objects and phenomena in the lives of the people and addresses their concerns.
It is largely phenomenological in nature and consists of limited, pragmatic generalisations.
It should be seen as a continuation of traditional folk sciences and common sense, enriched by traditional as well as modern canonical sciences.
There is no dichotomy between it and religion; both are parts of dharma in its widest sense.
The methods of common man’s science include integrated perception and collective observation over a long period of time, besides other methods mentioned usually.
By the term "Scientist’ Science", the authors imply Modern Science being practiced in Universities, research laboratories etc. While a distinction is made between traditional Indian sciences and modern science, this is done more at the ‘practical’ than in the ‘theoretical’ plane. "The traditional sciences are inherently people-oriented. By contrast, modern science is big-industry-oriented”. It appears that the authors perceive a much larger role for traditional sciences in the lives of our common people as compared to modern science. "...Age-old technologies still dominate the life of a majority of the people........There is no realistic scenario of the near future envisaging any drastic change in this respect. To that extent a phenomenological understanding as provided by traditional sciences remains most important". Similarly, the role that modern science can play in the lives of common people is to equip them with "a certain method and precision in the use of industrial products" that are being increasingly used by them. The authors however do not see any fundamental incompatibility between the two systems. They clarify: “Our purpose is not to glorify the traditional sciences at the cost of modern science, nor to prove any basic incompatibility between them, but to point out that there already exist various useful sciences among our people which must not be rejected due to a misplaced enthusiasm for ‘one science’. This reminder is necessary because of the common assumption, made even by science popularisers at the grass-roots level, that modern scientists and their laboratories are the only legitimate sources of ‘science and technology’’’.
While discussing the manner in which science is presently being taught in the early years of schooling, the authors make an interesting comparison between a set of objectives as laid down by the National Council of Education Research and Training (NCERT) experts in 1986, and a set as found in the Zakir Hussain Committee constituted by Mahatma Gandhi in 1937. The former is shown to be totally ‘academic’ and unrelated to anything in our context, as against the latter being eminently practical and related to the common man’s concerns. Strongly upholding Gandhiji’s idea that the best way to teach science is through the teaching of a practical craft, the authors argue that "....a workshop is a must for every school, even if it does not have a laboratory or a science kit.....".
Minimum Science and Technology Package
The minimum Science and Technology package is outlined under two separate heads: Minimum Science and Minimum Technology. To the former belongs the human body and its care (health, hygiene nutrition, sanitation, family planning, child care etc), environmental awareness (Air, water, soil, forest, clothing, housing, etc.), mensuration and quantification (measurements, calenders, radio and other equipments etc.). Under the Minimum Technology package are included awareness concerning agriculture and animal husbandry, electricity, appliances, manufactured consumer goods etc. Topics are listed under all these heads, with emphasis placed repeatedly on their tentative nature and how they will have to be judiciously selected depending on the specific context (urban-rural, etc.) involved.
The authors do not consider their minimum package as appropriate only for the ‘non-formal’ educational purposes carried out by voluntary organisations; they state : "Science education in elementary schools must be untied from the bandwagon of the “Scientist’ Science" and tied up unambiguously with "Minimum Science and Technology”. Given the context of the rather apologetic, unsure and stereo-typed stands taken by many Peoples’ Science and Science Popularisation movements in the country (‘superstition - busting’, ‘scientific - tempering’, etc. etc.), it is refreshing to come across many bold and unambiguous positions taken by the authors on many issues. For example, "Science popularisers therefore, must question ‘science’ closely before coming forward to popularise it", or “it is clear that if the slogan ‘science for all’ is to mean anything, action must be taken to set up first-rate institutions of common man’ science (but quite different from the prevailing idea of district science centres....) rather than continuing to expand third-rate facilities for the scientist’ science”.
Having said the above, it should be added that this book does gloss over many issues that do eventually become important in implementing such a program. For example, it is not clear at all as to what roles the authors think are going to be played respectively by the Modern Sciences and the Indigenous Sciences in their future scenario. What exactly do they imply when they call for the setting up of “first-rate institutions of Common man’ science"? In what sense is it stated that there is no "basic incompatibility" between modern science and traditional sciences of India? If it is implied that these two can support and strengthen each other, then what are the mechanisms of realising it in our context? What would be the implications of it in building institutions and structures of Science and Technology in India? It appears that the success in adopting and implementing the proposed package might ultimately depend on whether there exists some clarity and agreement on questions such as the above. One is also a little puzzled to suddenly encounter passages like: "An important aspect of Common man’ science is the scientific outlook. This outlook should pervade his whole life”. Whatever might be one’s definition of "scientific outlook", can it be (should it be) required to be the all - pervading aspect of one’s life? Does it ever happen that way anywhere? Or, are such statements thrown in to gain acceptance and respectability?
There could possibly be differences on whether it is useful or even advisable to formulate such minimum packages of Science and Technology. There would certainly be differences on the contents of such a package. All that apart, it is undeniable that a discussion on this topic has helped in focussing sharply on some of the central issues involved in science-popularisation and people’ science movements in our country. The book under review makes a distinct contribution in taking these debates to a plane where they relate in a much better way to our context and requirements.
Dr.C.N.Krishnan
PPST Foundation
Madras
No comments:
Post a Comment