The dominant theories of social progress and economic development hold
one thing in common: that the level of consumption of the people is the
only true index of the level of development of a society. Such theories
hold that the level of development of any social formation is to be
evaluated in terms of the volume of industrial output based on modern
science and technology (S and T) and is in turn determined by the latter.
Thus modern technology and its abstract component, modern science, have
become, according to these theories decisive factors in evaluating the
real achievement of society.
Such conception of progress is accepted and followed at all official
levels in almost the whole of the third world today. Thus the governments
in the third world trying to organize the socio-economic, political, and
cultural life skill-based countries along the lines of moderation
conceived in the above terms. Consequently, emphasis on the development of
the modern industry with modern technology and its supporting structure of
scientific research is very great. Achievement of a swollen index of this
type of development is then held in top priority and is taken as a true
index of social progress.
The tragedy however is that nowhere in the third world to-day has
development, pursued along these lines, led to genuine progress for the
large majority of the people. On the contrary, the attempt to impose
modernization on the existing social structure has caused severe strains
and led to structural imbalances. The program of modernization has not
only failed to alleviate the problems of the people but in fact, appears
to have given rise to the more serious crisis of underdevelopment. Despite
the erection of giant industries and the establishment of large
educational and research institutions, the most pressing problems of the
people have not been understood and their basic needs have not been met.
In other words, modern S and T in these countries have ceased to concern
itself with the true needs and aspirations of the people. and does not
serve their interests.
In an attempt to explain the failure of this approach several views have
been advanced. One view holds that if the entry of modern S and T into a
traditional social structure has deepened the crisis instead of overcoming it, then the responsibility for this
lies entirely with the leadership and the implementing machinery. Another
view has it that the entire traditional social structure is a fetter on
the development of suitable employment of modern techniques and more
advanced means of production. Therefore, it must be completely abolished
and replaced by a new set of social and production relations which will
then aid in the further development of the means of production. The
proponents of this view argue that modern S and T in the form of advanced
and more sophisticated instruments of production, is essential for solving
the problems of the people and hence is a necessary means of social
progress. Modern S and T is universal in regard to its scientific and
technical content, but the precise choice of S and T is obviously
determined by the specific needs themselves are determined by the
socio-economic and political objectives set by the political leadership of
the country in question. These members reject the view that modern S and T
in itself can solve the problems of the people as also the view that
modern S and T is incompatible with the problems of development faced by
the societies of the third world.
In contrast to the above two views which regard. modernisation as an
essential means for progress, there is a third view which holds that
modern S and T with its highly centralised and bureaucratised structure
cannot be people oriented in the context of the third world to-day. To
elaborate, this view asserts that wherever modern S and T was adopted as
the dominant vehicle of social progress it has given rise to an
anti-people bureaucratic class whose interests are bound up with
development based on modernisation. According to this view, irrespective
of the nature of the political leadership responsible for policy direction
in the third world to-day, the very nature of. modern S and T forces those
who opt for it to enter into unequal trade and other economic
relationships with advanced metropolitan countries which alone are in
possession of such modern S and T.
Such a relationship gives rise to and is in turn preserved and promoted
by, a dominant class in the less developed countries with interests
closely allied to that of imperialism. Development based on modern S and
T, then, serves the interests of only this small elite and hence must.be
rejected as anti-people.
The latter two views found expression in our group in Kanpur. Debate on
these two views is still going on in our group and we hope to be able to
shed more light on the questions ‘raised.by either view after further
study and discussion.
Thus, while divergence of views exist in our group with regard to our
attitude towards modern S and T and its role in a patriotic and
people-oriented movement, we have consensus on the fact of our S and T
institutions being dominated at the ideological and organisational level
by a thinking inherited from our colonial past and still subservient to
imperialism. We also agree that the S and T promoted by such institutions
is totally isolated from the needs of the people and serves only the needs
of a small privileged elite tied to imperialism.
Our position can now be summarised as follows:
- That imperialism is trying to promote its own interests and modern S and T is in its hands an. the instrument of exploitation.
- One view holds that freed of the imperialist stranglehold, modern S and T can be harnessed to serve the interests of the people and is in fact an important means of social progress.
- The other view holds that modem S and T cannot, even in the absence of an imperialist strangle-hold, be a genuine means of social development as it owes its existence solely to the needs of imperialism.
Therefore, the task of evolving a certainly people-oriented S and T
presupposes a thorough grasp and repudiation of the colonial character of
the institutions of modern S and T. The successful accomplishment of this
task demands a thorough study of the history of the development of S and T
both in the advanced countries and in the less developed countries. It is
only through such a study that we can acquire a clear understanding of the
role of S and T in social progress, evaluate the actual role-that modern S
and T plays in serving imperialist interests and expose this anti-people
character of modem S and T to the scientific community at large. Sustained
efforts along these lines alone will enable us to mobilise a broad section
of our S and T personnel to the cause of the people and evolve a programme
of PPST. Obviously the nature and magnitude of such a programme demands
that we. form a national level organisation with a national perspective to
guide as in the realisation of these goals.
II. The task we have set ourselves at this stage is primarily one of
study, debate and the creation of an anti imperialist consciousness in the
scientific community.
Our attitude towards other organisations/movements within the S and T and
their activities will, in general, be determined accordingly bearing this
central task in mind. The main criterion we apply in deciding our attitude
towards such activities/movements is that they should not come: into
conflict with the realisation of the task that we have set for ourselves
above. The dynamics of the local level activities of the Trade
Union/Democratisation (TU/D) type and the persons they attract are such
that the original objective of a national perspective is totally lost. One
lesson we should learn from these experiences is that at least at this
stage of the evolution of our organization, to mix up the two levels of
activities, namely local level TU/D type, and evolving a national
perspective on our S and T and building an organisation. to carry out
both, will result only in failure. The task of building the national
perspective and the approach it calls for are so different from the
objectives of TU/D type activities that any attempt to mix them up will
end in jettisoning the orgamiration altogether. Hence we agree with the
stand taken by the Madras Group that our organisation will not initiate
TU/D activity either at the national or at the local Level.
Regarding Appropriate Technology (AT) theories, we hold that they tend to
offer purely technical solutions to problems which are socio-economic and
political in character. Also AT groups do not recognise the imperialist
domination of our S and T and the need to take an active stand against it.
People's Science Movements (PSM) too suffer from the latter shortcoming
although they recognise the importance of taking S and T education to the
broad mass of people, a task whose importance we fully accept. An
exchange of experiences with PSM in this regard may be of considerable
significance for our own organisation.
ON COORDINATION COMMITTEE
In the Madras Meeting, while there has been broad agreement about the perspective, the need for a national level organisation has been denied on the following grounds:
- It is impractical to form the organization right now
- In the absence of a worked-out perspective, the Central Executive Committee will not be in a position to direct other groups.
Therefore, what has been recommended is an organisation headed by a
national coordination committee without any executive functions.
Our view is that the very acceptance of a fundamental guideline in terms
of a national perspective enables like-minded people to come together to
work at the national level. The groups thus have to necessarily shed their
local character and become part of this national organisation. Since in
our own view, the perspective remains to be vigorously developed yet, the
looseness of the organization merely reflects the Level of our theoretical
understanding.
ON THE JOURNAL
- While welcoming the decision to bring out a bulletin we would like to stress the importance of developing this bulletin into a regular journal.
- In the absence of a journal, the bulletin must function as a means of conducting a lively debate among various groups and individuals associated with PPST.
- We hold that even the bulletin must reflect the national perspective so as to carry on an effective and meaningful debate. To this extent, the bulletin needs to be edited
Kanpur Group
No comments:
Post a Comment