Cultivating Science as Cultural Policy a Contrast of Agricultural and Nuclear Science in India

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


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


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


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




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




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




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




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




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




9/14


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




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




11/14


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




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




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




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

Documents

Cultivating Science as Cultural Policy a Contrast of Agricultural and Nuclear Science in India