Science in India

What really is the attitude toward science in India?

In many of the other countries that do or don't have strong science programmes, the attitude toward science is well known. In China, for example, where the space programme is picking up well, high-speed railway lines are being built, and the annual investment in science has grown at more than 20 per cent annually since 2000 (now in the neighbourhood of $100 billion), there is open support for the cause of science and the role it must play in the country's development. In India, however, investments in R&D are half-hearted in that they don't enjoy or suffer either widespread support or cynicism. Moreover, where in most cases science funding is seen at least as a move toward indigenous military empowerment, India lacks that, too.

In a December 2010 report titled 2011 Global R&D Funding Forecast, going with a study sponsored by R&D Mag, India's share of global R&D spending is 3.0 per cent (0.80% of GDP), measly in comparison with the countries it is seen as competing with: America (34.0%), Japan (12.1%), China (12.9% = 1.44% of GDP), and Europe (23.2%). The immediate solution is definitely not to step up spending but to look at why a country that has used science to rise to where it is now is doing so without any support for it at the basic level, as if it sees science as a mere tool that will be dropped the moment its goals are achieved.

Looking at the status quo from a mediaperson's vantage point, a few habits come immediately to light. The first is a lack of outreach programmes by Indian science institutions. For a country brimming with engineers, there are too few fora that cater to the science-minded. On either sides of the locus charted by science-stream in classes XI and XII, engineering education in either the IITs or the NITs, and then a job with the engineering sector, there is no place to engage with scientists and technicians simply because one might enjoy interacting with them, find out more about what they do and how it is impacting the society at large. The one other place to do all this is from within media circles.

Even in the political sphere, there is abysmal engagement by the politicians with the people and vice versa at the scientific level. Granted, we are only now setting out on a path of getting as many people educated as possible through the means of reservations and constitutionally established compulsions. However, that does not mean there is nothing to look at higher up the pyramid: for becoming the focus of the world for its abundance of engineers and doctors, for launching manned missions to the moon in the near future, and for being at the forefront of nuclear science research, the most politicians are willing to talk about is shutting down crucial nuclear power plants.

[caption id="attachment_22951" align="aligncenter" width="540"] The Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant[/caption]

Apparently, science has already assumed a degenerate form in the country, where it can be sidelined to accrue people-support ahead of the elections. Unfortunately, these are also some of the more easily-kept promises. Science often isn't public opinion, and there is a lot of work required in that direction to mend the people's idea of its importance and the roles it plays in shaping equanimous progress.

Still, where are the broader ambitions that politicians must have about safeguarding the nation's support in the field of cutting-edge physics? Where are the broader ambitions that address the country's role in nuclear non-proliferation (apart from when heads of state come visiting)? Where are the broader ambitions concerned with furthering nanotechnology research in the country in keeping with its growing domination as a centre for medical tourism?

In fact, let us not attend to such broad considerations now: a look at the attitude toward the IT-sector in South India should do. The most successful R&D contribution of J Jayalalithaa, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, to date has been the setting up of IT parks in and around Chennai (a move borrowed suspiciously from the Hyderabad- and Bangalore-models without too much foresight). As the subsidization of IT products drew in a large volume of software engineers that led to a siphon effect, so also did focus shift away from other non-subsidized industries. Now, the Pallikaranai marshlands on which most of the IT offices are set up have taken a severe beating.

Why? Because we can't seem to understand the importance of a young man's or woman's employment in the same light as the importance of a healthy local ecosystem.

Those within the scientific community are no exception, either. Forget the science outreach programmes—they are only secondary considerations. Instead: where are the science magazines a la Scientific American? Don't Indians possess a tradition of invention and discovery dating back to about 4,000 years? What killed it, then? A couple of days ago, a friend of mine had a tough time locating doctors working on stem cell research in India because university websites were severely outdated! The popular opinion of the sports-and-political-news hegemon is that the paucity of media representation would have driven researchers to speak about their research with quite some zeal, but no. Even contacting a scientist has become a hassle.

[caption id="attachment_22958" align="aligncenter" width="540"] A good example of a science institution's website that goes nowhere is that of the Department of Biotechnology (affiliated with the Government of India)[/caption]

Moreover, the contactable ones are often tight-lipped when answering questions on studies done by them, and not necessarily on subjects that have debatable ethical concerns attached, such as soil sedimentation, state of plumbing, safety in power plants, metallurgy and materials engineering, greenhouse gas emissions, and renewable energy (quoting from experience). Have their ought-to-be profligate opinions dried up because of the subjects' misguided depiction in the media in the past? How do we fix it?

It is hard to imagine that the answer to these and such questions is colonialism because India's rapid rise to a position of power seems to have caused all the problems. For example, sustained mishandling of the planning, construction and operation of dams alone is sure to have dented rural India's idea of technology. Now, with a disturbing experience of the national government's contumacious attitude toward rural authority, we are obliged to push harder even for all-round legitimate projects. In fact, perspectives have turned so skewed that "all-round legitimacy" has become the rallying point for contention between environmentalists and any kind of developers. Now, you can't say "development" and not be expected to be tossed into a political maelstrom.

Circling back to the first point: what is the attitude toward science in India? The nation has enjoyed a pluralism of cultures, languages, and traditions for centuries now, and is it that science, too, is being granted that privilege? If you think that isn't too bad, think again: the thing about science that it always has one right answer, ergo there is always only one way to use it. Of course, the course of its action can be deftly regulated, but not to a point where many journalists don't or can't understand what science really is up to in the country.

Science is not the Big Dam, the Big Metro Line, the Big Power Plant that displaces thousands of people without sufficient recourse, that robs livelihoods and impregnates men and women with carcinogens, that is the call to arms of the poor against the rich. No!; science is now the helpless instrument in the hands of the short-sighted power-monger, and it must be removed from there. To do so, at least all that I have mentioned in this post must be fixed.

Another look at the displacement v. development debate

What is development?

I would interpret all development as a biological process, one that mimics natural processes. In this framework, development is the process through which each system attains maturity, a position of sufficiency and sustainability.

Maturity in whose interest? In the interests of the people? That is a secular definition that assumes everybody has all kinds of information required to make the decision. Therefore, development comes down to transparency that enables as well as reflects informed decision-making. I say secular because in such a definition of development, it becomes easy to exclude a world of foreign nations, which is not the case.

Consequently, a nation’s developmental trajectory is dictated significantly by foreign interests. In my opinion, thus, the developmental mechanism must work toward increasing the regional purchasing power so that our say in the international trade arena holds more weight.

The problem

Displacement versus development is a problem particularly difficult to explore because, beyond the initial recognition of the government’s role as being “villainous”, there is not much that has been said or done to establish a line beyond which displacement becomes simply necessary. The pursuit of developmental goals by the Indian government has resulted in over 21.3 million being displaced internally according to a 1998 report by the Indian Social Institute. Almost 5.8 per cent, or 1.25 million, of them have been displaced by the establishment of industrial estates1.

Development seems like a two-faced engine: (1) it works toward increasing our purchasing power regarding resources we may need in the future and (2) it consumes important resources required for its sustenance that the nation may not be in a position to provide. For instance, the proposed installation of two nuclear reactors at Kudankulam will generate 2,000 MW of power, which is over and above Tamil Nadu’s shortage (659 MW). Apart from this, another 11,540 MW is to be added between 2012 and 2016 with the installation of 17 power plants around the state, eight of them having already been sanctioned2.

Now, as environmentalists and others in the area protest against constructing a plant that poses significant risks to the livelihoods of residents, a question that goes under-attended is that of necessity: which are the quarters that require this 12,881 MW(the total 13,540 MW minus the deficit) of energy? What has been done, either by private parties or the government, to determine if such demands are legitimate? We must ask why Kudankulam and why not in Chennai, whose population actually stands to benefit from the operation of the reactors. What else is being done to whittle down unnecessary losses that have resulted in such huge power shortages?

In light of such seeming discrimination, the problem statements are two.

1. Why is the government intent on displacing those peoples who are poised to benefit the least from the projects that displace them?


2. Can development become necessary under any conditions and assume precedence over displacement?

The real villain, the real villainy

In India, I believe that the problem has never purely been one of displacement v. development, even though the conflict between those who champion either cause is what birthed it. According to Dr. Prabhat Patnaik, one of India’s leading economists, the central government’s adoption of a capitalist economic model will produce problems unique to the country because capitalism is being superimposed on an “old order” that hasn’t fully been dismantled. This is where the adivasi resides.

1. Developmental cap - When it comes to the displacement of adivasis, a symbolic cap is necessary to discourage the government from favouring one section of the population more than the other, in the process expanding a gap that it has been elected to work against! Since government accountability for state-instituted displacement, especially as a result of land acquisition, is virtually absent, there is nothing to prevent the problem from worsening except an undertaking on the state’s part.
   
   It must undertake to frame its growth rate according to a plebiscit decreed by the people in the absence of congressmen and patricians at the order of a magistrate or a tribune, and it must work with the plebiscit as a strict guideline. This is similar to what has already been mandated by the new Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Bill, 2011.


2. Consumption cap - If, at the policy level, a framework can be built that prioritizes the rights of the Dongria Kondh over the demand for bauxite mined from the Niyamgiri Hills in Orissa, what are the processes on the other side of the wall that will determine how much we reduce our consumption of aluminium by? Because we cannot plug a hole at one end of the pipe and expect the water levels at the other end to not rise up.

Conclusion

Yes, someone must suffer a loss of some kind for the sake of development, but instead of sustaining growth rates at precarious costs, why isn’t there any faith in the aspirations of the adivasis themselves? Why is it that adivasis are being targeted again and again instead of the state inculcating a program that will successfully reintegrate them into modern society, moderate growth rates to reasonable levels, and ensure that the notion of progress is no longer mired in controversy?

I hold that integration into modern society is more desirable than tribalizing the modern society because of the mechanisms we require to remain on a competitive note with our traders and strategic partners. At the same time, there is no doubt that we have lost control over our own internal homogenization. It is true that our first duty is toward ourselves, but what it has been lost to requires a look at India’s foreign relations and political history, which possesses its own special share of flaws. However, regression in the post-globalization age would be incredibly painful.

My answer is that under some circumstances, displacement could become simply necessary. While, there can be no excuse for the government to snatch land from its citizens for any use, except those expediently required (such as national defence, etc.), that is a matter of enforcement: without rehabilitation and resettlement, it is just unconstitutional.

It would be more harmful for the Indian economy, and the important subsidies it provides that sustains large sections of the rural population, in the short- and long-terms to cease its current trade partnerships and other strategic commitments than to resist globalization and modernization and start on a path toward complete self-sufficiency. The only leeway on top of it is that we need an equitable distribution of development because only that promises the convergence of globalization with our social harmony to some extent.

Sources

1. http://www.fmreview.org/FMRpdfs/FMR08/fmr8.9.pdf


2. http://www.tn.gov.in/policynotes/pdf/energy.pdf

Afterlife of the Kyoto Protocol: A case of development as currency

The Kyoto Protocol will expire in December, 2012, almost exactly a year from today. Its legal bindings will collapse and remove all restrictions on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions it currently places on the 64 countries that ratified it in 1997.

Then, if an apparently weak conscience can be disregarded, and many believe it can, then the only thing standing in the way of ourselves and a future that is environmentally secure and free from the threat of extreme weather events is the adoption of a self-imposed and self-regulated system. A system that plays its part in ensuring the world as a whole has cut its GHG emissions by 50 per cent in 2050, a system that requires no confidence that other countries at least have the intention of doing the same, a system that faces no legally-backed sanctions if it releases alarming amounts of pollutants into the air.

The inherent comedy is evident.

The one recourse of any appreciable moment remaining to mankind before the Kyoto Protocol dissolves is the COP17 in Durban, South Africa. Being the 17th conference of the 194 countries to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the talks will host 15,000 members of state, mediapersons and other dignitaries to discuss the all too familiar problems before them: the different obligations of the rich and the poor, who is going to help the poor incentivize green growth, conservation of forests and funding for the development of clear energy technology.

[caption id="attachment_20842" align="aligncenter" width="593" caption="A march by locals outside the International Convention Center, Durban, South Africa, where the COP17 is underway. (Image from The Telegraph)"][/caption]

Ever since the Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1997, relations between the United States and the rest of the world have been tense: because the USA did not ratify the protocol, it did not find its emissions capped by an internationally binding agreement that its trading partners had decided to abide by. An important case in point would be between the USA and the duo of India and China.

On January 1, 1989, the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer entered into force with a heartening 196 signatories pledging to phase out and eventually eliminate chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). It found renewed interest each year for 10 years after it was effected, and in 1999, after the ratification in Beijing, its goals were replaced by the goals of the Kyoto Protocol.

Consequently, an equal amount of interest was expected from national governments in the new protocol. However, because the focus shifted from process regulation to goal regulation, i.e. from the elimination of CFC- and HCFC-emissions to the strict limit on any kinds of emissions overall, the United States decided to give the ratification a skip. At the same time, because it felt obliged due to environmental concerns as such, its government called for a drop in emissions from the international community - especially from India and China - in a hypocritical approach that found scant purchase from all fronts.

While some would believe the justification of such a call pointless and, at worst, irredeemable, it does merit a consideration of the terms of the interface between whatever treaty is fortunate enough to be the successor and the Kyoto Protocol. At first glance, the Protocol fails to take into account that national emissions in 1990, which respectively defines the subsequent cap for each nation, were uneven in various ways. In 1990, East and West Germany unified to become one state after which East Germany's emissions collapsed. Germany, therefore, took the opportunity to take credit for this drop in emissions even though what was West Germany began to step up industrialization. Australia, on a similar vein, had extremely high land clearance rates in 1990, and despite an emerging sentiment in the country to cut back on emissions in the following years, the Protocol in 1997 allowed them an increase. The same goes for Iceland.

[caption id="attachment_20845" align="aligncenter" width="593" caption="Per capita emission in Iceland"][/caption]

By not gauging anyone's contribution to the climate change mess based on net current emissions, the Protocol became a proxy for disguised industrialization. As has been mentioned earlier, it completely retrogressed economically powerful beneficiaries like the United States and Canada to a pre-Montreal Protocol stage.

Since the prevailing consensus amongst attendees of the COP17 is that a legally binding agreement will not be reached before 2015, India and China will want to use the interim period to step up industrial growth or, in other words, industrial emissions. In the same span, the United States will look to garner sufficient political support that it currently lacks to curb climate change (this after Obama's cap-and-trade proposal flopped spectacularly in the US Senate in 2010).

One way or another, scientists and researchers believe that things are going in the wrong direction, but at the same time, the expectations of countries such as those of the European Union from the United States seem to pose an unnecessary hindrance in the way of developing countries enforcing their demands on the United States. This, in turn, comes with the reasonable assumption that developing nations should indeed have more of a say in the matter.

For instance, since the sanctions imposed by the Kyoto Protocol in case of failure to comply are weaker than domestic laws in almost all ratifying nations, the EU fears that the US will attempt to take advantage of this leniency. At the same time, India and China, which are expressing some willingness to ratify a successor protocol if the US is willing to, too, face the risk of even tighter regulations of their emissions simply because the sanctions of the successor will be strengthened to leash the US. The question is: is suffering domestic action a parameter for evaluation at all? If anything, a special clause must be put in place instead of attempting to curb sovereign autonomy. Better yet, the developed nations must unite separately before coming to the negotiations desk.

At the end of the day, the principle cause of any problems that have to do with a delay in enforcing a new protocol is the employment of development as currency: with developed countries on one side, developing countries on one and the underdeveloped countries left to campaign for a cause of their own, unity seems hopelessly distant. The solution lies in the primary failure of the Kyoto Protocol: instead of basing future action on historic development, it seems only prudent to base future action on future development. Global trade and other strategically relevant programs must be tied in with processes that work toward curbing climate change so that clean and sustainable energy stands a chance to become the new currency - which is what those at Durban this week are looking for.

If those at COP17 feel that development as currency is a legitimate position to begin with, then negotiations are bound to be doomed. Instead, much hope lies with restructuring development so that it is strutted by environmentalism as a developmental entity and not by environmentalism as a socio-economic entity. Yes, capitalistic ideals will seep in, but the world is seeking to do a volte-face on the past, and that demands a volte-face on our past attitudes as well.

We, not the people.

Displacement versus development is a problem particularly difficult to explore because, beyond the initial recognition of the government's role as being "villainous", there is not much that has been said or done to establish a line beyond which displacement, with rehabilitation, becomes simply necessary. The pursuit of developmental goals by the Indian government has resulted in over 21.3 million being displaced internally according to a 1998 report by the Indian Social Institute, and almost 5.8 per cent, or 1.25 million, of them have been displaced by the establishment of industrial estates.

On the one hand, development seems like a two-faced engine that, whilst making possible a future wherein important resources may be purchased, consumes important resources required for its sustenance that the nation may not be in a position to provide. The proposed installation of two nuclear reactors at Kudankulam, for instance, will generate 2,000 MW of power, which is over and above Tamil Nadu's shortage (659 MW). Apart from this, another 11,540 MW is to be added with the proposed installation of 17 power plants around the state, eight of them having already been sanctioned.

Now, as environmentalists and others in the area protest against constructing a plant that poses significant risks to the livelihoods of residents, a question that goes under-attended is that of necessity: which are the quarters that require this 12,881 MW of energy? What has been done, either by private parties or the government, to determine if such demands are legitimate?

Further, in order for the government to be in a position to define future growth in any sector, it must first be in a position to produce the necessary resources indigenously. In an increasingly urbanized context, however, those displaced are usually from the countryside - especially farmers, who are reliant on natural resources directly for their sustenance - and, therefore, upon displacing them, the government is only displacing the nation's principle conservationists. In light of such seeming discrimination, the problem statements are two instead of one.

1. Why is the government intent on displacing those peoples who are poised to benefit the least from the projects that displace them? (It is also that these people are invariably of a particular caste and/or profession, which makes the problem seem motivated)


2. Can development become necessary under any conditions and, therefore, assume precedence over displacement and the problems therewith? (This question includes issues of necessity, too)

In India, I believe that the problem has never purely been one of displacement v. development, even though the conflict between those who champion either cause is what birthed it. According to Dr. Prabhat Patnaik, one of India's leading economists, the central government's adoption of a capitalist economic model will produce problems unique to the country because capitalism is being superimposed on an "old order" that hasn't fully been dismantled. Whether or not it merits dismantlement is another question, but it is definitely unfair to systematically target a certain section of the population.

Subsequently, even before we are in a position to centre a debate around the safeguards against a reactor meltdown at Kudankulam, we must ask why Kudankulam and why not the outskirts of Chennai, whose population actually stands to benefit from the operation of the reactors. We must ask what else is being done to whittle down unnecessary "losses" that have resulted in such huge power shortages.

Considering that the previous argument did not concern itself with the mining of natural resources: when it comes to the displacement of adivasis, a symbolic cap is necessary to discourage the government from favouring one section of the population more than the other, in the process expanding a gap that it has been elected to work against! Since government accountability for state-instituted displacement, especially as a consequence of land acquisition, is virtually absent, there is nothing to prevent the problem from worsening except an undertaking on the state's part: that it will frame its growth rate in consultation with representatives from all industries without exception.

(In the absence of rehabilitation, those displaced from their lands become akin to refugees, such as those displaced by armed conflict, despite the granting of refugee status being at the discretion of political authorities. Post-displacement, projects aimed at rejuvenating the adivasi communities have only been on an ad hoc basis.

Even in the latest Draft National Rehabilitation Policy (NRP) 2006, those affected by the acquisition of their land do not have the right to be consulted before their property is chosen for acquisition. While there are landowners who have indeed agreed to hand over their land to the government, they are reluctant to do so until the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Act is passed. Unfortunately, the corresponding bill is not listed among the 31 priority bills of the Parliament's winter session in 2011.)

If, at the policy level, a framework can be brought into existence that mandates a process through which, say, the rights of the Dongria Kondh are prioritized over the demand for bauxite mined from the Niyamgiri Hills in Orissa, what are the processes on the other side of the wall that will determine how much we reduce our consumption of aluminium by? Because we cannot plug a hole at one end of the pipe and expect the water levels at the other end to not rise up.

[caption id="attachment_20760" align="aligncenter" width="325" caption="Bauxite mining (top); Vedanta Alumina, a subsidiary of Sterlite Industries, Ltd., which received the controversial clearance from the SC to proceed with bauxite mining in the Niyamgiri Hills"][/caption]

Yes, someone must suffer a loss of some kind for the sake of development, but instead of sustaining growth rates at precarious costs, why isn't there any faith in the aspirations of the adivasis themselves? Why is it that adivasis are being targeted again and again instead of inculcating a program that will successfully reintegrate them into modern society, moderate growth rates to reasonable levels, and ensure that the notion of progress is no longer mired in controversy?

I am not against nuclear power or bauxite mining but for it; what I am against is the government's tendency to define "public interests" without the real interests of the "public" in mind. India needs some amount of aluminium and some amount of energy to realize some of its projected growth rates; what it doesn't need is the dousing of such important issues in a socio-political quagmire. Displacement v. development is, uniquely, a human rights issue, and it is an environmental issue as well, and while we are debating it, it is important to be aware of the human rights and environmental factors that influence the parameters whose traits we take for granted.

Taking tech. to the common man the Gandhian way

A lot has been said about technology shrinking the world, bringing its peoples closer and making all information more accessible. However, there are two problems concerning the deployment of technology.

1. Devices that use technological innovation are often functionally inaccessible to certain groups of users. Also, it is often that these are the users who need it the most. For example, when it comes to making life easier, the elderly become the most eager consumers of developments. At the same time, those developments are rendered meaningless if they aren’t user-friendly. This is the “Type 1” problem.


2. Often, the services born of technology come at a price that is unaffordable for those whose productivity can be increased by using them. Tools like computers, the internet, progressive communication systems and mobile telephony can boost our farmers’ crop output as well as keep them up-to-date on the latest developments in the agricultural sciences and government schemes. This is the “Type 2” problem.

On that note, it is heartening to know about the M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation’s (MSSRF) Village Development Program (VDP) that currently covers over 300 villages, mostly in Puducherry and some in Maharashtra. The foundation, by employing a community-ownership model that increases villagers’ participation, has set up an information distribution network together with the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) and other partners, such as Microsoft and Intel, who also provide some of the funds.

[caption id="attachment_20444" align="aligncenter" width="355" caption="The partners of MSSRF for the VDP"][/caption]

The MSSRF offices in Taramani, Chennai, function as a node for a national level hub that connects various technical, agricultural and veterinary universities across India, apart from NGOs and government offices in the vicinity of the villages. The knowledge these universities wish to share is uploaded into the hub’s content management system, which in turn is monitored by the foundation. The next step is to use the ISRO’s uplinking and downlinking capabilities, provided with the help of some of their satellites, which facilitate data-transfer to and from the node.

The final tier can be divided into two:

1. VRC – The Village Resource Centre (VRC) operates at the mandal level and usually addresses the distribution of information into a cluster of villages. The VRC is operated by local communities. Because of the encouragement of community-ownership, members of the community are involved in maintaining the centre while the partners of the programme provide the infrastructure.


2. VKC – The Village Knowledge Centre (VKC) operates just like the VRC except in that it addresses the needs of one village at a time. In other words, it functions as a sub-node that disseminates local, specific and demand-driven information. The communication between the VRC and the VKC happens through a local area network (LAN).

[caption id="attachment_20445" align="alignleft" width="148" caption="At Thankachimadam"][/caption]

Using this three-tier system (node-VKC-VRC) and by actively engaging with the villagers, the program conclusively addresses the Type 1 and Type 2 problems. By maintaining and running the nodes and data centres, the villagers are acclimatized to technology and technological innovation in a way that directly impacts their livelihood. By teaming up with partners eager to bring technology to the common man, MSSRF has brought the best in the world to the villages of Puducherry and Maharashtra, apart from freeing up their knowledge pool to be accessed by those who need it the most. This goes to demonstrate the importance of efficient and effective deployment of technology in order to make it useful.

The content generated by the universities, agencies and government offices can become overwhelming. Therefore, the effectiveness of the VDP is determined by how quickly and efficiently it is able to get that content to the right people. It must be noted that there is also a content generation process in place at a much more local, and more significant, level. Frequent debates between experts and the farming/fishing/animal-rearing communities are organized, and the questions and answers raised therein are integrated with the existing databases.

Also, apart from the VRCs, a mobile network is in place that delivers five relevant audio messages daily to subscribers of certain networks, including Airtel, Qualcomm and Tata. The advantage of employing mobile telephony is the ability to gather feedback statistics such as usage rates, response rates, etc., which can be used to improve the quality of the services provided. A help-desk has been set up at MSSRF’s Chennai office to address complaints that any users of the mobile communication networks might have.

What about inter-village communication? That has been addressed, and quite thoroughly to note, by a public announcement system (PAS) that incorporates both loudspeaker arrangements as well as a web-based notice-boarding system. In order to facilitate audio-conferencing, a multiple closed-user groups have been created such that calls to other people within the same group are free of cost. Finally, an INCOIS public display board has been installed that can be used with a GPRS device.

At the heart of all of this lies the need-assessment system, a single glance at which summarizes the entire VDP, its principal participants and its goals. While the VRCs are demand-driven and therefore reflective of the villagers’ needs, the villagers do have to be trained and made aware enough to know their rights, what they can and can’t demand, and what their options are. In order to empower them, the MSSRF enables them to interact with stakeholders of the entire program and familiarizes them with the principal tools. At the same time, a farmers’ database is compiled that is shared responsibly with government agencies, local banks and NGOs that have products and services of value on offer.



Essentially, the VDP is a stellar example that neither bargains with nor purchases profits at the cost of technology but engages with it directly to remove socio-economic barriers. It is clear that India’s sustainable development is uniquely tied in with the prosperity of its farmers, at least for now, and these farmers continue to face such barriers. By bringing the farming, fishing and animal-rearing communities together, the foundation has only spotlighted how much we stand to lose if we don’t divert our technologies away from gain.

Taking tech. to the common man the Gandhian way

A lot has been said about technology shrinking the world, bringing its peoples closer and making all information more accessible. However, there are two problems concerning the deployment of technology.

1. Devices that use technological innovation are often functionally inaccessible to certain groups of users. Also, it is often that these are the users who need it the most. For example, when it comes to making life easier, the elderly become the most eager consumers of developments. At the same time, those developments are rendered meaningless if they aren’t user-friendly. This is the “Type 1” problem.


2. Often, the services born of technology come at a price that is unaffordable for those whose productivity can be increased by using them. Tools like computers, the internet, progressive communication systems and mobile telephony can boost our farmers’ crop output as well as keep them up-to-date on the latest developments in the agricultural sciences and government schemes. This is the “Type 2” problem.

On that note, it is heartening to know about the M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation’s (MSSRF) Village Development Program (VDP) that currently covers over 300 villages, mostly in Puducherry and some in Maharashtra. The foundation, by employing a community-ownership model that increases villagers’ participation, has set up an information distribution network together with the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) and other partners, such as Microsoft and Intel, who also provide some of the funds.

[caption id="attachment_20444" align="aligncenter" width="355" caption="The partners of MSSRF for the VDP"][/caption]

The MSSRF offices in Taramani, Chennai, function as a node for a national level hub that connects various technical, agricultural and veterinary universities across India, apart from NGOs and government offices in the vicinity of the villages. The knowledge these universities wish to share is uploaded into the hub’s content management system, which in turn is monitored by the foundation. The next step is to use the ISRO’s uplinking and downlinking capabilities, provided with the help of some of their satellites, which facilitate data-transfer to and from the node.

The final tier can be divided into two:

1. VRC – The Village Resource Centre (VRC) operates at the mandal level and usually addresses the distribution of information into a cluster of villages. The VRC is operated by local communities. Because of the encouragement of community-ownership, members of the community are involved in maintaining the centre while the partners of the programme provide the infrastructure.


2. VKC – The Village Knowledge Centre (VKC) operates just like the VRC except in that it addresses the needs of one village at a time. In other words, it functions as a sub-node that disseminates local, specific and demand-driven information. The communication between the VRC and the VKC happens through a local area network (LAN).

[caption id="attachment_20445" align="alignleft" width="148" caption="At Thankachimadam"][/caption]

Using this three-tier system (node-VKC-VRC) and by actively engaging with the villagers, the program conclusively addresses the Type 1 and Type 2 problems. By maintaining and running the nodes and data centres, the villagers are acclimatized to technology and technological innovation in a way that directly impacts their livelihood. By teaming up with partners eager to bring technology to the common man, MSSRF has brought the best in the world to the villages of Puducherry and Maharashtra, apart from freeing up their knowledge pool to be accessed by those who need it the most. This goes to demonstrate the importance of efficient and effective deployment of technology in order to make it useful.

The content generated by the universities, agencies and government offices can become overwhelming. Therefore, the effectiveness of the VDP is determined by how quickly and efficiently it is able to get that content to the right people. It must be noted that there is also a content generation process in place at a much more local, and more significant, level. Frequent debates between experts and the farming/fishing/animal-rearing communities are organized, and the questions and answers raised therein are integrated with the existing databases.

Also, apart from the VRCs, a mobile network is in place that delivers five relevant audio messages daily to subscribers of certain networks, including Airtel, Qualcomm and Tata. The advantage of employing mobile telephony is the ability to gather feedback statistics such as usage rates, response rates, etc., which can be used to improve the quality of the services provided. A help-desk has been set up at MSSRF’s Chennai office to address complaints that any users of the mobile communication networks might have.

What about inter-village communication? That has been addressed, and quite thoroughly to note, by a public announcement system (PAS) that incorporates both loudspeaker arrangements as well as a web-based notice-boarding system. In order to facilitate audio-conferencing, a multiple closed-user groups have been created such that calls to other people within the same group are free of cost. Finally, an INCOIS public display board has been installed that can be used with a GPRS device.

At the heart of all of this lies the need-assessment system, a single glance at which summarizes the entire VDP, its principal participants and its goals. While the VRCs are demand-driven and therefore reflective of the villagers’ needs, the villagers do have to be trained and made aware enough to know their rights, what they can and can’t demand, and what their options are. In order to empower them, the MSSRF enables them to interact with stakeholders of the entire program and familiarizes them with the principal tools. At the same time, a farmers’ database is compiled that is shared responsibly with government agencies, local banks and NGOs that have products and services of value on offer.



Essentially, the VDP is a stellar example that neither bargains with nor purchases profits at the cost of technology but engages with it directly to remove socio-economic barriers. It is clear that India’s sustainable development is uniquely tied in with the prosperity of its farmers, at least for now, and these farmers continue to face such barriers. By bringing the farming, fishing and animal-rearing communities together, the foundation has only spotlighted how much we stand to lose if we don’t divert our technologies away from gain.

Clear and present danger

“Revolutions in information and communication technologies have always been based on small findings in solid state physics” quips Dr. G. Baskaran, firmly establishing both the place and scope of technology. Affiliated with the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Canada, Dr. Baskaran is a renowned theoretical physicist. He recently delivered a short lecture at the Asian College of Journalism, speaking on everything from the role of science and the ongoing battle to explain super-luminary neutrinos to the future of science.

His statement couldn’t have come at a better time to remind the world of the necessity of science – and its techniques that we call technology. In the face of looming budget cuts in the USA and Europe, politicians and policy-makers have been raising serious questions about the necessity of everything from privately-owned small research labs to proposed upgrades to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN.

The evolution of science and technology has been associated with greater unity amongst peoples, Dr. Baskaran said, and better health, wealth, education and opportunities to preserve our culture. “There is some responsibility also”, he adds with a confidence mature with experience.

With likely the greatest ICT revolution at its peak, his words suggest that the technology fuelling it is also maturing in the sense of its acceptance and social penetration. Perhaps it is time for the world to get on the wagon, increase its investments in R&D, and start saving up. The future it seems can stand only to gain because historical ties are snapping in the face of a rupture that is allowing previously-lagging nations like India and China give past-leader USA a run for its money. Increased capitalist traction in the form of tablet computers and smartphones should be thanked for this.

Perhaps the best example of such an opportunity is the increasing feasibility of multi-state-owned research laboratories. The pioneer in this regard is CERN, which was funded and built by 12 countries in 1954, a number that has increased to 20 since, and currently receives funding from 69 countries worldwide. Next in line are the soon-to-come International Linear Collider (ILC) quartered in Japan and the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) in France, as brought to light by Dr. Baskaran.

Such projects ease the burden on countries that wish they had the data from experiments but can’t provide the land to build the lab in the first place. In the case of CERN, the land belongs to two countries, the running costs to 69 nations, the responsibility to more than 7,300 physicists and engineers, and the experimental data to 6.6 billion people. Such overwhelming benefits require only a distributed investment model and cross-border trust to encash it. Alas, the last factor is the most impeding.

Consider the discovery of the super-luminary muon neutrinos detected at the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy on September 23. In the absence of a unifying agency, the data would have been consumed by Italian researchers alone, keeping the world at bay for howsoever long it took to verify the results and get them published.

Now, a Puerto Rican or a Chilean has as much chance of explaining the phenomenon as does a Pakistani or Indian scientist. In fact, not only does the entire scientific community benefit by the sharing, but the chances of discovering something that will define the next big revolution are also increased.

(When asked about the strange occurrence, Dr. Baskaran asserted that owing to the small mass and low interactivity of the neutrinos, the existing energy generation technologies would not change as much our perceptions of the Universe. That, in turn, he said, will present new possibilities to produce more energy.)

A persisting sign of hope for India is its assistance with the construction of superconducting magnets at the LHC that even now are energizing beams of protons, and its significant contribution to the establishment of ITER. Further, Dr. Baskaran also revealed the news of a proposed Indian Neutrino Observatory (INO) at Theni, to be run by the government of India.

Alright, enough of taking comfort from the successes of the present; where are we headed? What does the future of science look like? The Tevatron has been closed, the baton has been passed to Europe to continue to look for the Higgs boson, the INO is under construction, and scientific representation is on the up. What about nanotechnology? It’s common knowledge that the Indians didn’t pay sufficient heed to Mr. Feynman. Is there still some space at the bottom?

We wouldn’t know, or, as Dr. Baskaran says, “There is nanomoney being spent on nanotechnology.” Employing India’s rise as an important centre for cheap but good medical care, he points out the important sectors our industries can capitalize on if it only took nanotech to the common man, akin to Gandhi’s talisman. There’s drug delivery, magnetic-resonance imaging, NEMS (nano-electromechanical systems), and, on another note, quantum computing. With continuing failure to look into these sectors, we're not only losing out on the international arena but we are also denying our citizens the opportunities to employment, to knowledge, to possibility.

So, are we again looking at the dearth of planning that has failed to incentivize the study of science in the country? Yes, at least in part. However, initiatives like InSPIRE – which is a 5-week long immersion program that reconnects Indians abroad to Indians at home – bear promise. On a final note, Dr. Baskaran insists that instead of continuing to depend on the government, which in turn depends on internally available resources, it is time to utilize the abundance of intellectual property within the nation and trust in the democracy of science.

Clear and present danger

“Revolutions in information and communication technologies have always been based on small findings in solid state physics” quips Dr. G. Baskaran, firmly establishing both the place and scope of technology. Affiliated with the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Canada, Dr. Baskaran is a renowned theoretical physicist. He recently delivered a short lecture at the Asian College of Journalism, speaking on everything from the role of science and the ongoing battle to explain super-luminary neutrinos to the future of science.

His statement couldn’t have come at a better time to remind the world of the necessity of science – and its techniques that we call technology. In the face of looming budget cuts in the USA and Europe, politicians and policy-makers have been raising serious questions about the necessity of everything from privately-owned small research labs to proposed upgrades to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN.

The evolution of science and technology has been associated with greater unity amongst peoples, Dr. Baskaran said, and better health, wealth, education and opportunities to preserve our culture. “There is some responsibility also”, he adds with a confidence mature with experience.

With likely the greatest ICT revolution at its peak, his words suggest that the technology fuelling it is also maturing in the sense of its acceptance and social penetration. Perhaps it is time for the world to get on the wagon, increase its investments in R&D, and start saving up. The future it seems can stand only to gain because historical ties are snapping in the face of a rupture that is allowing previously-lagging nations like India and China give past-leader USA a run for its money. Increased capitalist traction in the form of tablet computers and smartphones should be thanked for this.

Perhaps the best example of such an opportunity is the increasing feasibility of multi-state-owned research laboratories. The pioneer in this regard is CERN, which was funded and built by 12 countries in 1954, a number that has increased to 20 since, and currently receives funding from 69 countries worldwide. Next in line are the soon-to-come International Linear Collider (ILC) quartered in Japan and the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) in France, as brought to light by Dr. Baskaran.

Such projects ease the burden on countries that wish they had the data from experiments but can’t provide the land to build the lab in the first place. In the case of CERN, the land belongs to two countries, the running costs to 69 nations, the responsibility to more than 7,300 physicists and engineers, and the experimental data to 6.6 billion people. Such overwhelming benefits require only a distributed investment model and cross-border trust to encash it. Alas, the last factor is the most impeding.

Consider the discovery of the super-luminary muon neutrinos detected at the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy on September 23. In the absence of a unifying agency, the data would have been consumed by Italian researchers alone, keeping the world at bay for howsoever long it took to verify the results and get them published.

Now, a Puerto Rican or a Chilean has as much chance of explaining the phenomenon as does a Pakistani or Indian scientist. In fact, not only does the entire scientific community benefit by the sharing, but the chances of discovering something that will define the next big revolution are also increased.

(When asked about the strange occurrence, Dr. Baskaran asserted that owing to the small mass and low interactivity of the neutrinos, the existing energy generation technologies would not change as much our perceptions of the Universe. That, in turn, he said, will present new possibilities to produce more energy.)

A persisting sign of hope for India is its assistance with the construction of superconducting magnets at the LHC that even now are energizing beams of protons, and its significant contribution to the establishment of ITER. Further, Dr. Baskaran also revealed the news of a proposed Indian Neutrino Observatory (INO) at Theni, to be run by the government of India.

Alright, enough of taking comfort from the successes of the present; where are we headed? What does the future of science look like? The Tevatron has been closed, the baton has been passed to Europe to continue to look for the Higgs boson, the INO is under construction, and scientific representation is on the up. What about nanotechnology? It’s common knowledge that the Indians didn’t pay sufficient heed to Mr. Feynman. Is there still some space at the bottom?

We wouldn’t know, or, as Dr. Baskaran says, “There is nanomoney being spent on nanotechnology.” Employing India’s rise as an important centre for cheap but good medical care, he points out the important sectors our industries can capitalize on if it only took nanotech to the common man, akin to Gandhi’s talisman. There’s drug delivery, magnetic-resonance imaging, NEMS (nano-electromechanical systems), and, on another note, quantum computing. With continuing failure to look into these sectors, we're not only losing out on the international arena but we are also denying our citizens the opportunities to employment, to knowledge, to possibility.

So, are we again looking at the dearth of planning that has failed to incentivize the study of science in the country? Yes, at least in part. However, initiatives like InSPIRE – which is a 5-week long immersion program that reconnects Indians abroad to Indians at home – bear promise. On a final note, Dr. Baskaran insists that instead of continuing to depend on the government, which in turn depends on internally available resources, it is time to utilize the abundance of intellectual property within the nation and trust in the democracy of science.

Thinking about feminism

• From when time human civilization was a few years old, biological bias existed: testosterone made man more muscular, a fact he took advantage of


• Women gearing up for public life need to "emerge" in their private lives


• Constant chances, opportunities should be provided to women


• The feminist movement needs empathetic men


• A big gender gap exists in the legal profession in India


• Man's position in the public domain is being and will be challenged; if he is unable to take it properly, resulting communal dissonance will be harmful


• Girls need a nurturing ambiance; women have to be brought up accordingly


• Society has to adapt to the demands of gender equality apart from an accompanying institutional reform


• Critical mass of intellectuals - 1971 - sat down and taught women in universities; lessons?


• How does a woman perceive herself?


• 'Honour' killings reflect lack of self-esteem amongst women


• Matrimonial ads in newspapers have caste displayed as well as preferences; so, are 'honour' killings that surprising?


• Data from National Family Health Survey (2005) is in the public domain to be utilized for/by private initiatives


• Problem is running far ahead while scaling of solutions is discreet, not dynamic


• Is it only symbolic representation or is success imminent?


• Reinforcement of bias through entertainment shows ("Kyounki saas bhi…", etc.) needs to be curbed


• Conflict between tradition and modality


• Any possibility of misuse of dowry laws needs to be averted


• "The system is still biased", glass ceiling is yet to be broken"; constant celebration of few successful women leads to undue complacency

Thinking about feminism

• From when time human civilization was a few years old, biological bias existed: testosterone made man more muscular, a fact he took advantage of


• Women gearing up for public life need to "emerge" in their private lives


• Constant chances, opportunities should be provided to women


• The feminist movement needs empathetic men


• A big gender gap exists in the legal profession in India


• Man's position in the public domain is being and will be challenged; if he is unable to take it properly, resulting communal dissonance will be harmful


• Girls need a nurturing ambiance; women have to be brought up accordingly


• Society has to adapt to the demands of gender equality apart from an accompanying institutional reform


• Critical mass of intellectuals - 1971 - sat down and taught women in universities; lessons?


• How does a woman perceive herself?


• 'Honour' killings reflect lack of self-esteem amongst women


• Matrimonial ads in newspapers have caste displayed as well as preferences; so, are 'honour' killings that surprising?


• Data from National Family Health Survey (2005) is in the public domain to be utilized for/by private initiatives


• Problem is running far ahead while scaling of solutions is discreet, not dynamic


• Is it only symbolic representation or is success imminent?


• Reinforcement of bias through entertainment shows ("Kyounki saas bhi…", etc.) needs to be curbed


• Conflict between tradition and modality


• Any possibility of misuse of dowry laws needs to be averted


• "The system is still biased", glass ceiling is yet to be broken"; constant celebration of few successful women leads to undue complacency

The forces that move

The following is my assimilation of Dr. Prabhat Patnaik's fairly straightforward lecture delivered at the Asian College of Journalism on the 5th day of August, 2011.

--

Before I start off, I'd like to make it clear that I didn't like the way Patnaik ended his lecture: "I'm Marxist." That just threw everything off-balance for me and I was forced to look at all the notes I'd taken in new light. Anyway, the lecture was, like I said, straightforward, filled with simple cause-effect relationships all over the place.

The rise of capitalism

The rise of capitalism as such was marred by three of its most significant consequences:

1. The rise in numbers of the poor in western Europe


2. Transitional problems in developing nations


3. Institutionalization of equality

In fact, as businesses shifted toward more efficient models, workers began to lose their jobs en masse and were forced to migrate to destinations that promised employment and/or any other such necessities for survival. As a result of this exodus, those labourers who chose to stay back home were in the company of fewer consumers, and so with the same wage could enjoy a slightly enhanced standard of living. In a way, this movement of manpower could be described as the invisible hand of Smith as work, gradually stabilizing a drastically changing system.

Because of the lack of precedence, there was no defence for the argument that capitalism was the sole cause of these debilitating circumstances, and therefore transient economies began to face some resistance from the people of the states. However, in such an evaluation, the loss of jobs featured as a parameter while migration did not, and therefore, the other effects of moving workforce were disregarded. These are:

1. Drop in unemployment - If the worker didn't have a job, he didn't stay unemployed in the that place. Instead, he moved to another place where he could be employed.


2. Raise in standard of living for domestic workers (already discussed)


3. Marketing of capitalist production - Countries slow to the awakening of capitalism suffered the "displacement" of the local markets because commercial proliferation of more-developed countries resulted in the encroachment of local markets

A cause-effect paradox

The first incongruence arises when capitalism, as the herald of modernity, gives rise to modern industrialist capitalist production that does not absorb labour (do artificial intelligence, the Large Hadron Collider, and space exploration seem like a consequence of the proliferation of Communism?).

The decrease in that absorptive power was mostly as a result of the introduction of labour market flexibility: in the words of economist Horst Siebert,

"Labour market institutions [can be] seen to inhibit the clearing functions of the market by weakening the demand for labor, making it less attractive to hire a worker by explicitly pushing up the wage costs or by introducing a negative shadow price for labor."

Furthermore, the high growth rate of industries ensures that divides are accentuated quickly: a man who continues to remain poor becomes too poor in the same time a man who is slightly rich becomes quickly rich. I don't condemn this; in fact, I stand by it.

Now, there's a certain vicious cycle that I've detailed here (with some exaggeration) that widens the gap between the rich and the poor in an economy driven by capitalistic initiatives. Capitalism could be said to add to such a cycle because it displaces the poor, keeps them from being reabsorbed into industries, and in the process renders migration moot. Therefore, while the poor increase in number, all the wealth is localized in smaller and smaller pockets even as redistribution becomes processually more difficult (which is the essence of the abrasive relationship between democracy and capitalism).

Helpless superheroes

To save the thus-displaced, the state intervenes, the position of its intervention resting on the discordant view that irrespective of regional or demographic disparities, the larger collective has its first duty toward the poor. Consequently, reservation was installed in order to safeguard, rather vouchsafe, opportunities for the marginalized and eventually kill marginalization itself. However, the onset of neo-liberalism saw a decline in state-support for the destitute.

(The plot between direct + indirect per capita food grain consumption on the Y-axis and per capita income on the X is logarithmic.)

Now, the idea of a government as such rests on the strength of communities, the oneness that people are capable of establishing as a consequences of concentric and concurrent goals. The notion of community, with the advent of capitalism, was split up neatly into a pre-capitalistic form and a post-capitalist form (although I prefer to call the latter the pro-capitalist form).

Before I continue to rant about the (good) mess that capitalism's landed us in, it'd be appropriate to discuss the one thing that the coming of modernism (as an accompaniment of capitalism) achieved: the penetration of education into the social strata. Education raised the expectations of the people and made them aware of the lack of resources in satiating those expectations. Education awakened the people to the real problems irking them without their knowledge. Education mobilized social frustration.

Soon, individuals began to break away from the pre-cap. community and "enrolled" with the proletariat (and I use the word only because social integration would've taken time). An alternate group of communities were also formed in the name of trade unions, rather as trade unions. Further, the breakup of the pro-cap. communities was exacerbated by the introduction of commodity production, and with it, competition, rivalry, and money.

Interlude: Rise of the Second Serfdom

Unfortunately, a Second Serfdom awaited the poor: just like the failure of the industries to reabsorb the unemployed spelled destitution, the failure of the proletariat to absorb the "countryside" individual gave cause for the pre-cap. communities to persist. When the proletariat shut its gates, the peasantry stayed on with the pre-cap. community it'd come from, and cut into its subsistence.

Again, as a result: persistence of institutionalized inequality (an axiomatic conclusion).

Forces at war and forces at work

The capitalist market is not an equalizing phenomenon, especially when it's known that the profits reaped thereof are directly proportional to the strength of the economic and social powers that engage within its ambit. Because of this tendency to counter any stabilizing agents, inequalities inherited from other bases also become susceptible to accentuation. These are the forces at war.

The interaction between the persistent pre-cap. communities and the rapidly growing pro-cap communities resulted in the engendering of identity politics, structured within the framework of negotiations between the two. Within the capitalist order of things, individuals were being coerced into particular roles that best suited their new lifestyle. Due to the consequent limitation of identity, it's not surprising that it became a battleground for political causes. One way or another, these were the forces at work.

*

Notes:

1. Superimposition - In those countries that developed capitalism later than the rest, the destruction of the old communities and the formation of the new ones were parallel processes, which was not the case with the early developers. So? So the pre-cap. communities were not fully broken down during the onset of capitalism, leading to a superimposition of the two. The early developers didn't have this problem.


2. Fail-safe - Capitalism, when faced with challenges by the new and supposedly "pro-capitalist" community, makes compromises with the pre-cap. communities


3. The difference between affirmative actions toward efficiency and affirmative actions toward equity, and why the former is mandated while the latter is not


4. Poverty as a social construct

The forces that move

The following is my assimilation of Dr. Prabhat Patnaik's fairly straightforward lecture delivered at the Asian College of Journalism on the 5th day of August, 2011.

--

Before I start off, I'd like to make it clear that I didn't like the way Patnaik ended his lecture: "I'm Marxist." That just threw everything off-balance for me and I was forced to look at all the notes I'd taken in new light. Anyway, the lecture was, like I said, straightforward, filled with simple cause-effect relationships all over the place.

The rise of capitalism

The rise of capitalism as such was marred by three of its most significant consequences:

1. The rise in numbers of the poor in western Europe


2. Transitional problems in developing nations


3. Institutionalization of equality

In fact, as businesses shifted toward more efficient models, workers began to lose their jobs en masse and were forced to migrate to destinations that promised employment and/or any other such necessities for survival. As a result of this exodus, those labourers who chose to stay back home were in the company of fewer consumers, and so with the same wage could enjoy a slightly enhanced standard of living. In a way, this movement of manpower could be described as the invisible hand of Smith as work, gradually stabilizing a drastically changing system.

Because of the lack of precedence, there was no defence for the argument that capitalism was the sole cause of these debilitating circumstances, and therefore transient economies began to face some resistance from the people of the states. However, in such an evaluation, the loss of jobs featured as a parameter while migration did not, and therefore, the other effects of moving workforce were disregarded. These are:

1. Drop in unemployment - If the worker didn't have a job, he didn't stay unemployed in the that place. Instead, he moved to another place where he could be employed.


2. Raise in standard of living for domestic workers (already discussed)


3. Marketing of capitalist production - Countries slow to the awakening of capitalism suffered the "displacement" of the local markets because commercial proliferation of more-developed countries resulted in the encroachment of local markets

A cause-effect paradox

The first incongruence arises when capitalism, as the herald of modernity, gives rise to modern industrialist capitalist production that does not absorb labour (do artificial intelligence, the Large Hadron Collider, and space exploration seem like a consequence of the proliferation of Communism?).

The decrease in that absorptive power was mostly as a result of the introduction of labour market flexibility: in the words of economist Horst Siebert,

"Labour market institutions [can be] seen to inhibit the clearing functions of the market by weakening the demand for labor, making it less attractive to hire a worker by explicitly pushing up the wage costs or by introducing a negative shadow price for labor."

Furthermore, the high growth rate of industries ensures that divides are accentuated quickly: a man who continues to remain poor becomes too poor in the same time a man who is slightly rich becomes quickly rich. I don't condemn this; in fact, I stand by it.

Now, there's a certain vicious cycle that I've detailed here (with some exaggeration) that widens the gap between the rich and the poor in an economy driven by capitalistic initiatives. Capitalism could be said to add to such a cycle because it displaces the poor, keeps them from being reabsorbed into industries, and in the process renders migration moot. Therefore, while the poor increase in number, all the wealth is localized in smaller and smaller pockets even as redistribution becomes processually more difficult (which is the essence of the abrasive relationship between democracy and capitalism).

Helpless superheroes

To save the thus-displaced, the state intervenes, the position of its intervention resting on the discordant view that irrespective of regional or demographic disparities, the larger collective has its first duty toward the poor. Consequently, reservation was installed in order to safeguard, rather vouchsafe, opportunities for the marginalized and eventually kill marginalization itself. However, the onset of neo-liberalism saw a decline in state-support for the destitute.

(The plot between direct + indirect per capita food grain consumption on the Y-axis and per capita income on the X is logarithmic.)

Now, the idea of a government as such rests on the strength of communities, the oneness that people are capable of establishing as a consequences of concentric and concurrent goals. The notion of community, with the advent of capitalism, was split up neatly into a pre-capitalistic form and a post-capitalist form (although I prefer to call the latter the pro-capitalist form).

Before I continue to rant about the (good) mess that capitalism's landed us in, it'd be appropriate to discuss the one thing that the coming of modernism (as an accompaniment of capitalism) achieved: the penetration of education into the social strata. Education raised the expectations of the people and made them aware of the lack of resources in satiating those expectations. Education awakened the people to the real problems irking them without their knowledge. Education mobilized social frustration.

Soon, individuals began to break away from the pre-cap. community and "enrolled" with the proletariat (and I use the word only because social integration would've taken time). An alternate group of communities were also formed in the name of trade unions, rather as trade unions. Further, the breakup of the pro-cap. communities was exacerbated by the introduction of commodity production, and with it, competition, rivalry, and money.

Interlude: Rise of the Second Serfdom

Unfortunately, a Second Serfdom awaited the poor: just like the failure of the industries to reabsorb the unemployed spelled destitution, the failure of the proletariat to absorb the "countryside" individual gave cause for the pre-cap. communities to persist. When the proletariat shut its gates, the peasantry stayed on with the pre-cap. community it'd come from, and cut into its subsistence.

Again, as a result: persistence of institutionalized inequality (an axiomatic conclusion).

Forces at war and forces at work

The capitalist market is not an equalizing phenomenon, especially when it's known that the profits reaped thereof are directly proportional to the strength of the economic and social powers that engage within its ambit. Because of this tendency to counter any stabilizing agents, inequalities inherited from other bases also become susceptible to accentuation. These are the forces at war.

The interaction between the persistent pre-cap. communities and the rapidly growing pro-cap communities resulted in the engendering of identity politics, structured within the framework of negotiations between the two. Within the capitalist order of things, individuals were being coerced into particular roles that best suited their new lifestyle. Due to the consequent limitation of identity, it's not surprising that it became a battleground for political causes. One way or another, these were the forces at work.

*

Notes:

1. Superimposition - In those countries that developed capitalism later than the rest, the destruction of the old communities and the formation of the new ones were parallel processes, which was not the case with the early developers. So? So the pre-cap. communities were not fully broken down during the onset of capitalism, leading to a superimposition of the two. The early developers didn't have this problem.


2. Fail-safe - Capitalism, when faced with challenges by the new and supposedly "pro-capitalist" community, makes compromises with the pre-cap. communities


3. The difference between affirmative actions toward efficiency and affirmative actions toward equity, and why the former is mandated while the latter is not


4. Poverty as a social construct

Cry havoc and let loose the apps of war!

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't eagerly awaiting the launch of Google+. I'd heard about it a month ago and ever since, I've had this feeling that Google's going to be integrating all the products it's rolled out in the past in one stroke, posing the first real threat to Facebook. While Buzz, Wave and Lively each had their flaws when deployed as a standalone application, they could find some relevance in this new avatar of social networking.

Going by the few reviews that have come out, it seems like Google+ is ahead on points because of its "refreshing" approach to online privacy - called Circles - and the video-chat add-in for conferencing.

Bernard Moon at VentureBeat had this to say:

But I realized that for many people, especially those outside of Silicon Valley, Facebook was their first and only social networking experience. These people either simply accepted all their worlds colliding, or limited their Facebook “friends” to real friends. Circles allows someone like me to group casual business acquaintances into a distinct circle where I don’t have to share personal details like family photos. It also allows for those previously uncomfortable with Facebook to potentially “let loose”.

He's right. Facebook for many years monopolized the social networking industry to the point of forcing its users to build their life around it, but with Google going the other way by being a little more flexible with its options, users now avail a choice: live around your social network, or let your social network live around you.

Here's another thing I noticed: Facebook co-owns the information I put up on it. Google+, on the other hand, has this to say on the license agreement:

“You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.”

That's more like it!

(In fact, Google's privacy policy is only some 1,000 words long against Facebook's 6,000+.)

Let's set aside the broader picture for now and focus on the little things. The thing about Facebook and Twitter that made them quickly popular was their accessibility. On Twitter, all you had to do was create an account and pick the users you wanted to follow. On Facebook, after a simple login, you could add friends and... voila! Every other tool was ready for your use.

Not so for Google+. As soon as I login, I'm told I don't have a profile. See, and I didn't know that. So I went about filling in stuff and uploading my CV and whatnot. Then, it was time for my profile picture. That's when I realized that uploading one is apparently one of the things we take for granted: while it works like magic on Twitter and Facebook, it took me 20 minutes to "get it right" on Google+. First, it wasn't a picture of me. Fair enough. I picked another one, gave it a crop and hit submit: too big. Next: "Your internet connection is too slow". Next: "Invalid image".

Having a profile picture is one of the fundamental things about social networking, and I'm not moved by Google's concern to have everyone put up "legitimate" pictures as much as I'm frustrated with the delay it poses in accessing the good stuff. This should be moved out of the way as soon as possible.

An excerpt from CNN's piece on the release:

Google+ has photo sharing, which places a large emphasis on smartphone usage. For example, photos taken from an Android phone can be automatically dumped into a private folder in the Google+ Web service, a la Apple's iCloud.

The +1 button, which was previously made available as an optional program for Google account holders, ties this all together, not unlike Facebook's "Like" button. Clicking +1 on Google search results, embedded on other sites or from within Google+ pages, allows you to share links with friends or selectively with groups of friends.

Unsurprisingly, Google has tapped its prowess in Web search for a section called Sparks. It's like Google Alerts, for receiving updates on favorite topics. Facebook's search engine is Microsoft's Bing, but users of that site can't subscribe to updates in this way.

That pretty much sums it up. The release is still in Beta and so nothing can be said about the site's dynamics when large volumes are concerned. One other thing is that Facebook and Microsoft are known to share a close relationship, and the latter's hefty acquisition of Skype a few weeks ago could mean a closer tie-in between the two to rival the video-chat advantage Google holds.

On a separate note: perhaps Facebook couldn't bear all the attention diverted away from it. Reuters got there first.

Chief Executive and founder Mark Zuckerberg told reporters in a visit to Facebook's Seattle office on Wednesday that the company planned to "launch something awesome" next week.

A Facebook spokesman declined to provide further details about Zuckerberg's comments.

'Nuff said.

Cry havoc and let loose the apps of war!

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't eagerly awaiting the launch of Google+. I'd heard about it a month ago and ever since, I've had this feeling that Google's going to be integrating all the products it's rolled out in the past in one stroke, posing the first real threat to Facebook. While Buzz, Wave and Lively each had their flaws when deployed as a standalone application, they could find some relevance in this new avatar of social networking.

Going by the few reviews that have come out, it seems like Google+ is ahead on points because of its "refreshing" approach to online privacy - called Circles - and the video-chat add-in for conferencing.

Bernard Moon at VentureBeat had this to say:

But I realized that for many people, especially those outside of Silicon Valley, Facebook was their first and only social networking experience. These people either simply accepted all their worlds colliding, or limited their Facebook “friends” to real friends. Circles allows someone like me to group casual business acquaintances into a distinct circle where I don’t have to share personal details like family photos. It also allows for those previously uncomfortable with Facebook to potentially “let loose”.

He's right. Facebook for many years monopolized the social networking industry to the point of forcing its users to build their life around it, but with Google going the other way by being a little more flexible with its options, users now avail a choice: live around your social network, or let your social network live around you.

Here's another thing I noticed: Facebook co-owns the information I put up on it. Google+, on the other hand, has this to say on the license agreement:

“You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.”

That's more like it!

(In fact, Google's privacy policy is only some 1,000 words long against Facebook's 6,000+.)

Let's set aside the broader picture for now and focus on the little things. The thing about Facebook and Twitter that made them quickly popular was their accessibility. On Twitter, all you had to do was create an account and pick the users you wanted to follow. On Facebook, after a simple login, you could add friends and... voila! Every other tool was ready for your use.

Not so for Google+. As soon as I login, I'm told I don't have a profile. See, and I didn't know that. So I went about filling in stuff and uploading my CV and whatnot. Then, it was time for my profile picture. That's when I realized that uploading one is apparently one of the things we take for granted: while it works like magic on Twitter and Facebook, it took me 20 minutes to "get it right" on Google+. First, it wasn't a picture of me. Fair enough. I picked another one, gave it a crop and hit submit: too big. Next: "Your internet connection is too slow". Next: "Invalid image".

Having a profile picture is one of the fundamental things about social networking, and I'm not moved by Google's concern to have everyone put up "legitimate" pictures as much as I'm frustrated with the delay it poses in accessing the good stuff. This should be moved out of the way as soon as possible.

An excerpt from CNN's piece on the release:

Google+ has photo sharing, which places a large emphasis on smartphone usage. For example, photos taken from an Android phone can be automatically dumped into a private folder in the Google+ Web service, a la Apple's iCloud.

The +1 button, which was previously made available as an optional program for Google account holders, ties this all together, not unlike Facebook's "Like" button. Clicking +1 on Google search results, embedded on other sites or from within Google+ pages, allows you to share links with friends or selectively with groups of friends.

Unsurprisingly, Google has tapped its prowess in Web search for a section called Sparks. It's like Google Alerts, for receiving updates on favorite topics. Facebook's search engine is Microsoft's Bing, but users of that site can't subscribe to updates in this way.

That pretty much sums it up. The release is still in Beta and so nothing can be said about the site's dynamics when large volumes are concerned. One other thing is that Facebook and Microsoft are known to share a close relationship, and the latter's hefty acquisition of Skype a few weeks ago could mean a closer tie-in between the two to rival the video-chat advantage Google holds.

On a separate note: perhaps Facebook couldn't bear all the attention diverted away from it. Reuters got there first.

Chief Executive and founder Mark Zuckerberg told reporters in a visit to Facebook's Seattle office on Wednesday that the company planned to "launch something awesome" next week.

A Facebook spokesman declined to provide further details about Zuckerberg's comments.

'Nuff said.

Ramblings... and just that.

A particular bout of frustration brought on a realization of the necessity of some introspection, some incisive thinking that might allow me to control my disciplines more proactively.

I've come to the conclusion that maturity when delayed has different implications. Of course, this is only my opinion that has been shaped by my experiences. In the beginning, one's actions are reflections of one's maturity, and over the course of a decade or so, there is a process of self-integration that leads to those experiences from which we learnt anything to think for us - a "hysteresis" - and that very self-integration I've visualized as an intersection between two lines.

The volume of experiences beneath the intersection becomes, thus, an indication of its "age". When a person matures (emotionally, not physically) at the right time, at a younger age, at a later age:



Maturation, I've realized, is not necessarily a desirable or sought-after outcome of aging - its implications are not quite necessary at any point of time; it's a fact. Say, at a young age, if a child has been subjected to care that is indifferent and practised as a matter of duty more than anything else, the sense of logic within the child is exposed to a field of greater utility than are the other faculties, thereby bringing about a premature logical maturity which, in turn, clouds the other faculties. Of course, I'm only addressing this subject superficially, and even so find it complex and, consequently, intriguing.

Anyway, for a person whose maturity (of any pertinent faculty) has been delayed, the process of learning would have exceeded its confinement to the zone of proximal development (ref: pedagogic psychology, Vygotsky) and have influenced higher-level experiences, thereby corrupting the contents of the instructions. I realize how I could be terribly wrong, but as a result of having arrived at said observations through a gambit of personal experiences, only I can prove myself wrong.

In the event of being convinced that one's feelings, emotions and/or misgivings cannot be evaluated perfectly by anyone other than oneself, a success or a failure on one front doesn't present me with conclusive evidence of my success or failure: perhaps I did something wrong in succeeding so? Perhaps I did something unnecessarily right in the process of being successful? I believe it is because of such questions that I will be able to enjoy traveling, naught else.

Ramblings... and just that.

A particular bout of frustration brought on a realization of the necessity of some introspection, some incisive thinking that might allow me to control my disciplines more proactively.

I've come to the conclusion that maturity when delayed has different implications. Of course, this is only my opinion that has been shaped by my experiences. In the beginning, one's actions are reflections of one's maturity, and over the course of a decade or so, there is a process of self-integration that leads to those experiences from which we learnt anything to think for us - a "hysteresis" - and that very self-integration I've visualized as an intersection between two lines.

The volume of experiences beneath the intersection becomes, thus, an indication of its "age". When a person matures (emotionally, not physically) at the right time, at a younger age, at a later age:



Maturation, I've realized, is not necessarily a desirable or sought-after outcome of aging - its implications are not quite necessary at any point of time; it's a fact. Say, at a young age, if a child has been subjected to care that is indifferent and practised as a matter of duty more than anything else, the sense of logic within the child is exposed to a field of greater utility than are the other faculties, thereby bringing about a premature logical maturity which, in turn, clouds the other faculties. Of course, I'm only addressing this subject superficially, and even so find it complex and, consequently, intriguing.

Anyway, for a person whose maturity (of any pertinent faculty) has been delayed, the process of learning would have exceeded its confinement to the zone of proximal development (ref: pedagogic psychology, Vygotsky) and have influenced higher-level experiences, thereby corrupting the contents of the instructions. I realize how I could be terribly wrong, but as a result of having arrived at said observations through a gambit of personal experiences, only I can prove myself wrong.

In the event of being convinced that one's feelings, emotions and/or misgivings cannot be evaluated perfectly by anyone other than oneself, a success or a failure on one front doesn't present me with conclusive evidence of my success or failure: perhaps I did something wrong in succeeding so? Perhaps I did something unnecessarily right in the process of being successful? I believe it is because of such questions that I will be able to enjoy traveling, naught else.