Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi
Hon’ble Minister for Human Resource Development,
Science & Technology and Ocean Development Government of India
Opening session of the European Commission Conference “European Research 2002” November 11, 2002
Every relationship between two civilizations has a distinctive character and hue. Some are marked by mutual respect, some by cautious political understanding, some by cultural distance and indifference and some by open hostility. In most cases relationships are dominated by commerce or politics, with governments and industry as the major players. The relationship between people remains confined to tourism or superficial cultural exchange programmes. Occasionally, however, relationships transcend the conventional and go deep into the hearts and minds of people. The relationship between India and Europe is one such. Both have deeply influenced each others' philosophies, languages, attitudes and world-views at a very fundamental level, such that the notion of 'India' is a part of the mental make up of most Europeans, as that of 'Europe' is a part of the minds of most Indians. This has been possible primarily through centuries of exchange of knowledge through books and literature, the travels of knowledge seekers, through sojourns of study and research, through academia.
I am privileged to be here today in continuation of this tradition of commerce in scientific knowledge. This is one kind of commerce which time cannot diminish. In the post industrial society, where mind has reasserted its dominance over matter, it is transactions of knowledge - and the companionship of human minds, which will endure and provide the basis of long lasting ties. I hope our meetings this week will mark the beginnings of a new phase of joining hands for a renewed quest for knowledge.
Ancient scientific discourse, both in the east and west, in spite of a remarkable diversity of thought, had a few defining features which were common. One was the belief in the supremacy of nature and the understanding that the physical world was a holistic tapestry of interdependent influence. In almost all early cosmological theories the world was likened not to a machine but to a living organism. The other was, almost as a corollary, that different modes of investigation and enquiry were interrelated and in fact, incapable of compartmentalization - religion and philosophy, philosophy and science, science and ethics, science and the arts, aesthetics and ethics, grammar, language, sociology were all deeply intertwined and could not be disassembled into autonomous spheres of knowledge. Science in the Latin 'scientia' was simply - to know, and technology in the Greek 'techne' - was art.
It was only the philosophical revolution which took place in Western Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that the general validity of a secular mechanistic science as a natural philosophy began to be accepted, not just by a few isolated intellectuals, but on a broader social scale. Breaking away from the essentially nonfunctional traditions of Greek science, the first modern scientists, including figures such as Copernicus, Galileo and Francis Bacon, began to realize the potential value of scientific knowledge to society as providing it with the means, not only to interpret the world, but also to change it.
The philosophical basis of this new science was provided by ‘Descartes’ whose strict division of reality - or rather of knowledge of reality - into the categories of subject and object have provided the basis of the practice of Western science for the past three hundred years.
Descartes' method was not the only one available. The philosopher Leibniz postulated an alternative interpretation of reality in his Monadology. His philosophy of monads was based on concepts of wholeness, and emphasized the relationships between phenomena and between events, rather than the distinctions which separated them. Yet this precluded the possibility of a scientific method that would allow men direct access to the forces of nature, and was hence unable to ally itself to an instrumental material base. It was Cartesian logic that held the day; Leibniz's ideas were allowed to fall into obscurity. One consequence of this was the apparent social acceptance of a cleavage between values - the realm of the subject - and facts - the realm of the object. This in turn appeared to legitimate the separation of feeling from thought a process that can be traced in almost all fields of cultural activity. After the time of the metaphysical poets, to take but one example, we can recognize a sharpening of the distinction between poetry and prose. Rousseau later claimed that 'Descartes' philosophy had slit the throat of poetry’. This whole process was accompanied by the emergence of the notion of purity applied to various forms of cultural activity. Science despite recognition of its instrumental importance became 'pure' science, consciously divorced from its social applications and frequently justified in its own terms as the disinterested pursuit of knowledge.
Conventional stereotypes often treat scientific knowledge as a product of the occidental mind governed by reason and rationality and mystical knowledge as a product of the oriental governed by intuitive wisdom and spirituality. The currency of such stereotypes has been primarily due to the limitations of the reductionist science which developed out of Cartesian and Newtonian paradigms and could not come to terms with other, non-western, more holistic and more complex modes of enquiry.' Descartes' division of the world into the categories of res extensa - the domain of science and res cogitans - the domain of theology was done to free science from theological control and give it an independent sphere of influence without threatening the church. This was the beginning of compartmentalization of knowledge and the emergence of the view of the universe as a vast machine, capable of being disassembled into parts and each part treated as an autonomous sphere of knowledge.
The moment we revert to a unified theory of knowledge we realize that the stereotypical distinctions between the oriental and the occidental modes of enquiry are false. The impulse for scientific inquiry began in India many millennia before Descartes, Bacon and Newton. As a civilization, the Indian civilization can differentiate itself from many others by the extra-ordinary sophistication, complexity and richness of its traditions of scientific inquiry into meaning and truth. At a time, thousands of years ago, when many societies were still struggling to negotiate the basics of material existence, we already had a body of thought and knowledge which was breath-taking in its range - cosmology, astronomy, mathematics, linguistics and grammar, logic, ethics, aesthetics, architecture - there was not a branch of human thought which had not been irradiated by the rays of human brilliance. We never had a distinction between religious and scientific thought, because our way of life was governed not by primitive awe and superstition and dogma and doctrine but by a societal awareness of the power of human reason and what the physicist Paul Davies calls the 'deep and meaningful resonance between the human mind and the underlying organisation of the natural world. I cannot recall any other society which has throughout its history, accorded such primacy to the quest for knowledge, untrammeled and unbounded by theocracy. The western notion of a conflict between religion and science, a conflict which so many modern scientific thinkers from Whitehead to Fred Hoyle to Stephen ‘Hawking’ have tried to reconcile never existed in the Indian mind because our culture, our way of life, our religion was always a scientific quest, a journey into the unknown. The 'genetic software' that is our inheritance gives us a definitive edge over most others in the production of scientific knowledge. Our traditions of pursuit of knowledge, including the pursuit of knowledge qua knowledge creates an unparalleled opportunity for us to create together a new 'commonwealth' of knowledge.
Although contemporary work in science and technology in India has generally followed the paradigms of Western science, the fact is that the social acceptance of the 'scientific method' and of reductionist science is not as widespread as in the west. Our philosophical and spiritual traditions, still dominate the Indian psyche. The discoveries and conclusions of quantum mechanics and non-linear physics, for example, have striking parallels with Indian vedantic thought, as Fritjoff Capra has so eloquently brought out. Since Indian spiritual and philosophical traditions have continued unbroken, at least as a parallel tradition, our ability to return to an epistemology which is not dichotomous and capable of fusing contemporary knowledge with earlier traditions, is high. We have a better opportunity to develop a science which can be intellectually rigorous and elegant, ethically sound and socially useful.
The creation of a new commonwealth of knowledge, a new scientific epistemology, indeed, a new 'Weltanschauung' through our combined efforts is of paramount importance for a more sustainable earth. The world view which unfortunately holds sway in contemporary times, is based on the myth of social, political and ethical neutrality of science and technology and economics.
This myth is an essential element of a general mechanistic and functionalist ideology of contemporary society. It postulates an equivalence relationship between the concepts of industrialization, modernization, and technological and social development. It legitimates the continued single-minded pursuit of economic growth, placing primary emphasis on the generation rather than the distribution of wealth. It also seeks to explain the functioning of society purely in operational terms, denying the relevance of political considerations concerned with the distribution of power or patterns of social control.
Many of the terms and concepts utilized by such an interpretation have been derived from the practice of science. Indeed it is possible to suggest that the legitimation of a technology led growth model, is based largely on the ideology of 'scientism', which is itself legitimated by the positivist interpretation of the practice of science as an empirically discovered objective truth.
Positivism as a natural philosophy combines the traditions of empiricist and rationalist thought. This was originally done to strengthen the belief of scientists in the exclusive validity of scientific truth. ‘Scientism’ is the transformation of positivism into a social philosophy, the basis on which man explains and interprets the nature of society? As such, it forms an essential element of the ideology of industrialization and the acceptance of a 'natural' correspondence between high economic growth, resource consumption and social development. The ideology of scientism also puts the natural sciences in conflict with the social and human science. The apparent contradiction between the sciences and the humanities or social sciences are to be found in an ideology that first identifies these as autonomous activities independent of society and having done so, gives them opposing roles in a way that virtually guarantees the emergence of conflict. It is imperative that to move towards a more sustainable order we overthrow this dominant ideology.
One of the most dangerous consequences of the dichotomous science as we have practiced so far has been the disturbance of the delicate relationship between human beings and nature. Global warming, water scarcity, deforestation, arable land degradation, desertification, unprecedented concentration of Green House Gases are just some of the consequences of the uncritical acceptance of the myth of the social, political and ethical neutrality of science and technology.
The problem is further compounded by the narrow techno-economic vision which informs the process of globalisation. Globalization has to be seen in the context of sharp inequalities prevailing among the countries of the world. Inequalities of consumption, of productive wealth generation capacities, of infrastructure availability, of the availability of public goods and services. In its present form the process of globalization is premised on wasteful consumption patterns of the rich, a propagation of the value of unlimited consumer choice as the driving force of economic growth, and a fuelling of aspirations for the life-styles of the rich. In a situation of disproportionate consumption on the part of the rich on the one hand and the vicious spiral of poverty-environment-population problem triad on the other, the strain on natural resources oft the earth has become unbearable. A globalization process which relies on perpetuating ever higher levels of consumption can only mean the globalization of poverty, inequality and ecological degradation.
In a number of my recent speeches I have dwelt at length on the concept of ‘Sustainable Consumption’ and argued that without fundamental changes In consumption patterns and value systems the goal of sustainable development is not achievable. Development has to be redefined in more holistic terms and distinguished from linear, mechanistic, economic and technological growth. Conventional growth strategies which rely on purely technological solutions to complex social, cultural and ecological problems are doomed to failure. My objective today in reiterating some of these arguments is to stress that globalization processes have to be anchored in the principles and values inherent in the concept of ‘sustainable consumption’ to make globalization work for the creation of a global community of healthy, creative, cultivated and convivial human beings~ In the realm of science and technology cooperation has to replace competition as the prime mover, the motor of development.
I started using the term 'sustainable consumption' over ten years ago when the term 'sustainable development' came into vogue. I argued it is not possible to speak of sustainable development unless we first address the issue of sustainable consumption. As long as the ideal of unlimited consumption as a measure of progress remains, science and technology will continue to exercise its tyranny in its attempts to meet the ever-expanding demands of human greed and rapacity.
For a long time I thought I was a lone crusader for the mantra of 'Sustainable Consumption'. It was to my extreme delight, therefore, when the world's national academies of science came together in Tokyo in May 2000 to discuss issues related to the role of science and technology in promoting sustainability and the national academies of Europe combined to produce a volume of papers on a European perspective towards sustainable consumption. In many ways the European contribution is seminal and has given substance and concreteness to the concept. A copy of this volume of papers is one of my most cherished possessions.
The European concern for sustainable consumption in particular, and the increasing influence of green concerns in all aspects of public policy and action offers the most promising area for collaborative linkages with Indian science and technology.
I have noted that in your board objectives of the programme on sustainable development and global change and ecosystems, you have said that the activities carried out in this area are intended to strengthen the scientific and technological capacities needed for Europe to be able to implement sustainable development, integrate its environmental, economic and social objectives with particular regard to renewable energy, transport, and sustainable management of Europe's land and marine resources. I have also noted with satisfaction that you wish to make a significant contribution to the international efforts to understand and control global change and preserve the equilibrium of ecosystems.
In this context, I would like to make a mention of an international conference which I inaugurated in Delhi on 20th October, just preceding the Conference of Parties - 8, on S& T Capacity Development for Climate Change in the Developing Counties. The Conference concluded that the understanding of the climate change phenomenon its impacts at regional and sub-regional levels, vulnerability and adaptation assessments, development of methodologies from the perspective of the developing countries, assessment and evaluation of adaptation and mitigation technologies and assessment and evolution of policy options, requires S& T capacities of a high order and that these capacities require institutional anchorage.
We have accordingly proposed that through regional level cooperation we should establish an International Centre of Excellence for S& T Capacity Building for Climate Change. The center will have many of the Developing Countries of Asia and Africa as members and will champion and mentor S& T capacity development initiatives in the countries of the region in a variety of ways by functioning as a hub or a central node for the establishment of information infrastructures; by developing affordable knowledge products customized for specific country needs; by stimulating focused R&D; by networking with other S&T institutions in the region, by developing S&T interface with policy; by offering technology information, forecasting and assessment services which are appropriate to the region and especially for evaluating and assessing methodologies and policy options.
I believe that the establishment of such a mechanism should find ready support from the European Union, both in terms of possible financial support as well as close linkages with EU programmes like ENRICH aimed at using IT networking and other strategies for capacity development.
The increased role of the Government in promoting, funding and incentivising scientific and technological research is a relatively recent phenomenon. The relationship between Government and Science, in Europe as well as the US, was largely transformed by the Second World War and the influence of Vannevar Bush in the US and of Haldane in UK. The conscious thrust given by the government to science research was premised on the following principles - that basic science is performed without thought of practical ends - its defining characteristic being to push back the frontiers of fundamental understanding; and that basic research is the pacemaker of technological improvement. "A nation which depends upon others for its new basic scientific knowledge will be slow in its industrial progress and weak in its competitive position in world trade, regardless of its mechanical skill" (Science: The Endless Frontier - Vannevar Bush). Although some questions are now being raised in Europe and elsewhere on the somewhat simplistic paradigm presented by Bush, which has so far dominated government policy, its basic validity has not really been questioned.
It is our concern with the values of sustainability and the need for science and technology to be directly linked to societal needs that we have decided to re-visit our S&T policy. So far our commitment to science and technology was enunciated in the Scientific Policy Resolution 1958 and the Technology Policy Statement 1983. Based on the roadmap provided by these two documents and the consistent support over five decades, India today boasts of a strong S&T infrastructure and global competitiveness in selected areas of Science & Technology like Space, Electronics, Atomic Energy, etc. Also India looks to the future with confidence as new areas of technology such as Biotechnology, Nanotechnology, etc. emerge and are poised to change the way the world lives.
We are currently formulating a new ‘Science & Technology Policy 2002’ to guide our activities in the coming years. While our commitment to science and Technology has not changed, we recognize that global change has necessitated a closer more direct link between science and technology and societal needs. Our new policy builds in our abiding belief that for science and technology to grow, it must be green, it must be ethical, it must have a human face, it must be gender sensitive, it must be region and context-specific reflect our enormous diversity and plurality, and it must empower the community as a whole and not merely a section of it.
Contrary to the linearity of the Bush paradigm, we in India see S&T policy in more holistic terms. Our belief is that science must touch every facet of national life. The thrust of the proposed policy will be to use science and technology as the key problem-solving instrument in all endeavours including in agriculture, industry, business, trade, services as well as in governance. Providing creative and innovative solutions in health services, population management, mitigating the damage to vast sections of our people from natural hazards like earthquakes and cyclones, technologies for conservation of land, water and energy resources and their integrated management for sustainable development and consumption leading to their ecologically balanced management will be cornerstones of our policy initiatives.
As we reformulate our policy in response to global change and the need to align our S&T initiatives to the needs of the common man, one of our major concerns is with the rigid and uniform enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights across the world. The possible emergence of knowledge monopolies and lack of access to relevant technologies can create major hurdles in the achievement of our objectives. In this context, I had as far back as in 1996 cautioned our then Prime Minister that in any new formulations or revision of its patent laws, India must continue to exercise its unequivocal sovereign rights to protect the public health and nutrition and promote its public interest in sectors of vital importance to its social and economic and technology development. It is heartening that the Doha WTO Ministerial declaration of 14 November, 2001, agrees that the TRIPS agreement does not and should not prevent members from taking measures to protect public health. Similarly the Government of UK's IPR Commission report entitled "Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy" which was released in London In September this year, vindicated the views I have held all along and concluded that higher Intellectual Property standards should not be pressed on developing countries without a serious and objective assessment of their impact on development and the poor people. It also stated the need to ensure that the Global IP system evolves so that the needs of the developing countries are incorporated. and most importantly, so that it contributes to the reduction of poverty in developing countries by stimulating innovation and technology transfer relevant to them while also making available the products of technology at the most competitive price possible.
We, therefore, hope that the European Union will appreciate our resolve to see Intellectual Property not as a distinct or self-contained domain, rather as an important and effective policy instrument that would be relevant to a wide range of socio-economic, technological and political concerns. Integrating Intellectual Property Rights into our own development priorities is, therefore, one of our highest priorities.
I would like to sum up that to enable science and technology to play a meaningful role in building a non-exploitative, peace-loving society, we need a scientific method which is value based and which synthesizes the spiritual and the moral with the rational. We need to understand the limits to technological growth fuelled by untrammeled consumerism. This requires action at the level of public policies, consciousness creation and community control over resources, ethical regulation and innovative management. We need changes of strategy. We need a new architecture of governance which is ever more democratic and more decentralized. Mahatma Gandhi's concept of village republics needs a contemporary renaissance. New forms of cooperative action need to be designed. Sustainable consumption practices have to be ingrained into our life-styles. We need to empower women to play a more decisive role in determining community priorities so that the community agenda is 'feminized' and informed with the values of gentleness and consideration for the other. The Mantra of 'Back to Nature' will have to be repeated again and again not only to change our life styles but to look at technology development in a completely different manner where we learn from nature how to convert energy into useful matter and reach similar levels of energy conversion efficiency. This will require a complete reorientation of our R&D strategies as well as production strategies.
I believe that together with Europe we will be able to make S&T a powerful means of creating a new humane, non-exploitative and sustainable social order. I hope that what I have outlined will contribute towards developing a meaningful agenda for co-operation.
With your permission, I would like to end with this Vedic universal prayer in Sanskrit for peace not only in the world but in the entire cosmos:
Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for listening to me patiently.
