Presentation

In the presentations yesterday, there was a lot of cynicism, and a feeling of weakness. This helplessness should not stop people from trying for a positive change. Our efforts at policy change have given some results. And the general feeling is that people will continue to try.

The mainstream institutions like the agricultural universities, medical colleges, are supported by the established and vested interests. It is they who are driving policy. Thus in every case we find that the policy is not people-centered nor is it focused on solving people’s problems. Thus whether it is farmers’ organisations, patients or civil society organisations, they have to take the responsibility of research and exploring alternatives. It is the responsibility of civil society to do knowledge broking and research in neglected areas. Lay person are compelled to grow expertise through personal experiences.

This expertise, gained through practice in the field is not recognised by the mainstream in spite of the magnitude of the positive results. So the number of such positive results doesn’t really help, because the mainstream keeps denying the legitimacy of civil society groups. In the case of agriculture even after supplying a large number of data as per their schedules, the organisation of research institutions is such that they still keep civil society out by saying it is not legitimised to do this kind of research.

In this context, we have to be clear about for whom we are doing the research. For example in the case NPM, it was found that the kind of data necessary to get “scientific approval” was different from the kind of data that is required to convince local people. Despite success, we have not been able to convince the government. Therefore should we do research for convincing the mainstream especially institutions for the scientific community or should we do research for the people to convince them. Finally, we ended up saying that successful community experiences are scattered throughout this country. They have been showcased and up scaled. We therefore need to research to convince the lay people rather than the mainstream.

We also felt that the practice of these alternatives has gone ahead, but theories for them are in evolution. These need to be developed.

So what drives policy? Among other things, pressure from civil society groups, though the market and orthodox mainstream institutions and the prospect of making money by the State functionaries still seems primary.

What constitutes knowledge or expertise?
‘Lay knowledge’ produced by a complex dialogue between “drop outs” from the mainstream and the group they work for, could count as expertise in driving ‘alternate’ policy. Sometimes this alternative is accepted by the mainstream though when it is implemented there is a dilution (eg: Zero Waste) and some times perversion of the alternate paradigm (eg: IPM in Agriculture: or ISM in Public Health)

Shambhu: There is no common understanding on knowledge issues within civil society. We have not been able to appreciate the logic of the different kinds of knowledge systems that we have in Civil Society. For example, in Kerala, the KSSP, a big civil society organization is very much opposed to Homeopathy. This is because we are deeply divided. It is also because there are genuine differences which we need to address and work with.

There is need for continuous engagement in research on knowledge issues relating to other knowledge systems which does not seem to be on many people’s agenda. It is much like how Gandhi had said that the Congress shall only work on those aspects that need tender nursing. And civil society’s role is largely in these kinds of unattended areas.

The main issue we have to address on the questions of domain of knowledge, different knowledge system, and issues of research is that there is too much burden of proof on civil society. What should be the role of civil society in this? Drawing from ideas in the fields of health and agriculture, we said that civil society should concentrate on sites of knowledge contestation. We should try and make sense of global practices of dealing with knowledge systems and talk with each other. We should consciously promote knowledge dialogue and spaces where reflections are possible after the crises, between different knowledge systems on how they went about understanding the different issues and what they learnt. The role of civil society organisations whether it is health or NPM seemed to be in the process of empowering lay persons, in some cases even patients about how they can become experts.

There is a big question of pedagogy in creating a new cadre for newer people’s knowledge. As Harish’s paper points out, there is a system in practice for hundred years in the indigenous system of medicine, which is preventive and it provides a better appreciation of the knowledge system. A lot of the knowledge seems to reside among individual practitioners. How do we enhance it such that learning, transmission process can be institutionalised. One of the ideas was whether we can think of the equivalent of Farmer Field Schools in agriculture.
So, the basic task of civil society would be to:

Turn science on its head wherever possible – reveal contradictions in the dominant paradigm by working with dissenting scientists
Build systems on a larger scale

Ramu: Whenever we talk about alternate models in agriculture, we are very much caught up in the reductionist approach. For example when you look at the issue of hybrids, do you see it as a problem with technology or as a problem of access and right to re-use the seed? If it is the latter, the alternative would mean that we drive the community to produce the same hybrid, and have control, and if it is the problem of technology, then we have to work to find a way to replace the hybrid.

I draw a parallel to another example. Say in the watershed programme, there is a move to use bull-dozers. As a machine it is more efficient. But we say that it takes away the livelihood of people so we don’t accept it in water shed. If the community wants these machines, will it solve the problem? If it buys a harvester and hires it to the people, will it solve the problem? Here institutions and organisations that have clarity on this can draw a lesson and apply it to the hybrid seeds. If you have to beat the system, whatever lessons you learnt, you have to build the alternative and establish it on a larger scale.

How is the new system tested? In the conventional research system there is the system of peer review, where you have to produce data to convince peers whom the so called scientists accept. In our case the peers would be local people, the communities, and the data based on practice. An essential component of building the alternative system is the question of credentials that is building an alternative system of credentials and support.