Technology has always been synonymous with social progress. Ever since the Industrial Revolution, there has been a qualitative change in the nature of advancement of civilisation. It is often told, without quantification, that in the 100 years after the Industrial Revolution, the quantum of progress of civilisation became more than that of the previous 500 years. This phenomenal progress was outshadowed by the development of the 50 years after the 2nd World War. This again would be insignificant compared to the progress achieved during the last 10 years. And we cannot now fully visualise what will happen in the next millenium! It can be an explosion of development. Technology is the prime force behind this.

But technology for whom? Nearly two-third of the world population has no stake in it. In an era when the material wealth of the world has increased manifold, these 60% or 70% of the world population have actually become poorer. Man is the only animal in this world today, who die of starvation, of hunger. Only the human baby suffers from malnutrition. It may be shameful but this is the reality. And still we feel proud about the technological advancement, about the progress we've achieved. I am amongst those fortunate ones who could witness the great event - the dawn of India's independence. Ever since, over the last 52 years, I am tired of listening the same old things of eradication of poverty, health for all, education for all, drinking water and sanitation for all, shelter for all. I am not repeating the actual achievements - it is known to all. But I can point to a single fact that this 'all' syndrome still continue today making it evident that we are far from the target set. And I apprehend, that even 50 years after, when I would not be there, but my young friends and students in FOSET would be, this same thing will happen!

I am not a pessimist, neither do I blame technology, being a technologist myself, but something is wrong about our policies. The right vision is not there. That is why, we often tend to neglect our real potential and try to initiate others blindly. What is our real strength? It lies in our fertile land and tremendously skilled farmers, in millions of our village artisans, in millions of our very small or tiny entrepreneurs. Several big industrial establishments with foreign collaboration and technology have failed. There may be several reasons behind that – but they’ve failed. But our farmers and artisans, despite innumerable odds, have never failed. They’ve always delivered the goods even with very primitive technology. That is why, the economy is still sustaining and it becomes difficult for the storm of globalisation to completely destabilise it. Our real strength also lies in skilled technical and professional manpower. As a teacher I saw them from very close quarters for forty years, and they can be compared to any body in this world. I am going to give just two examples out of plenty. In how many, even advanced, countries there are establishments of the like of CSIR. With a scanty resource, they have done wonders over the last 50 years. Pundit Nehru did no exaggeration when he described them as the temples of Modern India.

So this is our potential level and we must nurture them properly. I do not subscribe to the vision that we do not want reforms. We want structural adjustments and economic reforms very urgently with a view to more appropriately harness these potentials. Why BHEL, cannot be global leader? Our internal market is enough to boost it up. Why CSIR cannot be the forerunner of S&T Research? Without indigenous R&D, no country can develop. Take Germany, take Japan. Why they are world leaders in technology? Because they encouraged the indigenous R&D. Take Korea, take China. They are for rapid industrialisation. But they have never thrown their small-scale enterprises out, rather they integrated them with their mainstream industrial endeavors. If we want to follow the path of these countries then we must follow it properly.

What is the problem of our artisans and farmers? They are rich in traditional skill. But those have become outdated these days and as a result they are not being able to compete in the market. They cannot develop the technologies of their own due to lack of scientific knowledge. But these people are excellent learners. I've heard that a CSIR laboratory, NISTADS, is introducing Computer-aided design for Baluchari Sari in Bankura and the weavers are adapting it. So anything can be done. Technology is not an abstract reality. In our childhood days no farmer ever thought of using Chemical Fertilisers or Pesticides in their farmland. But now they are not only using these advanced technological inputs but are controlling the doses most efficiently. The Europeans are complaining about chemicals in our Tea or Oranges, but there are elements of politics behind these. We believe that within their limitations, our farmers and artisans are doing excellent work.

There is another aspect- market. This is under the control of non-producing middle-men and they dictate things. Whenever there is bumper production, the farmers are the sufferers because the price of their produce go down. Storage of perishable products is costly and problematic and the poor village people can do nothing about that unless the more organised institutions come to their rescue. That is not happening and as a result the market remains controlled by non-producing elements who dictate the price, the product range and everything.

Thus the vast majority of our people - the rural folks, the farmers and the artisans remain at the receiving end. They do not have the modern technology input to improve their products and enhance productivity. Neither do they have the management capability to play effectively in the market. And their standard of living gets stagnated. Now their living standard has a direct bearing on the extent of commodity production within the country because they constitute nearly 70% of the total population of the country. So if we want to expand our market size to make room for newer products, these people must generate some surplus over their bare necessities. Thus it is a vicious circle.

To me, People's Technology can only break this cycle. Because People's Technology means Technology for the Common People. After our independence this was an agenda, because our National leaders felt its necessity. The CSIR laboratories, the ICAR, the ICMR, all had a definite programme towards this end. I've personally visited one/two Regional Research Laboratories and laboratories like CGCRI, CMERI, IICB etc. It is my feeling that most of the problem faced by farmers and artisans like potters, blacksmiths, etc. can be solved through cost effective inputs that are being designed by our scientists and technologists.

But does it mean that we have solved a large number of problems over the last 4/5 decades? No, not at all. The technologies that have been developed could not be applied in ground reality in many cases, first because there is a lack of infrastructure for this lab to land transfer, secondly because of the language and cultural barriers that exist and finally because there has been no encouragement or incentive to undertake this most difficult job. Therefore, it is felt more urgent for a working scientist to publish a paper in a foreign journal because that will be of more advantageous for his/her career. Nobody has motivated this talented brand of professionals to work overtime for his/her poor countrymen. Thus lab to land remains as a catchy phrase only.

Now the situation has changed further. Globalisation has brought forth Globalisation of Market but not Globalisation of technology. Several restrictions are likely to be imposed on the indigenous R & D Institution in the proposed rigorous patent regime. In the reform process, these institutes are supposed to devote a lot of time behind mobilisation of internal resources to meet a significant part of their expenditure. This is not an altogether bad idea, but unless there is proper motivation, a tendency may develop to take the easier path of working for the large organised enterprises and neglecting the small and unorganised sector further.

Thus, the people who want the technological input the most, remain grossly untouched because this is a market economy and they cannot pay adequately for the input. Hopefully, our scientists and technologist are still left with some social motivation. But they are searching the path through which they can reach to these people.

This gap can be bridged by the spontaneous institutions of the people, the Non-Govt. Organisations working throughout the country. They are the vanguard for the people's initiative of technological upgradation. They have existed for a long time in the form of club or social activists group etc. But in today's complex situation such disintegrated initiatives can hardly bear results, and they must be organised in some form of a movement.

What this movement can do? They are the real facilitators, between the beneficiaries, the resource institution and the support institutions like those who would provide the fund or infrastructure etc. This is the most crucial job - first, to understand the problem and to translate it to the Resource Institution, and next to realise the solution and help the resource institution in its real life implementation. In between there is the need to mobilise the support from institutions to study the true impact of the solution, and finally to develop a successful model for implementation in other areas with similar problem. Again the process cannot be based on external support for eternity. So this movement has to explore the possibility of internal resource mobilisation by the beneficiaries, which alone can guarantee the success of a model. To my mind this should be the agenda of the People's Technology Movement or People's Science Movement, whatever it may be called.

Undoubtedly, this is a herculean task. People's Technologists have to therefore, come out of the class-room lecture and seminar/symposia/workshop to know and work about the ground reality and also to search for their solution. In states like West Bengal and Kerala, the challenge is relatively easier due to the presence of the decentralised administration where Zilla Parishad and Panchayat can act both as facility institutions as well as support institutions. The process has got further impetus through the 73rd and 74th Amendments of our Constitution by which these local self-govts have got the statutory power and obligation to prepare the detailed development plan of their locality. This can be a process through which the problems can be identified.

Events like People's Technology Congress gives a scope of interaction between all these three groups- the scientists & researchers, the local level policy-makers and the Community based organisatons. There is a scope of arriving at a concrete action plan from such deliberations. FOSET has done a good thing by organizing such event regularly.

But this is not a problem of this state alone. In other parts of the country some R & D institutions as well as several organisatons are doing excellent work. Their experiences have to be shared also. Therefore, this type of Congress should be rotated around the country - to Delhi, Chennai, Bhubaneswar, Bangalore or some other city, with a leading NGO of the state taking the responsibility of the host. It is appreciable that FOSET has taken the initiative. But in order to give it a truly All-India character, they again will have to take the initiative of encouraging other organisations to come forward. All the areas need not be discussed every time, but two or three may be taken at a time. Information Technology is an area, which is of paramount importance. In all areas - agriculture, health, education (through distant learning), culture etc. it has wide range applicability.

In order that the People's Technology Congress be recognised as a National event. A national level committee must be formed with representations from the Universities, R & D Institutes, Govt. Deptts and Undertaking, Corporate Houses and NGOs, because all are stake holders in this endeavour.

The second thing that strikes me is the participation of Zilla Parishads, Panchayats and Municipalities who are the real implementers as well as the beneficiaries of People's Technology. I was present in the TRIBENI Session organised by FOSET this year. The idea was good and the policy makers of some of the leading Research organisation were also present. But there were very few representatives from the local self-govt. Such types of innovative ideas take some time to penetrate, but organisatons like FOSET should think along these lines. Such types of interactive sessions should be organised at the Zilla Parishad level. Let the beginning be a humble one. After that the idea my be spread.

The enigma that has been unleashed through the process of decentralisation has its own momentum. Now the Govt. has no other alternative but to pay more attention towards People's Technology. In all the states there is a Science & Technology Deptt. which ultimately will act as the R & D wing of the Govt. They need to have an agenda and flexibility to involve the Resource Institutions as well as the community based organisations in this endeavour. And this also must be decentralised.