Some Reflections on Gautam's Observations on Prof. Ananthamurthy's Manifesto

Jyotsna Jha

We should also remember that the same history tells us that any change with significant impact on human lives have happened because someone or a group of people dared to dream. To consider only easily 'achievable' as 'practical' and think that 'ordinary' people want only 'practical' reflects a myopic understanding of 'ordinary' people's lives and aspirations.

It is important to understand that what we today refer to as the 'rule of law' and 'social justice' did not come into being naturally - it has been a dynamic process where the very concept of 'law' has changed with changing notions of justice and the process is continuous - it has not stopped and will not stop. And even at the same point of time, different notions exist not only in different societies but also in the same society. Therefore, though it remains unclear and debatable whether more people live better lives today or not, what is certain is that the technological fix alone cannot solve human problems in the absence of a framework firmly rooted in the philosophy of equality and committed to what we understand today by 'justice'. The best example is green revolution itself. Despite high increase in the yield as well as total food production, thousands in India die of hunger, and millions suffer from malnutrition. And these figures are large not only in numbers but also in proportion. The latest data suggest that more than half of Indian children suffer from malnutrition, clearly indicating that it is neither an aberration nor a localised issue. One can go on citing many such examples to point out that technological fixes alone can never solve human issues.

Technology has merits and it has helped us solve problems and will continue to do so. But technology alone can never be the solution and it indeed cannot replace the need for value-based philosophical frames. Technology is only a means and that too a limited one. We are already encountering the limitations in many ways when it comes to delivering education and health services. These have been well-documented in the sector specific literature. For instance, it is agreed that technology can only supplement and never replace the teacher in school education where teacher-child relationship is as, if not more, crucial as information in the creation of knowledge, skills and attitudes.

There are two arguments here in the context of globalisation - they are not the same. One, globalisation should be accepted simply because it is inevitable. This is problematic. If something, globalisation or any other process, is inherently undesirable for the maximum good of the largest number of and the most needy people, it does not become acceptable simply because it is inevitable.

Second argument is that globalisation is also beneficial - it is a better argument in the sense that something should be acceptable because it is beneficial. First of all, what is globalisation? Does it refer to the philosophy of wasudhaiv kutumbakam where the entire world is a family of equals or that of a concocted notion of family where the relationships are determined by the relative international power structure. To a large extent, it happens to be latter where powerful countries decide the terms of the relationships depending upon what benefits them. Although poorer countries also sometimes draw some benefits, what is being questioned here is how it affects the poor of the poorer countries, and if it affects them badly, it is not worth it.

In Indian context, big supermarkets provide cheap goods largely to urban middle class - higher class does not find it 'classy' enough and poor by no means can access or afford this 'cheap' source. Supermarkets make profits on buying 'cheap' goods and services, and in the process not only destroy the livelihoods of small growers and traders but also kill the 'diversity' leading to the standardisation of most products. I don't think subsidy is the answer; the answer lies in having penalties/disincentives for monopolistic behaviour of big operators and incentives / rewards for small and industrious producers/traders.

In the context of banning those who incite hatred based on religion or other such aspects, in my understanding the demand here is for a law that restricts those who incite hatred and not banning anyone per se. Also, what is important is that our education system successfully develops critical capabilities to be discreet, and genuine respect for diversity.

I fully agree that people will continue to have aspirations for 'better' or more comfortable life, and most of us who enjoy the benefits of modern comforts have no moral right to preach others and question their aspirations. At the same time, I will argue, and on full moral ground without feeling guilty, that there is merit in promoting as well as striving for simple life: life that questions over- use of and over-dependence on scarce resources. And I will also argue for promoting values (for self and others) that question luxurious life-styles oblivious of the miseries of those who do not even have the minimum. It is important to build-in these sensitivities and sensibilities consciously in all our discourses and curriculum, and be reflected in our policies, if we are serious about building a just and caring society.

Having said all that I would like to add that I also happen to share the optimism despite bouts of cynicism. I too have faith in human endeavours, sheer grit of the human race, collective power and also science. I too hope that the world will ultimately be a better place to live!