ज्ञान पंचायत

Kku iapk;r

oS'ohdj.k] vesfjdh ;q)ksa vkSj dEI;wVj o lapkj dh O;oLFkkvksa dk vke yksxksa dh fLFkfr ij csgn izfrdwy izHkko iM+ jgk gSA fdlku] dkjhxj] et+nwj] iVjh ds nqdkunkj] lkekU; efgyk;sa] 'kgj dh cfLr;k¡] vkfnoklh vkSj e/;e oxZ dk ,d cgqr cM+k fgLlk] lHkh =Lr gSaA 'kks"k.k ds u;s rjhds vfLrRo esa vk;s gSa vkSj bu oxksZa dh lkekftd vkSj vkfFkZd fLFkfr esa fxjkoV vkbZ gSA vkS|ksfxd ;qx dh cqfu;knh jktuhfr VwV tkus ls fdlh vk'kk dh fdj.k ds lzksr Hkh lc lw[k ls x;s gSaaA nwljh vksj dEI;wVj] lapkj vkSj eksckby ds pyrs ukStokuksa ds chp ,d vk'kk] tks'k vFkok fdlh fdLe dh ubZ ft+Unxh dk tT+ck Hkh ns[kk tk ldrk gSA gkykafd ;g tT+ck vHkh rks cktkj vkSj O;fDrxr egRokdka{kkvksa ds chp gh Mksy jgk gS] ;g bl ns'k ds fopkjdksa dk drZO; gS fd bls vke yksxksa dh fLFkfr;ksa vkSj leL;kvksa ls tksM+us ds jkLrs [kkstsaA ;s jkLrs] ubZ uhfr;ksa] ubZ jktuhfr vkSj lekt o Kku ds u;s rdksZa ds :i esa lkeus vk;saA bl [kkst dk Kku dh nqfu;k ds lkFk xgjk fj'rk gSA vkSj Kku dh nqfu;k dk ukStokuksa vkSj vke yksxksa ds lkFk dSlk lEcU/k gS ;g bl fo"k; dk ,d dsUnzh; iz'u gSA Kku iapk;r dk ;g fopkj ,d ,slh izfØ;k cukus dk fopkj gS tks ifjorZu ds dk;ZdrkZvksa dks fo'ofo|ky; ds f?klsfiVs fopkjksa ls ckgj fudydj O;ofLFkr

Kku ds {ks= esa lkbal vkSj VsDuksykth dh fljekSj fLFkfr vc ljdkjh foHkkxksa] jkT; ds ladk;ksa vkSj fo'ofo|ky; ¼mPp f'k{kk o vuqla/kku½ rd lhfer jg xbZ gSA Lora= fopkjdksa] lkekftd dk;ZdrkZvksa] funZyh; jktuSfrd dk;ZdrkZvksa vkSj vke yksxksa ds chp Kku] rdZ vkSj uhfr ds fopkj lkbal dh tdM+u ls ckgj fudys gSaA dEI;wVj] ehfM;k] Hkk"kk] dyk vkSj euksjatu esa Hkh [kqydj oSdfYid] ;kfu vU; Kku Hk.Mkjksa] rdZ dh fo/kkvksa] le> o leh{kk ds ewY;ksa vkfn dk bLrseky c<+k gSA bl lc ds pyrs Kku dk {ks= foLr`r gqvk gS vkSj u;s ewY;ksa o ekun.Mksa dh izfr"Bk c<+h gSA Kku vkSj mldh xfrfof/k dk lcls cM+k {ks= yksd gS] bldh vksj /;ku fn;k tk jgk gSA

d`f"k] LokLF;] Hkou fuekZ.k] okfU;dh] lkfgR; leh{kk] m|ksx] inkFkZ Kku] izkd`frd fØ;k;sa] ty izcU/ku] m|ksx vkSj cktkj izcU/ku] euq"; dh leL;kvksa vkSj lfØ;rk dk vFkok izd`fr dk dksbZ Hkh {ks= ys ysa] oSdfYid fopkj dk ,d l{ke LrEHk vkSj izfØ;k ut+j vk;sxhA vf/kdka'k ,sls fopkj ljdkjh uhfr;ksa vkSj cM+h dEifu;ksa dh xfrfof/k;ksa ls mRiUu leL;kvksa vkSj tuizfrjks/kksa ds lanHkZ esa lkeus vkrs gaSA vDlj bu fopkjksa dk turk] mldh t:jr vkSj mldh le> o lkspus ds rjhds ls xgjk lEcU/k gksrk gSA izHkkoh ehfM;k] ljdkjh cUnjck¡V o izpkjra=] iw¡th izeq[k vkfFkZd lRrk o fo'ofo|ky;ksa ds fopkj ra= ds }kjk oSdfYid Kku ds vk/kkj ij izLrkfor rdksZa vkSj uhfr;ksa dks gkf'k;s ij Mky fn;k tkrk gS vkSj mUgsa foLr`r cgl esa Hkh ugh vkus fn;k tkrk] vey esa ykus dh ckr rks nwjA fdlh Hkh {ks= fo'ks"k ;k fof'k"V leL;k ds lanHkZ esa fn;s x;s rdZ vyx&Fkyx iM+ tkrs gSa] vkSj mudh odkyr djus okys viuh ckr tjk Hkh euokus esa vlQy gksrs gSaA bl fLFkfr dks rksM+us ds fy;s ;g t+:jh gS fd fofHkUu {ks=ksa esa dk;Zjr dk¡Vs dh l{ke lksp j[kus okys vkil esa ,d nwljs dk lkFk nsaA blls Kku vkSj uhfr ds {ks= esa yksd i{k et+cwr gksxkA blds fy;s ;g fcydqy t+:jh ugh gS fd ;s lc ,d nwljs dh ckr vFkok le> dks lgh ekusaA t+:jh ;g gS fd os vius dks ,d u;s Kku vkUnksyu ds lgHkkxh ds :i esa ns[ksaA ,sls Kku vkUnksyu dks vkdkj nsus ds fy;s ,d Kku iapk;r dk fuekZ.k gksuk pkfg;sA bl Kku iapk;r esa og rkdr gks ldrh gS tks mu leL;kvksa vkSj fodV ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks lqy>kus ds jkLrs [kksy lds ftuls iwjs iw¡thoknh ;qx esa ekuork =Lr jgh gSA

ftl rjg egkRek xka/kh us cM+s m|ksxksa dks dV?kjs esa [kM+k dj fn;k Fkk] vkt lwpuk ds iw¡thoknh ;qx esa fo'ofo|ky; dks dV?kjs esa [kM+k djuk t+:jh gSA ftl rjg Qzkalhlh izcks/ku us ppZ vkSj mlds Kku dks dV?kjs esa [kM+k dj fn;k Fkk] mlh rjg vkt fo'ofo|ky; vkSj mlds Kku dks dV?kjs esa [kM+k djuk t+:jh gSA fo'ofo|ky; iw¡thoknh ;qx dk lcls dherh fuekZ.k gSA bldh f[kykQr Hkh mlh Lrj ij gksuh pkfg;s ftl Lrj ij dE;qfuLV fopkj us jkT; dh f[kykQr dhA Kku iapk;r ,slh gh pqukSrh dks [kM+k djus dh txg gSA

fo'ofo|ky; esa ftl Kku dk fuekZ.k gksrk gS] mlh ds vk/kkj ij ;g izd`fr dk uk'k djus okyh vkSj egkxjhch dk fuekZ.k djus okyh O;oLFkk pyrh gSA fo'ofo|ky; izR;{k vkSj ijks{k pgkjnhokfj;ksa ds ekQZr fopkj ds jkLrs cUn djrk gSA fdUrq fopkj djus okys ds jkLrs dHkh cUn ugha gksrsA O;fDrxr Lrj ij vFkok lewg] {ks=] jk"Vª ;k fo'o ds Lrj ij ftlus Hkh bu jkLrksa dks [kksyus dk iz;kl fd;k gS] os lc Kku iapk;r esa 'kkfey gksus pkfg;sA Kku iapk;r Kku {ks= dh tu lquokbZ gSA Kku iapk;r n'kZu dkss lkekftd 'kfDr dk :i nsus dk ,d vkStkj gSA blds ekQZr ,d ubZ nqfu;k dk Kku vk/kkj rS;kj fd;k tkuk pkfg;sA lekt esa vkewy ifjorZu dh ;g ekax gS fd Kku dh nqfu;k esa Økafr gksA Kku iapk;r ,d ,slh gh Økafr dh okgd gSA

lquhy lglzcq)s

Gyan Panchayat

Crisis in the world of knowledge and a people's initiative

Gyan Panchayat

Changes in the information age have opened the world of knowledge such that the rule of science and technology is now limited to government departments, professional bodies and the university. Independent thinkers, social activists, non-party political workers and ordinary people are increasingly liberating their knowledge, reasoning and thoughts on policy from the domination of science. Computer, media, language, art and entertainment openly use alternate sources of knowledge, understanding and critical appreciation. All this has greatly enlarged the world of knowledge and there is new respect for other values and standards. A new understanding is emerging that people constitute the biggest location of knowledge and its activity. Take any area of human activity, social problems or nature and you will find a competent alternate understanding and process. The areas of agriculture, health care, house building, forestry, literary criticism, industry and materials, water management, market management, all bear this out. Most such thoughts come to be expressed in the context of problems and resistances which are results of government policy or activity of large corporations. Often such understanding or knowledge process has a deep relation with the needs of the people and their ways of thinking. The dominant media, government, professional bodies and the university appear to get into concerted action to marginalize the arguments and policy proposals that stem from alternate streams of knowledge. Arguments produced in any particular sector or with respect to any specific problem get isolated and no suggestions, that are not main line, are accepted. To alter this situation, it is necessary that alternate thinkers in different areas come together in some effective manner. This will strengthen the people's side in the spheres of knowledge and policy. For this, it is not at all necessary that these people also agree with one another. What is needed is that they see themselves as participants in a new knowledge movement. A gyan panchayat needs to be built to shape such a knowledge movement. This gyan panchayat can have the capacity to open pathways for solving problems and handling situations that have plagued mankind for the entire capitalist period.

Let this gyan panchayat draw inspiration from the French Encyclopedists and also from Mahatma Gandhi. Just as the European Enlightenment held the Church responsible for the miserable state of man and just as Gandhi held the machine responsible for the debasement that man had suffered, let the gyan panchayat stand for humanity and against all knowledge enclosures including the university. University is the most prized product of the capitalist age. It is the university where all that knowledge has been produced which provides the basis of the destruction of nature and production of poverty everyday. The university obstructs the free movement of thought by building enclosures, both physical and social. However one thing that cannot be done to thought, is to stop its movement. There are people everywhere who are not constrained by extraneous considerations and who individually or collectively challenge the false limitations. All these people must become part of this gyan panchayat. Gyan panchayat is like a people's court in the world of knowledge. It is what ought to turn philosophy into a social force. It is the place from where the knowledge basis of another world is prepared. A revolutionary change in the world of knowledge is a prerequisite for a radical pro-people transformation of the society. Gyan panchayat is the bearer of such a revolution.

Vidya Ashram has proposed to the Indian Social Science Congress to set up a Gyan Panchayat to cap more than three decades of its devoted existence in the service of knowledge and the movement of knowledge. This congress is proposed to be held between 8-12 December, 2009 in Hyderabad at B.R. Ambedkar Open University. The focal theme of the congress is Our Planet in Crisis.

Sunil Sahasrabudhey

लोकसभा चुनाव २००९: लोकविद्या पंचायत की दृष्टि

लोकसभा चुनाव २००९

लोकविद्या पंचायत की दृष्टि

विद्या आश्रम सा १०/८२ ए अशोक मार्ग, सारनाथ, वाराणसी - २२१००७

फोन- 0542- 2595120

अप्रैल २००९ में लोकसभा चुनाव होने जा रहे हैं। उदारीकरण और निजीकरण की अर्थनीति खुलेआम लागू करने के बाद से विभिन्न दलों के बीच के अन्तर कम हो गए हैं। सभी दल निजीकरण और उदारीकरण के पक्षधर हैं। सभी अमेरिका से दोस्ती को बढ़ाने के पक्षधर हैं। गरीबी और गैर-बराबरी समाप्त करने की बात कोई नहीं करता। सब दल उसी दुनिया को बनाने में लगे हैं जिसमें किसानों, कारीगरों, मजदूरों, छोटे-छोटे दुकानदारों और आदिवासियों (लोकाविद्याधरों) के लिया कोई जगह नहीं है। ये लोकाविद्याधरों और गरीब होंगे, उजाड़े जायेंगे और उनके घर के युवा नए अवसरों की खोज में डर-डर भटकेंगे, हताशा की ज़िन्दगी जियेंगे।

सब नई-नई प्रौद्योगिकी के पीछे पागल हैं। अपनी जमीनी विद्याओं, किसान और कारीगर के ज्ञान का तिरस्कार जारी है। लोकविद्या पंचायत इन्ही लोगों की, लोकाविद्याधरों की ज्ञान पंचायत है। पंचायत का यह मानना है कि गरीबी और गैर-बराबरी को ख़त्म करने की ताक़त लोकविद्या में है। इस दृष्टि से आगामी चुनाव माहौल में जहाँ गंभीर चर्चा सम्भव है वहाँ चर्चा के लिए लोकविद्या पंचायत जनता के सामने निम्नलिखित बातें रखती है:

१ सभी को अपनी विद्या के बल पर जीवन चलाने का मौलिक अधिकार हो।

२ बाज़ार में किसानों, कारीगरों, छोटे और पटरी के दुकानदारों, आदिवासियों, और महिलाओं के लिए आरक्षण की व्यवस्था हो।
यानि
आरक्षण का प्रगतिशील सिद्धांत बाज़ार को लागू किया जाए।

३ अधिकतम और न्यूनतम आय में 5:1 से अधिक का अनुपात न हो। यदि अधिकतम आय एक लाख प्रति माह हो तो न्यूनतम आय रु बीस हज़ार प्रति माह से कम न हो।

४ ग्रामीण क्षेत्र में मीडिया, भाषा व कला के नए विद्यालय खोले जाएँ।

इन बातों पर प्रत्येक शनिवार को दोपहर 3:00 से 5:00 बजे तक विद्या आश्रम में सामूहिक चिंतन और चर्चाएँ होती हैं। इनमे आप भी शामिल हों और समाज में, लोकपक्ष में एक सशक्त पहल को आकर दे।

संयोजन एवं संपर्क:
दिलीप कुमार (9452824380)
लक्ष्मण प्रसाद (9335219307)
संतोष कुमार संविज्ञ (9452413811)
चित्र सहस्रबुद्धे (9838944822)
सुनील सहस्रबुद्धे (9839275124)

Resolution Adopted at the Lokavidya Panchayat in Sarnath, Varanasi

Lokavidya Panchayat

Vidya Ashram, Sarnath, Varanasi
16 Nov., 2008

Resolution

We, the peasants, artisans, women, artists, small shopkeepers and social activists assembled in the first Lokavidya Panchayat organized at Vidya Ashram, Sarnath, Varanasi on 16 Nov, 2008, deliberated over a variety of issues and dimensions related to lokavidya and the possessors of lokavidya (lokavidyadhar samaj). On the basis of the opinions expressed and the discussions that took place in this day long panchayat of about 200 persons, we unanimously adopt the following resolution and express our commitment to work in line with the directions embodied in this resolution.

The Claim
1. Lokavidya Panchayat is a knowledge panchayat of the lokavidyadhars.
2. This panchayat puts forward the claim that lokavidya is genuine knowledge and lokavidyadhars are knowledgeable persons.

The Understanding
3. Human beings are epistemic beings. Knowledge and wisdom are their natural qualities.
4. Most people, peasants, artisans, adivasis, very small shop-keepers and women have never been to a college or a university, but they have their own extensive knowledge. Their knowledge is called lokavidya and they are known as lokavidyadhar.
5. On the basis of lokavidya they run their households and provide a variety of things and facilities to the whole society.
6. The reason for the very bad condition of their life is that their knowledge, lokavidya, is not organized. Their knowledge gets no recognition in politics, in the big bazar, in leading cultural institutions and in the universities. Actually the power centers of the society refuse to give the status of knowledge to lokavidya.
7. Because of this, no need is felt of taking the views and critical assessments of the lokavidyadhars on the values, policies and structural provisions that guide and set the country and the society in motion. As a result matters of interest to the lokavidyadhars fail to assume concrete public status and also do not find any place in the policies and systems that the government puts in place.
8. So long as lokavidya is not organized, the lokavidyadhars will not be able to effectively intervene in the public realm. Lokavidyadhar samaj needs to take initiative to organise lokavidya under its own leadership, then only can they command respect and get rid of poverty.
9. Lokavidya Panchayat is a place of knowledge activity of the people, from where lokavidyadhar samaj distinuishes the right from the wrong based on its own knowledge and not by blind faith on some experts.


The Program
10. Lokavidya Panchayat is such a gyan panchayat of the lokavidyadhar samaj where peasants , artisans, adivasis, very small shop-keepers and women come together to strengthen and increase the capacity of their respective knowledge and where they dialogue with one another on an equal basis transcending caste, religion, race and sampradayas.
11. A campaign shall be organized by the Panchayat for bringing down the ratio of highest and lowest incomes from different knowledge streams to 5:1. Today in government this ratio is 15:1 and in the private sector it is about 100:1.
12. With this ratio in view the panchayat will prepare charters on the systems of market, agriculture, industry, education, health-care etc. and place them before the government for implementation.
13. The Panchayat shall reflect on the values, strengths and forms of intervention of lokavidya to construct campaigns for reform and improvement in the sectors of art, culture and mass-media.
14. The Panchayat shall tirelessly place ideas and resolutions before social and political leadership for the well-being, respect and prosperity of lokavidya and lokavidyadhar samaj.

The Appeal
15. Come forward to establish in society a lokavidya based knowledge process to move towards a society based on equality and justice.
16. Come forward to organize lokavidya panchayats at great many places.

Vidya Ashram National Meeting (Nov 17) Report

Report of Vidya Ashram National Meeting
17 November, 2008 , Sarnath

This is a brief report of the National Meeting of Vidya Ashram held on the Ashram premises at Sarnath on 17th Nov. 2008. Following were present--- Dr. J.K. Suresh, Dr. Abhijit Mitra, Dr. Naresh Sharma, Mohan Rao, Dr. Girish Sahasrabudhey, Dr. K. K.Surendran, Vijay Jawandhia, Avinash Jha, Vinish Gupta, Karuna, Dr. Chitra Sahasrabudhey, Sunil Sahasrabudhey, Jagdish Singh Yadav, Praval Kumar Singh, Dilip Kumar, Laxman Prasad, Santosh Kumar Sanvigya, Vinod Kumar Chaube, Md. Aleem, Pradeep Kumar Gond and Babloo Kumar.

This was an important yearly meeting which looked at the programs and the processes underway and deliberated over the nature of Ashram's engagement with the world of knowledge and change for equality and justice in society. A new brochure of Vidya Ashram was released on this occasion (it is designed by Shilpi and Amit).

First Session: Lokavidya
The first session was chaired by Surendran.

It started with reports from Bhaichara Vidyalaya, Lokavidya Satsang, Gyan Mukti Manch and Chintan Dhaba, presented by the program conveners, namely, Dilip Kumar, Laxman Prasad, Santosh Kumar and Krishna Kumar, respectively. The campus management including the kitchen and vegetable cultivation was presented by Pradeep Kumar. Chitraji placed the whole program in perspective.

There was wide ranging and in-depth discussion on the idea and practice of Bhaichara Vidyalaya, which spilled over into a discussion on lokavidya and the promise that lokavidya holds for an egalitarian transformation of the society. Sunil explained the path traversed by the Ashram from the discussions on Lokavidya Academy or a New Academy in the last National Meeting in Nov. 2007 to the organization of the Lokavidya Panchayat a day before on 16th Nov. 2008. A struggling dialogue with several members of the Ashram on conceptualising Lokavidya Academy for more than 6 months had led to the idea of Lokavidya Panchyat, notionally the place from where lokavidya and the people possessing lokavidya could assert in a new mode. What form such a Panchayat should take remains a challenge. A blog lokavidyapanchayat.blogspot.com was started in May 2008 by Amit Basole and Dr. K.K. Surendran argued for an event in the name of Lokavidya Panchayat.

There was some discussion on the Lokavidya Panchayat held on 16th in which all the members of this National Meeting were present. A 200 strong panchayat from 11 AM to 5 PM in the premises of the Ashram had a number of farmers, artisans, social workers and leaders express their views on how their knowledge needs to find ways of asserting its presence and dynamic character. Hours of deliberations had concluded with a resolution to take the panchayat process forward and build it as a place of organisation and activity of people's knowledge. On this occasion the Hindi book Lokavidya was published in the series Gyan Ki Rajniti Pustakmala. All the participants of this National Meeting found in the panchayat a refreshing breeze and a promise of a new kind. They felt that this could provide the broad framework and context in which the programs of the Ashram could be located.

There was considerable discussion on issues related to lokavidya and strengths of lokavidya in which almost all the members participated actively. At the end Sunil made an appeal for reflection on the nature of promise held by lokavidya, lack of further clarity and creative understanding on which, could seriously hamper the development of the Ashram. He profusely acknowledged the contribution and support by members to build the Ashram and sought a stepping up in the realm of reflection. He also observed that the commitments made by members in the last year's meeting about continuing financial contributions were being honored. However the explorations to be made for mobilization of finances by more open methods did not take place. The difficulties and dilemmas involved in basing the Ashram entirely on individual's voluntary contributions seemed to have no steady solution.


Second Session : University and Converging Technologies
This session was chaired by Abhijit .

University.
This was about Ashram's engagement with the dominant in the world of knowledge, namely, the university and the frontline technologies. Discussion on the changing university was started by Avinash Jha. For over a year he had had a dialogue with C.N. Krishnan from Anna University on the question of the university in transition and the possible relationship that could develop between it and lokavidya and FOSS which was now expected to culminate in the conference on Emerging Organization of Knowledge and the Future of Universities on 19-20 Dec. 2008 at Jamia Milia Islamia, New Delhi in this year's Congress of Indian Social Science Academy. Vidya Ashram is collaborating with AU-KBC Center of Electronics, Anna University for the organization of this conference.

The three aspects of this conference, namely, dynamics in the world of knowledge, the university and FOSS with related issues of corporatization, social justice and science research were the subject of discussion. Most members contributed to the discussion. Girish made a point about the idea of education itself disappearing under the impact of the recent developments including those in the sphere of education. The corporatization of higher education turned both education and the educated into commodities whose form and content was ever changing according to the dictates of the market. Suresh elaborated on how the content and organization of research were assuming new forms with corporations in the lead. Naresh talked about a Nai Taleem workshop by Andhra University which deliberated over the inclusion of artisanal knowledge in education. All three have agreed to send write-ups on their ideas to Vidya Ashram by 10th Dec. 2008. These ideas can then be taken to the conference on 19-20 Dec. in New Delhi.


Converging Technologies
The meeting next deliberated on the Converging Technologies( NBIC-nano, bio, info, cogno or BANG- bit, atom, neuron, gene). The participants were aware of this trend and the claims being put forward by convergence theorists. What was debated was whether a critical socio-philosophical engagement with this trend could help to effectively engage with the frontline developments in the field of science and technology. Although the wiki provides introduction to all these areas, it was felt that it should be more useful to have short introductory notes with links prepared by some of us. So it was decided that (i) Girish will prepare a note on Nano-technology, (ii) Suresh on Info.Tech., (iii) Abhijit on Bio-tech. and (iv) Avinash on Cognitive science. All these people will send their notes to Surendran by Jan 15, 2009. It is expected that some of us or many of us will find time to look at Converging Technologies to be able to develop a research program. This may be in the direction of developing an Indian response/view on the content, goals, promise, impact etc. of Converging Technologies.

In the End
Suresh proposed that meetings be held in South ( Bangalore, Hyderabad...) at shorter intervals which should also facilitate greater participation. It was decided that first such meeting will be arranged in Hyderabad before March end 2009. It will be coordinated by Naresh and Suresh. In addition to what may be decided as the subject of the discussion, this meeting will have before it the follow-up of (i) the 'Knowledge and University' conference in Jamia Milia Islamia and (ii) elements of a possible research program on Converging Technologies. If some work gets done on Krishnarajulu's proposal of dialogue with local political parties from a lokavidya angle, then it will also be before this meeting for deliberations.


Prepared at Vidya Ashram
Sarnath, Varanasi, 22 Nov., 2008

Lokavidya Panchayat 16 Nov. 2008, Vidya Ashram, Sarnath, Varanasi

Vidya Ashram is organising a lokavidya panchayat on 16 Nov। 2008 at the Ashram in Sarnath। It is likely to be attended by peasants, artisans, small shop keepers and women from the region, in all about 200-250 persons। Friends and supporters of the Ashram from various parts of the country will also participate in the Panchayat।The following pamphlet (in Hindi) is being used, for distribution and dialogue, for mobilization of knowledgeable persons in the region.

लोकविद्या पंचायत

लोकविद्या पंचायत लोकविद्याधारक समाज की ज्ञान पंचायत है।

विचार

• मनुष्य एक बौधिक प्राणी है। ज्ञान और विवेक उसके स्वाभाविक गुण हैं।


• अधिकांश लोग, किसान, कारीगर, आदिवासी, छोटे-छोटे दूकानदार और महिलायें कालेग या विश्वविद्यालय में नहीं पढ़े हैं लेकिन उनके पास अपना-अपना विस्तृत ज्ञान होता है। उनके ज्ञान को लोकविद्या कहा जाता है। यह लोकविद्याधर कहे जाते हैं।


• लोकविद्या के बल पर यह अपने घर-परिवार चलाते हैं और तरह-तरह की सुविधाएं और वस्तुएं पूरे समाज को मुहैया कराते हैं।
  
• इनके दुर्दशा का कारण यह है कि इनके ज्ञान का, लोकविद्या का, कोई संगठन नहीं है। राजनीति में, बड़े बाज़ार में, बड़े-बड़े सांस्कृतिक प्रथिष्ठानों में और विश्वविद्यालयों में इनके ज्ञान की कोई पूछ नहीं है। वास्तव में समाज के शक्तिसंपन्न स्थान लोकविद्या को ज्ञान मानने से ही इनकार कर देते हैं।


• इसके चलते देश और समाज के संचालक मूल्यों, नीतियों और व्यवस्थाओं पर लोकविद्याधारक समाज की समीक्षा व राय लेने की कोई आवश्यकता ही नहीं समझी जाती। नतीजतन लोकविद्याधारक समाज के हित की बातें ठोस रूप में सार्वजनिक नहीं हो पातीं और न शासन की निति और व्यवस्था में कोई स्थान ही पातीं है।


• जब तक लोकविद्या संगठित नहीं होती, तब तक सार्वजनिक दुनिया में लोकविद्याधारक समाज की दखल नहीं बन सकेगी। लोकविद्याधारक समाज खुशहाली और सम्मान हासिल करे इसके लिए इसी समाज की पहेल और नेतृत्व में लोकविद्या का संगठन होना ज़रूरी है।


• लोकविद्या पंचायत लोकविद्या का एक ऐसा स्थान होगा जहाँ समाज में सही-ग़लत की पहचान व्यापक लोकविद्याधर समाज अपने ज्ञान के बल पर करेगा, किन्ही विशेषज्ञों पर अंध-भक्ति से नहीं।

लोकविद्या पंचायत को लोकविद्याधर समाज की ऐसी ज्ञान पंचायत बनाना है जहाँ -

1. किसान, कारीगर, आदिवासी, छोटे-छोटे दूकानदार, महिलायें (लोकविद्याधर) अपने-अपने ज्ञान की क्षमता और सामर्थ्य को बढ़ाने व मज़बूत करने के लिए एकत्र होंगे।


2. जाती, धर्मं और सम्प्रदाय से ऊपर उठकर लोकविद्याधारक एक दूसरे से बराबरी के आधार पर वार्ता करेंगे।

लोकविद्या पंचायत लोकविद्याधर समाज की ज्ञान की गतिविधि का ऐसा स्थान बनेगी जहाँ से

1. यह अभियान चलाया जायेगा के विभिन्न विद्याओं से प्राप्त आय में ५ गुना से अधिक का अन्तर न हो। यानी अधिकतम और न्यूनतम आय में अनुपात ५ रु १ का हो। (आज सरकारी नौकरी में यह अनुपात लगभग १५ रु १ और निजीक्षेत्र में लगभग १०० रु १ का है)।


2. इस अनुपात को बनाने का लक्ष्य रखते हुए पंचायत, बाज़ार, कृषि, उद्योग, शिक्षा, चिकित्सा आदि की व्यवस्थाओं पर प्रस्ताव तैयार कर शासन को लागू करने के लिए भेजेगी व इसके पक्ष में तर्क प्रस्तुत करेगी।
   
3. संचार माध्यमों और सांस्कृतिक क्षेत्रों में लोकविद्या के मूल्य, शक्ति और दखल के रूपों पर चिंतन कर इनके पक्ष में तर्क प्रस्तुत किए जायेंगे।


4. लोकविद्या और लोकविद्याधर समाज की खुशहाली, सम्मान और समृद्धि के लिए राजनैतिक और सामजिक नेतृत्व के सामने सतत राय व प्रस्ताव रखे जायेंगे।
   

आइये

लोकविद्या पंचायत में भागीदार होकर लोकविद्या को ज्ञान का लोकविद्याधरों को ग्यानी होने का दावा पेश करें।

और

एक न्यायपूर्ण और बराबरी पर आधारित समाज को गढ़ने की लोक-आधारित ज्ञान- क्रिया को समाज में स्थापित करें।

विद्या आश्रम

सा १०/८२ अ अशोक मार्ग, सारनाथ, वाराणसी

फ़ोन- ०५४२- २५९५१२०

विद्या आश्रम एक ऐसा स्थान है जहाँ समाज के वे विचारक, लोकविद्याधर सामाजिक कार्यकर्त्ता, वैज्ञानिक और दार्शनिक मिलते हैं जिनकी मूल संवेदना समाज के गरीब व शोषित तबकों के साथ होती है। विद्या आश्रम समाज की शक्ति (लोकशक्ति) का आधार उन रचनात्मक कार्यों और संघर्षों में देखता है जो लोकविद्या की लूट और शोषण के ख़िलाफ़ होते हैं।

Lokavidya and Intellectual Property Rights

1. Lokavidya: Protection versus commodification
The legal system of patents, copyrights, trademarks and intellectual property rights regimes in general is key to ensuring that knowledge can be traded in the market as a commodity. Clearly defined property rights are the basis for good contracts and good contracts enforced via the legal (police, judiciary) apparatus of the State are the basis for efficient market transactions. Most conclusions in economics that glorify the virtues of allocation via free markets rely on the existence of clear, enforceable contracts. Commodifying knowledge itself (as opposed to the fruits of knowledge, or knowledge embodied in products) is difficult due to the non-rival nature of knowledge. Non-rivalry means that the use of the commodity by one person does not preclude simultaneous use by another. Thus unlike a shirt or a computer, a design, a blueprint, a way of doing things, can be used by many people at once. This non-rival nature of Knowledge has been appreciated for centuries. Knowledge has begun to be seen as a valuable asset in the past two decades with the emergence of the Knowledge Society or the Information Economy. Pressures on its commodification have therefore increased. However the very same technological forces that have placed focus on the revenue-generating potential of knowledge have also created more impediments to its commodification. I refer to Information and Communications Technologies which bring the non-rival nature of knowledge into sharp relief. The controversies surrounding pirated music, scholarly paper, books and so on in electronic form clearly demonstrate this. The non-rival nature of knowledge which makes it nearly costless to reproduce (mimic) is however a double-edged sword. Even as progressive movements such as FOSS or open-access libraries emerge to take advantage of non-rivalry with the aim of undercutting corporate profits, so also, corporate and formal sector entities are able to "lift" knowledge from the people without due compensation to them while asserting that corporate use does not preclude use of the same knowledge by society at large. Since the dominant discourse around property rights for knowledge revolves around patents, copyrights and so on, proposals are also being floated for protection of lokavidya via similar IPRs. In the general climate that views knowledge as a revenue-generating asset, "poor people's knowledge" has attracted attention from international development agencies as another possible way to challenge poverty. If only poor people could take advantage of the knowledge they possess (by participating in the world market, of course), they could begin to climb out of poverty. But this demands a legal system of protection for their knowledge.

An incremental advance over lokavidya can generate windfall profits with the help of patenting regimes. A hypothetical example will clarify. Knowledge of several medicinal herbs is part of lokavidya. This knowledge is the result of accretion over many years and is a product of the ongoing knowledge activity of many ordinary men and women. In Marxian terms much of this knowledge is produced for its use-value, not its exchange value. That is, it is produced for use, not for sale. Much of it is also in the public domain and access to it is open to all. Companies which are interested in the knowledge for its exchange-value (its profit earning potential) can take advantage of the open-access nature of the knowledge. They can make a small incremental change to it, say alter its potency, isolate the active principle, or make some other small chemical modification to render it a "new product." This can then be patented and sold for profit. Even if the presence of the new product does not preclude the use of lokavidya, the fact still remains that the knowledge activity that contributed to the lokavidya commons was not rewarded or recognized.The above scenario calls for some thinking on ways and means to protect lokavidya from such appropriation. However, lokavidya by its nature is dispersed and difficult to trace to a single source. How can it be patented or copyrighted? More fundamentally, should it be? What other ways exist besides modern IPR regimes to protect lokavidya from appropriation while using it for the benefit of its holders? Perhaps some lessons can be learned from the history of the commodification of land.

2. Some analogies between Knowledge and Land

Of course unlike knowledge, land if a rival good (its use by one person precludes its use at the same time by another). However by analogy with land, one can identify two reasons for commodifying knowledge. One, in order to buy and sell knowledge itself and two, in order to earn rent on its use. Both these ways to earn revenue from knowledge are commonplace today. Patent fees and royalties are an example of the second. They are analogous to rent on land. The commodification of land via the process of enclosures has been well-documented in Europe. Via this process that Marx referred to as "primitive accumulation," land held communally, largely through informal systems of governance, is converted into private property. Via a similar process today, the knowledge commons, of which lokavidya is a large and important part, are being enclosed for profit. The transformation of knowledge from communally held lokavidya to privately held patents and copyrights in underway and has been underway for a long time.
Enclosures destroyed self-sufficiency in land use. Does the new system of Knowledge Management destroy self-sufficiency in knowledge production and use? Restoration of self-sufficiency in land use, i.e. land reform, though it became a revolutionary call in the context of highly unequal distribution of land-ownership, really amounts just to redistribution with the existing private property regime. So also the demand for patents and copyrights for lokavidya is appearing as a progressive cry when it only entails a wider, more equitable application of the same private property regime in the Knowledge domain. The land enclosures in Europe were as much about creating property rights as about consolidating and concentrating those right in a smaller number of hands. Do lokavidya enclosures follow a similar pattern? Will a call for IPRs for lokavidya be revolutionary in the current context, or will it merely strengthen the current trend towards increasing commodification of Knowledge? This is an important question that proponents and supporters of lokavidya must answer for themselves.

Can we imagine alternatives that go beyond both: lokavidya freely available for appropriation and lokavidya protected via IPRs?

Amit Basole

ज्ञान की राजनीति

पिछले कुछ दिनों से देश के प्रकट राजनैतिक पटल पर तेज़ी से बदलाव हुए हैं। एक तरफ़ नाभिकीय करार से चलते प्रभावी राजनैतिक दलों के आपसी संबंधों में उलटफेर हुए हैं, तो दूसरी तरफ़ आम चुनाव पास आने के चलते छोते दलों और समूहों में भी गति आई है। पश्चिम एशिया और दक्षिण एशिया अमेरिका की राजनीति के केन्द्र में नज़र आते हैं। करार ने अमेरिका के साथ सामरिक समझौते का जो आधार बानाया है वह इस देश और इस इलाके की बर्बादी के नए रास्ते खोलता है। अमेरिका इसके ज़रिये इस्लामी उग्रवाद का मुंह अपनी ओर से मोड़कर हिन्दुस्तान की ओर करता है। इस्लामी उग्रवाद द्वारा भारत को लक्ष्य बनाकर हमलों की घटनाएं बढती जा रही हैं।

इस सबके चलते गरीब वर्गों की दशा और दिशा की चर्चा से ध्यान हटता है। बुनियादी राजनीति के कार्यकर्ता गरीब वर्गों की स्थिति को हमेशा केन्द्र में बनाकर रखते हैं। शहरी गरीबों का विस्थापन, किसानों की आत्महत्याएं तथा उनकी ज़मीनों का अधिग्रहण एवं विस्थापन और महंगाई बढ़ाने वाली नीतियाँ बदस्तूर जारी हैं। शासक वर्ग राजनैतिक समीकरणों और व्यवस्थाओं में बदलाव के मार्फ़त वैश्वीकरण, निजीकरण, और उदारीकरण में तेज़ी लाने की तैयारी कर रहे हैं। दूसरी ओर सांप्रदायिक ताकतों का दोहरा खेल जारी है। समाज में बिखराव और आपसी संघर्ष को बढ़ाने का कार्य वे पहले की ही तरह कर रहे हैं। बुनियादी राजनीति के कार्यकर्ताओं को उन सैध्दांतिक चौखटों की भी खोज है जिनकी सहायता से इन परिस्थितियों में गरीब वर्गों के दृष्टिकोण को सामने लाया जा सकता है। ज्ञान की राजनीति शायद ऐसी चौखट बनने का रास्ता खोलती है। यहाँ इसी को संक्षेप में रखने की कोशिश है।

२१ वीं सदी के शुरुआत के साथ औद्योगिक युग समाप्त हो चुका है और सूचना युग शुरू हुआ है। कहा जा रहा है कि एक ज्ञान आधारित समाज बन रहा है। हम देख रहे हैं की इस युग में सूचना उद्योग (टी.वी., मोबाइल, कम्प्यूटर-इन्टरनेट, आदि) सबसे तेज़ी से फल-फूल रहे हैं और अमेरिका के साम्राज्य की जड़ों को सींच रहे हैं। दूसरी तरफ़ छोटे-छोटे उद्योग-धंधे और खेती उजड़ रहे हैं और इनसे जुड़े लोग आत्महत्या कर रहे हैं। जो युवक कम्प्यूटर-इन्टरनेट पर बहुत कुशलता के साथ अंग्रेज़ी में काम कर रहे हैं केवल उन्हें ही मोटे वेतन मिल रहे हैं और शेश नवजवानों के लिए सम्मान लायक रोज़गार के रास्ते बंद होते जा रहें हैं। इस ज्ञान आधारित सूचना युग में मोटे तौर पर निम्नलिखित तरीकों से सामान्य लोगों को ज्ञान से दूर करने की व्यवस्था बनती देखि जा सकती है।

• शिक्षा महंगी है। यानि सामान्य लोगों से ज्ञान प्राप्त करने का अधिकार छीना जा रहा है।
• ज्ञान की ज़्यादातर गतिविधियाँ कम्प्यूटर-इन्टरनेट पर होने जा रही हैं और वे अंग्रेज़ी में हैं। यानि कम्प्यूटर का ज्ञान आम जनता की पहुँच के बाहर है।
• लोकविद्या (किसानी, कारीगरी, वन्यिकी, स्वास्थ्य रक्षा, पालन पोषण आदि लोक-आधारित ज्ञान) को आर्थिक-सामाजिक मूल्य बहुत कम दिया जा रहा है। यानि आम लोगों के पास जो ज्ञान है उसका शोषण हो रहा है।
• लोकविद्या पर कब्ज़ा किया जा रहा है। पेटेंट बनाकर और कम्प्यूटर में संग्रहित कर लोकविद्या पर पूंजीपतियों का कब्ज़ा स्तापित हो रहा है।
• शिक्षा, बाज़ार, प्रशासन, और सेवा (डाक, बैंक, पुस्तकालय, खबरें, शोध, सूचना, आदि) कम्प्यूटर-इन्टरनेट पर स्थानांतरित हो रहें हैं। यानी सार्वजनिक सेवाएं गरीब समाज से दूर हो रही हैं।

कहने को तो यह ज्ञान आधारित सूचना युग है, किंतु वास्तव में यह ज्ञान पर कब्जे और उसके शोषण पर आधारित सूचना युग है। इसलिए आम आदमी की ज़िन्दगी जीने के लायक बने, समाज में न्याय की स्थापना हो और सभी नौजवानों को आगे बढ़ने के मौके मिलें इसके लिए एक ज्ञान की राजनीती खड़ी होना ज़रूरी है। इसकी पहली शर्त है की ज्ञान को पूंजीपतियों के कब्जे और शोषण से मुक्त किया जाय।

वाराणसी में शुरू किए गए ज्ञान मुक्ति अभियान की प्रमुख मांगे निम्नलिखित हैं-
• कम्प्यूटर हिन्दी में हो।
• गाँव-गाँव में मीडिया स्कूल हो।
• कृशि उत्पादन को वाजिब दाम मिले।
• घर-घर में उद्योग हो।
• स्थानीय बाज़ार को संरक्षण हो।
• लोकविद्या को शिक्षा में शामिल किया जाय।
• उच्च शिक्षा के दरवाज़े सबके लिए खुले हों।

ज्ञान मुक्ति अभियान जगह-जगह पर नौजवानों के ज्ञान शिविर चला कर इस विषय पर नौजवानों को नई समझ से लैस कर रहा है। आगामी आमचुनाव में उपरोक्त मांगों को सार्वजनिक बनाने के लिए बुद्धिजीवियों, विचारकों, सामाजिक कार्यकर्ताओं, किसान-कारीगर संगठनों को खुलकर सामने आना चाहिए।
चित्रा सहस्रबुद्धे

Exploitation of labor versus exploitation of knowledge

How can we put the idea of "exploitation of knowledge" on a theoretical footing akin to the theorization of exploitation of labor by Marx? In Marx, exploitation is tied up with the notion of surplus and under capitalism specifically to the concept of valorization, the creation of value by labor; more value than is needed to reproduce labor itself.

In order to reach the above conclusion however, Marx needs to assume that there eixts such a thing as abstract labor, labor in general, that is the common denominator of all commodities. The labor theory of value stands on the notion of abstract labor. We can bring in non-human inputs (nature) to complete Marx's picture (Marx endorsed William Petty's idea that if labor is the father of all commodities, the Earth is the mother). Marx did not see the need to distinguish between labor in its physical aspect and labor in its mental aspect. But we may recognize that just as all commodities have labor embodied in them, so do all commodities have knowledge embodied in them. Making this distinction allows us to explore the meaning of the term "exploitation of knowledge." I will consider two dimension of this in brief.

First, direct (living) labor is not the only source of embodied knowledge. Knowledge can be a non-labor (i.e. capital) input. To focus this discussion imagine the mass production of a certain type of decorative carpet. The inputs to the production of the carpet are the raw materials (fabric etc), the machines needed for weaving and embroidering, electricity, physical infrastructure, and of course the labor needed to operate the machinery, to manage, to sell it and so on. For now, we will keep aside the question of whether managerial and sales labor is exploited as well. But we have not mentoined one more input here: the design on the carpet. Let us imagine two scenarios. First, a designer hired by the firm produces a design which is implemented by the workers on the shop-floor. Second, a manager spots a certain type of artisanal design in the market, which happens to be unprotected by patent or copyright. He buy the artisanally produced carpet, takes it back to the firm and starts mass-producing a similar (or as close as he can get) product. Both scenarios are fairly common. In the first scenario, the knowledge of the designer is exploited in the form of his labor, just as the knowledge of the shop-floor workers is exploited via their labor. In the second scenario, what exactly is happening? We can assume that chancing upon a good design was a good deal less costly for the firm than paying someone to produce it. In fact, designs in the public domain are often used for this very cost-saving purpose. But was this design in the public domain? This question of course leads up the thorny question of protection of lokavidya. This is an important issue but one that I want to side-step for now. Let us say that this lokavidya (the carpet design in this instance) was indeed unprotected and therefore de facto "open access." Was the artisan whose design it was (or the aritsan community if it was a communal deisgn) exploited because their input created value, but they received no return for it? If this is exploitation it is exploitation of knowledge as distinct from exploitation of labor. Instances of this can of course be multiplied ((particualry well known examples exist in the bio-pharmaceutical industry). I have not even brought in the complication that the carpets produced by the firm may compete with artisanal products and destroy the livelihood of the very source of the design.

Second, there is a further complicating factor: just as the labels "skilled" and "unskilled" attached to labor are not merely objective descriptions of the labor process but rather political weapons in the fight against labor, the difference in respect accorded to various types of knowledges, performs a similar function, allowing greater exploitation of certain types of knowledge. We all sense the dichotomy between school/university (formal) knowledge and on-the-job/informal knowledge (lokavidya). The lack of respect accorded to lokavidya makes possible greater extraction of value since the socially accepted standard of living(which is an important determinant of the cost of necessary labor, i.e. the wage) differs greatly between formal and informal economy workers. Since an aritsan is socially not expected to ("does not deserve") the same standard of living, it follows that he/she can be paid less than an engineer who may perform similar functions. Here it may be argued that if informal economy workers are paid less, then thier products also sell for less, making their rate of exploitation similar to formal workers (who earn more and whose product sell for more).

This question cannot be answered in the abstract. The informal economy produces a very diverse range of commodities, not all of which are low-quality consumer gooods for the poor. Certain informal (artisanal) products in fact sell for a lot of money of which a very very small fraction reaches the producer. Maureen Liebl and Thirthanker Roy (Handmade in India, in "Poor People's Knowledge", a World Bank Publication) give one example. A certain type of decorative brass globe made in Jodhpur, Rajasthan, may pay the producer $1 per piece. The same piece sells for around $70 in New York. This is not really news. But I suspect that this type of exploitative situation prevails not only in high-end artisanal commodities but also in more run-of-the-mill products like garments, furniture etc. If the connection has to be made from repsect accorded to lokavidya (or various types of vidya) and exploitation of knowledge, more works needs to be done in this area.

Finally I note that exploitation of knowledge as defined here is not at all a new phenomenon. Perhaps it is as old as exploitation of labor itself. However, the rhetoric of the post-industrial knowledge economy accompanied by the new "discovery" of traditional and indigenous knowledges, the unsettling of the hegemony enjoyed by modern science, together conspire to create conditions wherein the knowledge dimension of exploitation of the poor can be made obvious and furthermore, the clarification of this issue can make the case for just economic returns even stronger.

Amit Basole

Can Hiroshima be forgotten?

The political atmosphere in India has warmed up in the last couple of months due to the debate on the nuclear agreement with America and the Loksabha proceedings on the related confidence vote. Not only the larger parties but small political formations have also become active.

There are issues of energy security, price of energy, fallout of nuclear enterprises and American designs and the ruling political establishment giving in into their strategic designs, this last also leading specifically to complexing this country's relationship with Islamic militancy etc. On each one of these sufficient arguments have appeared in the popular press mainly against the nuclear deal.

However it is important to note that inspite of the intensity of this debate, no serious questioning took place from a fundamental standpoint on the question of acceptability of nuclear energy from a human civilizational point of view. It is true that this question does not perhaps have the pressing nature of political or strategic questions. But the level of debates on climate change, bio-diversity, preservation of natural resources, renewable energy etc. should have been expected to provide a reasonable context to raise this very radical question.

The nuclear debate allows us to raise the question of technology and science in somewhat bare form. Exactly 63 years ago the United States dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima and 'told' the world that what has taken shape in the name of human civilization in hundreds of thousands of years could be erased from the surface of the earth instantly. And that they are capable of doing it. Nuclear technology only poses in extreme form the question that all modern technology poses. Modern technology destroys nature in absolute terms. And let us not keep man out of nature, for countless men, women and their families have been eliminated in the course of mopping up of the natural resources from across the world for this industry to develop and expand and in the course of capturing markets for this industry to sell its products.

Modern industry is power driven. It pre-supposes organisation of energy at lightening speed. This is where the root of the evil seems to lie. Now we have organisation of information and knowledge at lightening speeds. Should the destruction let loose therefore be expected to assume radically new dimensions now? The human question, properly speaking, is not about energy or information, it is about people and their lives. The energy and information concern flows from lifestyle interest, class interests and interests of domination. And these interests express themselves in and through the market and the political arena. This is why the understanding of energy crisis and need of information technology has great convergence across the market and the world of politics.

If the dead of Hiroshima are martyrs, then:

What is the Gandhian polity of this era which addresses the issues of lifestyle, class interests and domination?
How is the question of Lokavidya relevant for such a polity?
Is this a knowledge politics based on a people's knowledge movement?
Will this politics bring man's relation with nature to the center stage?

Sunil Sahasrabudhey