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

A Pamphlet from Vidya Ashram to be presented at the national convention of NAPM

tuvkUnksyuksa ds jk"Vªh; leUo; dk dq’khuxj lEesyu

6]7]8 twu] 2008

fo|k vkJe] lkjukFk dh vksj ls izLrqr ipkZ

oS’ohdj.k ds bl ;qx dh ,d igpku ;g gS fd ;g fo|k ds ’kks"k.k ij vk/kkfjr gSA bl ;qx esa Je vkSj fo|k dk ’kks"k.k bl dnj tksM+ fn;k x;k gS fd iw¡thifr;ksa vkSj dEifu;ksa dks vHkwriwoZ equkQk feyrk tk jgk gSA fdlku] dkjhxj] vkfnoklh vkSj efgyk;sa ,d vlhfer Kku ds Hk.Mkj ds ekfyd gSaA bu lcdk Kku fdruk dkjxj gS vkSj buds Kku ij fdl rjg tuthou vk/kkfjr g]S ;g ge lc tkurs gSaA blds ckotwn bUgsa lekt dh eq[; /kkjk esa dksbZ LFkku ugh gSA bu yksxksa dh fo|k dks vkS|ksfxd ;qx esa yxkrkj frjLdkj dk f’kdkj gksuk iM+kA fo’ofo|ky;ksa us budh fo|k dks Kku dk ntkZ nsus ls budkj dj fn;kA lekt esa budh loZFkk vlEeku dh fLFkfr dk ewy vk/kkj blh esa gSA

vc dEI;wVj&bUVjusV dk ;qx mls fo|k ekuus dks rS;kj gSA ns’kt Kku vkSj ijEijkxr Kku dh lwpukvksa ls bUVjusV Hkjk iM+k gSA izkd`frd lalk/kuksa dk Kku] izkd`frd fØ;kvksa dk Kku] mRiknu ds rjhds] LokLF; j{kk ds mik;] izkd`frd fofo/krk] fMtkbu] laxhr] dyk vkfn dk yksdKku ;s lc lwpukvksa ds laxzg dk :Ik ysrk tk jgk gSA Kku dk vFkZ] mldk bLrseky vkSj lekt esa mldh Hkwfedk ij ubZ cglsa py fudyh gSaA lRrk/kkjh oxZ dg jgs gSa fd Kku vk/kkfjr lekt cu jgk gSA FkksM+k lk xk+Sj djsa rks le> esa vk;sxk fd okLro esa Kku ds ’kks"k.k ij vk/kkfjr lekt cu jgk gSA fuEufyf[kr fcUnqvksa ds varxZr ;g le>k tk ldrk gSA

1- dEI;wVj&bUVjusV ij laxzfgr yksdKku ds bLrseky ls dEifu;k¡ vius mRiknu dks cktkj esa izfrLi/kkZ vkSj equkQs ds ;ksX; cukrh gSaA

2- yksdfo|k/kkjd lekt vius Kku ds cy ij tks mRiknu djrk gS mls cktkj esa ewY; ugh feyrkA

3- yksdfo|k/kkjd lekt vius Kku ds cy ij izkd`frd lalk/kuksa dk bLrseky djs bl ij Hkh ljdkj dh fu;e&uhfr;k¡ dkuwuh jksd yxkrh gaSA

4- f’k{kk fu;fer jkstxkj dk cgqr cM+k lk/ku gS vkSj ’kklu dk blij cM+k tksj Hkh gS ijUrq yksdfo|k dks bl lc esa dksbZ LFkku ugh fn;k tk jgk gSA

yksdfo|k dh bl fLFkfr ds pyrs gh c`gr~ lekt vkfFkZd foiUurk] lkekftd vlEeku] jktuSfrd vleFkZrk o lkaLd`frd vizklafxdrk dk f’kdkj gSA lekt esa cqfu;knh ifjorZu ds dk;ZdrkZvksa dks yksdfo|k dh fLFkfr dks xaHkhjrk ls ysuk gksxk] mldh ’kfDr vkSj mlds lkFk tqM+h laHkkoukvksa ij O;kid jktuhfrd cgl pykuh gksxh] ,d Kku dh jktuhfr dk fuekZ.k djuk gksxkA

gj jktuhfr dk ,d fo|kxr vk/kkj gksrk gSA if’pe esa fodflr iw¡thoknh jktuhfr] yksdra= vkSj lektokn dk vk/kkj lkbal dh fo|k esa jgk gSA oS’ohdj.k vkSj lkezkT; dh jktuhfr vius dks lwpuk ds izcU/ku dh fo|k ij fodflr dj jgh gSA ;fn yksdfgr dh jktuhfr dk fodkl yksdfo|k ij vk/kkfjr gksrk ns[ksa rks D;k fodYi ds loZFkk u;s jkLrs [kqyrs fn[krs gS\

o"kZ 1998 esa okjk.klh esa vk;ksftr yksdfo|k egkf/kos’ku ds le; ls vkSj vc fo|k vkJe ls yksdfo|k esa fufgr ,slh izHkkoh laHkkoukvksa dks lkeus ykus ds iz;kl tkjh gSaA okrkZ] laokn] fparu] lEesyu vkSj tuvkUnksyuksa esa Hkkxhnkjh ds ekQZr lkekftd dk;ZdrkZvksa ds chp bls ykus dh dksf’k’k jgh gSA

yksdfo|k ij vkSj mlls tqM+h jktuSfrd laHkkoukvksa ij cqfu;knh cgl dks ysdj ge ’kq: ls gh tuvkUnksyuksa ds jk"Vªh; leUo; dh xfrfof/k;ksa vkSj la?k"kksZa esa ’kkfey gksrs jgs gSaaA vk’kk gS fd dq’kh uxj ds bl lEesyu esa bl fo"k; ij vo’; /;ku fn;k tk;sxkA

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

fo|k vkJe] 10@82 ,] v’kksd ekxZ] lkjukFk] okjk.klh &221007

Qksu% 0542&2595120] bZ&esy% budhey@gmail.com ]

www.vidyaashram.org ,

lokavidyapanchayat.blogspot.com

10 questions relating to lokavidya

Given below are 10 questions relating to lokavidya that I would like to raise for discussion.

Sunil

1. How is lokavidya similar to and different from indigenous knowledge?
2. Is the logic of lokavidya a network logic? If yes, what does it mean?
3. Are practices and techniques always part of a 'system' of knowledge?
4. What is the relation between lokavidya and lokasangathan?
5. Can lokavidya provide the basis for political strategies to confront the Global Market? Is the idea of local market part of such strategies?
6. Does lokavidya provide the basis for a radical standpoint on elimination of poverty from the surface of the earth?
7. What is the relation between knowledge and dignity? Is respect for lokavidya as genuine knowledge necessary for the social dignity of the bahishkrit samaj ?
8. Will the reassertion of lokavidya in the public realm take ordinary people out of the cultural irrelevance they have suffered from for so long?
9. Will the reordering of the world of knowledge with a proper place for lokavidya in it pave the way for a new political imagination in which the ordinary people are not powerless as they are in the present scientific democracies?
10. Why we must see the immediate and long lasting relevance of lokavidya for the movement for control of natural resources by the people?

Lokavidya Panchayat

The idea that there is a sea of knowledge outside the university is not alien to most people in the world. Knowledge has a very wide spread in society and the idea that knowledge is so widely spread out has a very wide spread too. That is people know and they know that they know. And yet neither these people nor the knowledge they possess has dignity in society. It has no economic returns, so the people are poor. It has no respect in the public domain so people are culturally marginal. It has no clear relation with peoples’ organizations therefore people are politically irrelevant. Lokavidya Panchayat is a place to develop a collaborative and participatory sensibility of this situation to lay a firm basis to develop dialogues which can lead to a political imagination and strategy to bust this trap.

Lokavidya belongs to ordinary life. Ordinary life is the life without condition and therefore the richest life. It assumes no science, no religion, no politics, no technology and it has place for all these. Lokavidya is the knowledge that serves people in their daily lives and also at special junctures. So lokavidya constantly changes with life and with demands on life. So in a certain sense lokavidya is always with the times, in fact the converse may actually be true, that is, it is in lokavidya that the measure of time may be located.

The Age of Science has done a great disservice to humanity by positively promoting ideas which de-legitimize the knowledge status of lokavidya. However science no more occupies an undisputed position of command in the world of knowledge. Knowledge activity from the virtual domain, in particular Knowledge Management, is constantly pushing for a change in the concept of knowledge. They appear to be saying why should knowledge be restricted to the ivory towers of the university, the research institutions, the laboratory. Traditional metal workers, peasants, health-workers in the remote areas, all possess knowledge. Media, art, design, all are places of knowledge activity. Not that the software scientists or the knowledge managers are any fond of lokavidya but in the changing economics and market it often constitutes critical input to competitive strategies.

Vidya Ashram therefore proposes to realize for lokavidya and for people who possess lokavidya, the maximum of this new opportunity. This blog, Lokavidya Panchayat, is a place to discuss the ways and means to include lokavidya as an equal member in the world of knowledge. Only when such a condition is met can one seriously think of elimination of poverty from the surface of the earth, of emancipation of people from social indignity, political powerlessness and cultural irrelevance.

Let us formulate 10 questions to discuss on this blog.