Democracy at the core of S&T – any chance?

Shambu Prasad C and Debasis Mohanty

Qualifiers & context

• Work in progress

• Interest in dissent and science

• S&T policy making in 1980s – Aiyagiri et al

• Ashok Parthasarathy’s Technology at the Core: S&T with Indira Gandhi

• Discussions in KICS on the 11th Plan and need to engage with it

S&T and democracy

• Unwritten code of science and bueuracracy – PM always min of S&T

• The big three – DAE, DOS, DRDO not open to public scrutiny, budgets passed with no opposition or discussion in parliament.

• Little internal democracy in scientific institutions• Why is science in India not open to democratic

control?

S&T Planning in India

• SACC since 1956 – policy and mgmt of S&T, no full time staff, contribution and impact minimal

• COST in 1968 – 18 members including outside govt., had clout of PC, full time secy, annual reports on S&T

• NCST in 1971 following COST conf of 200 scientists

• Integrated planning for science and technology• 1973 India’s first (and last) ‘Approach to S&T

Plan’ (1% of GNP on R&D)• 24 sectors, systems view, 233 working groups

Was NCST an aberration?

• Two years to complete, 600 pages• Participation of 2000 scientists and

technologists, scientists reflect on science and society in approach paper

• Available for public discussion• Tensions between NCST and PC on

financial allocation, but also at another level on conceptions of S&T and its role in society.

Was NCST an aberration?

• NCST never implemented, Sethna – NCST can’t decide nuclear power (75% of DAE budget!)

• A debate that never really played up – failure of technology as 4th factor or structural issues of science and democracy?

• Scientific elite more powerful since, no attempts to discuss even internally, (greater debates on science before independence or emergency)

• Technocrats more powerful, S&T functioning not open for scrutiny nor considered necessary.

11th Plan and S&T

• Can science and technology ever be democratically planned?

• Civil society representation in other areas or divisions of planning increasing (tokenism), is this the same with S&T?

• unwritten code in policy making circles – civil society good for health, agriculture etc as long as you leave S&T alone?

• Can democracy ever be at the core of science policy making in India?

1 Agriculture

2 Backward Classes

3 Communication & Information

4 Development Policy

5 Education

6 Environment & Forests

7 Financial Resources

8 Health & Family Welfare

9 Housing & Urban Development

10 Industry & Minerals

11 Labour, Employment and Manpower

12 Multi Level Planning

13 Power & Energy, Energy Policy and Rural Energy

Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007-2012)Working Groups/Steering Committees/Task Force

There are 25 divisions/sectors created in the 11th FYP

14 Programme Evaluation Organisation

15 Rural Development

16 Social Justice & Women Empowerment

17 Science & Technology

18 State Plans (North Eastern Region)

19 Tourism

20 Transport

21 Village & Small Enterprises

22 Voluntary Action Cell

23 Water Resources

24 Women and Child Development

25 International Economics

• Sectors have working groups, steering committees, sub-groups and task forces

• There are 30 steering committees under 25 divisions.• Total no. of working groups is 106 where Agriculture has

a maximum of 13 WGs. S&T has none• Out of 25 divisions only four have sub-groups. S&T has

the highest number of sub-groups i.e. 14. Other three divisions have both WGs and sub-groups but S&T has no WG.

• Ten Task Forces have been constituted under four divisions only, where Environment and Forest has the highest seven.

Structure of 11th Plan

Groups constituted under S&T

10

1

14

0

4.24

1.20.4

Working Groups SteeringCommittee

Sub-groups Task Force

Average of 25 Divisions Science & Technology

S&T Structure out of Synch?

Sl No. Category Total Members

%

1 Secretaries 202 27.86

2 Academic Organisations 84 11.59

3 PC Members 68 9.37

4 State Govt. Representatives 60 8.27

5 NGOs 58 8.00

6 Quasi Govt. Organisations 53 7.31

7 Individual/Consultants 47 6.48

8 Industry Association 40 5.51

9 Commission/Mission/Board 37 5.10

10 Retired Govt. Officers 23 3.17

Member-wise top ten categories

General features

Representation of civil society organisations is 108 (14.89% of 725).

Sl. No Divisions Total Members Civil society organisation

%

1 Empowerment of SCs, OBCs and Minorities 50 11 22

2 Empowerment of STs 35 9 26

3 Labour, Employment and Manpower 34 9 26

4 Social Justice & Women Empowerment 40 12 30

5 Empowerment of Women & Dev of Children 50 14 28

6 Science and Technology 31 3 10

• Incomplete – need to look more closely at TORs, explore composition of 10th and 11th plan – any difference in S&T part?

• Difference in chairman (Kalam previous chairman), TORs, new members etc.?

• What would a new NCST look like for future India?How, if at all, would civil society figure in this? Would it dream differently from Kalam?

• About time for Shiv to write the next House of Bamboo

A beginning