Cultivating Science as Cultural Policy: A Contrast of Agricultural and Nuclear Science in India

Author(s): Robert S. Anderson

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Pacific Affairs, Vol. 56, No. 1 (Spring, 1983), pp. 38-50
Published by: Pacific Affairs, University of British Columbia
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2758769 .
Accessed: 05/12/2012 11:02
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Pacific Affairs, University of British Columbia is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Pacific Affairs.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.61 on Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:02:24 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CULTURAL POLICY IN INDIA

CultivatingScience as Cultural
Policy: A Contrastof
Agriculturaland Nuclear
Science in India
RobertS. Anderson
G-IVENTHE

WIDESPREAD

convictionthatthe conductof scienceis

indifferentto culture, or that the sciences themselvesproduce a

separate culture,whyshould sciencebe discussed in a contextof cultural
policy?Does not a reviewof science policy literaturealone fullyreveal
whythe state supports scientificinstitutionsand scientificresearch?No,
itdoes so onlyin part; and thisarticlewillshow thatthe state'ssupportof
the sciences in India cannot properly be understood except in the
contextof cultural policy. Most science-policywritingfails to acknowledge a culturalcontext.This shortcoming,found not onlyin India, need
not and should not be a permanentfeatureof science policy.Nor should
the omission of the cultivationof science by the state be a permanent
featureof the literatureon cultural policy.
There are four claims about the sciences I intend to establishhere.
First,whereas at the beginningof the centurythe colonial government
perceivedthe sciencesas worthyof statesupportas theywere in Europe,
by mid-century(following independence) the state had assumed an
obligatoryresponsibilityfor and pre-emptoryinterestin cultivationof
the sciences. This relationshipbetween the state and science is here to
stay-at least so long as state and science are presentlyconceived and
constituted.Secondly, the general term "science" is too bulky; when
analyzed as two separate traditionsof agriculturalscience and nuclear
sciencesin India
science,it becomes clear thatthe cultivationof different
culturaland social interestswhichrequired,from
has spoken to different
the point of view of statecraft,quite differenttreatment.
The thirdclaim is that,while stateinstitutionsand stateofficialswere
usually sincere in their adherence to the rhetoricof "national advance
38

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.61 on Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:02:24 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and NuclearSciencein India

Agricultural
through the cultivationof science," this very policy was perceived by
significantparts of their "public" as of dubious value. Officialsand
politiciansemployingthe rhetoricmightnot understand science in the
waythatscientistswould like themto; nevertheless,theyhad to insiston
the advantages of science even while some of their own constituents
sought to resistits cultivation.Finally,the cultivatorsof science had to
account for and adapt to thisdoubt and resistance,because science was
at the centreof the state'sother major undertakings-military,industrial, and demographic, for example. Scientistshave also had to address
these same doubts and resistance,and to argue vigorouslyfor the goals
of "nationaladvancement."My finalquestion arises fromthiscondition:
when the stateand the sciencesare so closelyjoined, is the responsibility
of science for the criticalassessmentof the state thereforediminished
and too easily "under control"?
WHAT IS CULTURAL POLICY?

Cultural policies, for the present purpose, address perceived problems in state-formation-in particular,the interplayof domestic and
foreign influences; and the interplay of state objectives, conflicting
groups and social values, and the desire for statecontrolof certainkey
activities.The cultivationof the sciences as a cultural policy is not
concerned with direct increases in revenue (for which the state has a
voracious appetite), nor with economic gains for favoured groups and
classes. It is not, therefore,a versionof economic policy,althoughit has
some consequences for the economy. Cultural policy is constitutivein
the way Rudolph suggestsin his introductoryessay-that is, it proposes
what should constitutepart of the national identity.As science is also
pre-eminentlya public philosophy, its cultivationby the state results
fromdecisions in the nineteenthcenturyto stimulatescientificeducation.But culturalpolicyis not simplynormative,as the constitutivesense
implies:italso addresses continuingpoliticalproblems,and is pragmatic.
Thus, cultural policy is an overall "cost" which the state cannot avoid,
because the state is seen as responsiblefor the developmentof modern
Indian society.It is amusing to recall thatone of the argumentsforstate
support made frequentlyto me in India by theoreticalscientistsand
mathematicianswas that science isjust like classical dancing. As thereis
no burden on dancers to prove the economic benefitsof classicaldance,
so there should be no such obligationon, say, mathematicians:mathematics exists, and it has been an Indian tradition,although lapsed.
Science is an essentialpropertyof modern societiesand intellectuallife,
theyargue, and thereforeshould be supported by the state. (Erdman's
39

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.61 on Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:02:24 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PacificAffairs
paper in this panel would be of great interestto these scientists.)They
oftenuse other,more utilitarianarguments,but many would not press
these argumentswithnearlyas much convictionas the argumentof the
intrinsicworthof the sciences.
CULTIVATING AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE

At firstglance, the cultivationof agriculturalscience is profoundly

differentfromthatof nuclear science. These differencesare expressed
in the tensionsbetween the path of rural and agrarian development,on
the one hand, and the path of urban and industrialdevelopment,on the
other-tensions which have characterizedthe historiesof South Asian
nationssince 1947.
The modern conception of a thoroughlyscientificagriculture is
characteristic of nineteenth-centuryEurope and North America.
Though therehave been verysignificantadditionsto geneticknowledge
and agronomy in recent years, the well-knownconfigurationof scientists, state agricultural bureaucrats, and "progressive" farmers took
shape in the nineteenth century,and was expressed in phrases like
"economic botany"and "plant industry."Organic chemistryand botany
were alreadybeing taughtin universitieslike Calcutta and Madras at the
turnof the century,and entomology,pathology,plant genetics,and soil
chemistrywere studied before India and Pakistangained theirindependence in 1947. The firstspecial research institutesfor wheat and rice
were established before 1910, and by 1947 almost every significant
commodityand crop had a special laboratory.Crops destinedforexport
receivedmuch more support than domesticfood-grains.Applicationsof
science to agriculturebegan in India in the twentiethcenturywithouta
pre-existingcommunityof "pure" researchers,and these applications
relied heavilyon evidence and opinions receivedfromBritish,European
and, eventually,American scientists.'
What were the interests of the state in cultivatingagricultural
science? Remember that the initial impulse came at the end of the
nineteenthcentury,followinga series of famines.Science was seen as a
possible solution-perhaps the only solution-to a verypressingprob1
For an excellent account of botanical and agriculturaltechnology-transfers
in the
eighteenthand nineteenthcenturies,and India's place in them (e.g., botanicalgardens in
Calcutta, cinchona plantationsin the Nilgiris),see Lucile Brockway,Scienceand Colonial
Expansion:TheRole oftheBritishRoyalBotanicalGardens(New York: Academic Press, 1979).
See also Russel Dionne, "Government Directed AgriculturalInnovation in India: The
BritishExperience" (Ph.D. dissertation,Duke University,1973), which provides the best
account of the practical interpretationsof "scientificagriculture"by colonial administrators untilthe 1940s.

40

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.61 on Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:02:24 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Agricultural
and NuclearSciencein India
lem. No matterhow much certain groups wished to industrializethe
country,others were convinced that agriculturewas its economic base
and the state's major source of revenue. They argued, therefore,that
the ancientpracticesof farminghad to be changed throughapplications
of science. Such applications required sustained interactionwith the
broad mass of the rural population. In fact,existingfarmingpractices
were already a complex response to and part of extremelydiverse
ecological and culturalconditions.State officialsthen-as now-understood the application of science to be a very complex undertaking,
because of the values and assumptionswhich underlie the agricultural
practicesof millionsof farmers.To be effective,therefore,agricultural
science needed to be extensive and decentralized in character. Any
changes would have extensiveeffectson the existingsocial structureand
the access to resources, including land, labour, and technology.2This
objective of an extensive application of science paralleled the state's
attemptsto extend social control across the landscape, permittingthe
extractionof resourcesand thus generatingrevenue. If the statewere to
be fullyformedand integrated,therecould be fewexemptionsfromthis
drive. This local quality of agricultureand the extensivenature of its
science are reflectedin the fact that agriculture was preserved as a
provincialor state subject in the constitution.While there have been
attempts to centralize agricultural science, there are limits to this
tendencywhich arise fromagricultureitself.
CULTIVATING NUCLEAR SCIENCE

Nuclear science, on the other hand, has always been a central

governmentor "federal" concern in South Asia. It relates not to rural
but to urban interests. It requires interaction with thousands, not
millions. Whereas agricultural science is extensive, nuclear science
concentrateson mattersof minute proportions.It is thoroughlytwentiin conceptionand undertaking.Few people hold considered
eth-century
opinions or assumptions about nuclear science, whereas many people
have had differentopinions about the correctwayto modernizeagriculture. There were no existingpracticeswhich the applicationof nuclear
science was supposed to modernize. Whetherone was boiling water to
2 An example of the effectsof centralizationcan be seen in the analysisbyPaul Brass of
the historyof the agriculturaluniversityat Pantnagar,and the replyto Brass by a former
vice-chancellorof the university,D.P. Singh. I have also writtenon the unnecessary
limitationsimposed on science's contributionto agriculturaldevelopment in Bangladesh
by a more centralized model of research. See Robert S. Anderson, et al., eds., Science,
Politics,and theAgricultural
Revolutionin Asia (Boulder, Colorado: WestviewPress, 1982).

41

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.61 on Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:02:24 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Pacific Affairs
make electricityor designing nuclear weapons, there were few institutionsto offerresistance.Cultivatingnuclear science was originallya state
monopolyin everycountry.It appears as ifthe whole nuclear enterprise
was created de novo. While there was an existingIndian communityof
pure physicistsand mathematiciansin the 1940s, nuclear science also
needed completely new specialists like plutonium engineers, and required a vast network of new institutions,not one of which existed
before 1950. The workwas intensive,concentratedin a fewbuildingsin
a fewcities,where scientistscould interacttogetherand withforeigners.
For many years, it was felt that there was absolutelyno substitutefor
foreigntraining;and it was presumed that knowledgeof Indian conditionsand culturewas peripheralor unimportantto nuclearscience.
The state'sdecision (supported by the privateTata and Birla trusts)
in the 1940s to develop nuclear science was not simplya response to a
pressing domestic problem, but was based on the perception of an
opportunity-namely,thatthe application of "atomic energy"would be
helpfulin India's overall development,tyingit to worldwidetechnological changes. Beyond the glamour of the cultivationof nuclear sciencelay
the question of power: as Homi Bhabha quipped, "thereis no power so
costlyas no power." His listenersconcluded this meant both industrial
and militarypower. Cultivatingnuclear science, however,meant creating communicationlinksbetween state and societyquite differentfrom
those involved in the cultivation of agricultural science. Different
traditionswere involved, and differentinterestswere at stake. For
example, nuclear science and its applications offered no immediate
political base for group activitieswhich could threatenthe long-term
coalitionswhich then supported the state. The application of agricultural science, on the other hand, brought changes which offerednew
politicalstatusforthe middle-peasant/kulak
household, and thisaffected
importantcoalitions (as the rise to national power of Charan Singh
demonstrated),as well as many state governments.
COMMON ELEMENTS IN THE CULTIVATION OF SCIENCE

Beyond these differences,what were the common perceptions of

science held by state officials,politicians, their advisors, and their
3 This is not to imply that there were no "politics" surrounding the applications of
nuclear science; forexample, see Ashok Kapur, India'sNuclearOption(New York: Praeger,
1976), chs. 7 and 8. Regarding how nuclear scientistsgoverned theirown laboratories,and
attemptedto manage the problemof balance betweenforeignand domesticinfluences,see
Robert S. Anderson, "The Government of ScientificInstitutions:Case Studies of Two
Laboratories in the Late 1960s," in Satish Saberwal, ed., Processand Institutzon
in Urban
India: SociologicalStudies(Delhi: Vikas Publishing,1978), pp. 137-68.

42

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.61 on Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:02:24 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Agricultural
and NuclearSciencein India
publics? The focus was mainlyon the benefitswhich the cultivationof
sciencewould bringto the formationand integrationof the state.Firstly,
itwas hoped thatthe cosmopolitanor "world"characterof sciencewould
serve as a cultural bridge across the chasms of language, ethnicity,
religion,and regional loyaltiesof South Asia. Cultivatingscience would
encourage the formationof a new identity,which mightovercome the
multitudeof social and cultural divisions. Secondly, a new group of
experts would be mobilized to join the technocraticclass which guides
the state. The perception was of an easy coalitionwhich would further
the integrationof the state,because after1947 the governmentbegan to
invest in and seek control of many of the applications of science in
agriculturaland nuclear areas, as well as pharmaceuticals,electronics,
aviation,etc. While the mixed characterof the economy has resultedin
very vigorous participationby the private sector in scientificdevelopments,neverthelessthroughoutthe modern period the state has commanded most scientificexpertise.
The corollary of the integrationof state power in India was the
objectiveof reducing dependence on foreignsupply and influence.In
in food and the
agriculturethis meant the pursuit of self-sufficiency
reductionof grain imports.Agriculturalscience,though "foreign"in its
origins, could lead to domestic surplus-or so it seemed. In nuclear
science,the objectivewas independence fromforeignsources of nuclear-power technologies,and even nuclear weapons. At the time of the
1974 nuclear explosion, the Departmentof AtomicEnergywas planning
to tryto sell CANDU-type component parts made in India to Canada.
In addition to the "bridging"characterof science and its potential
the cultivacontributionto the goals of self-relianceand self-sufficiency,
tionof science was attractivebecause it offeredto South Asian nationsa
way to re-enterthe world at a level of greaterinfluence.They saw that
theworldsystem,whichhad penetratedSouth Asia so deeply,was awash
with the achievements of "science-based" nations. The international
character of science offered a world mainstreamwhich South Asian
nationscould enter competitively.The motivesfor enteringthat mainstreamwere varied. For example, some who argued for the cultivation
of science probablysensed the limitationson India's well-knowncontribution to another world mainstream-that is, universalreligiousvalues.
While the contributionsof such figures as Vivekanada, Tagore, and
Gandhi no doubt pleased people imbued withIndia's Hindu traditions,
impatientsecularistssaw a new and more significantopportunityin the
sciences, particularlyfollowingRaman's receipt of the Nobel Prize in
1928. The excitementcaused among young people in South Asia by
43

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.61 on Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:02:24 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PacificAffairs
such world recognitioncan be as influentialas the state's policy-for
example, witnessthe public reactionsto the recent awarding of Nobel
Prizes to Hargobind Khoranna and Abdus Salam. It must be remembered that the "bridging"characterof science is one of the characteristicsof the world system.While it toleratesand utilizeslocal variation,the
world system also provides a coherent "cosmopolitan" ideology and
identitywhich must be adopted by participatingstates.
Thus, not only did the applicationof agricultureand nuclear science
promise to generate a surplus which would ultimatelyallow exports of
food and nuclear technology to the world, it also appears that the
cultivationof science was intended to allow India and otherSouth Asian
nations to export theirbest achievementsin modern abstractthought,
and so to find recognitionof an intangiblebut profound sort.4Finally,
we must remember that the major foreign supporters (governments,
foundations,corporations, universities)encouraged the cultivationof
science in South Asia, and underwrotesome of the costs. These same
countriesdid not encourage or support the developmentof indigenous
enterprisesto the same extent. Cultivatingscience in South Asia thus
looked attractiveboth internallyand externally.
CULTURAL RESISTANCE TO THE CULTIVATION OF SCIENCE

Given these perceptionsand calculationsof stateinterests,whatwere

the constraintsand fearswhichaffectedtheirrealization?At the turnof
the twentiethcentury,the only model available to South Asia was thatof
a colonial science. While it was well knownthatJapan, Russia, Germany,
and the United States were vigorouslycultivatingscience,in South Asia
4 The desire of agriculturalscientistsfor recognitionequal to that given to nuclear
scientistswas expressed repeatedly in statements following the suicide of V. Shah,
principalinvestigatorin a national maize-improvementprojectat the Indian Agricultural
Research Institute(IARI) in 1972. This desire forparityreflecteda widespreadconviction
that the state undervalued agriculturalscience. Questions were subsequentlyraised in
parliament about the social relations and working conditions in IARI, one of India's
biggest research institutions.An inquiry committee investigated IARI and six other
national agriculturalinstitutes,heard 187 witnesses,and surveyed 2,667 scientists.This
committee'scriticalreportobliged the ministerof agricultureto announce a new personnel
systemand increased salary-scale. But the inquiry also necessitated re-examiningthe
claims of Shah's superior and the most senior Indian agriculturalscientist,M.S. Swaminathan,regardingthe nutritionalvalue of a wheat varietyhe developed and forwhichhe
had received a prestigiousinternationalaward in 1971. In the New Scientist,
there were
charges Swaminathan had published false data, and distinguishedplant breeders like
Norman Borlaug came to his defense. As a result,the Ministryof Law investigatedthe
actual conduct of group research, and the Cabinet reassessed the regulationof genetic
materials. What is importantis that the normallysecluded activitiesof scientistswere
thrownopen to state scrutiny,revealing deep structuralcleavages among scientistsand
widespread public ignorance about how research is conducted.

44

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.61 on Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:02:24 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Agricultural
and NuclearSciencein India
the costsof science were firstunderwrittenby a colonized stateapparatus. Untilthe 1950s, protagonistsfound it hard to popularize indigenous
experiments-not onlybecause therewere few,but more because of the
overwhelmingforce of the colonial tradition.
This fact underlays a popular ambivalence, if not fear, about
science-an ambivalencesummed up in Gandhi's answerto the question
"And what do you thinkof Westerncivilization,Mr. Gandhi?" He said,
"Well,it sounds like a good idea." Somehow science was inherently"unIndian." Indeed, it was an expression of another noble traditionof
learning-but learning about what? In addition to being alien in origin,
science was seen by some to be "godless," and also disrespectfulof
authoritativeknowledge. So even while the state cultivated science,
sectionsof the population were fearfulenough to wish to "contain" it.
That science seemed to institutionalizescepticism,and seemed to be
simplyunpredictable,made thiscontainmentthe more desirable.5The
factthatthe representativesof thisnew traditionappeared to come from
such a diversityof castes and communities-speaking a mixture of
mother-tongues,
but all workingin English-only confirmedthe fearsof
those who depended on an establishedhierarchicalorder. These fears
were shared even by some groups who stood to benefitfromthe state's
cultural policy in secular education, and by some individual officials
involvedin the daily runningof the state.
In what ways was science contained? First of all, there were the
popular effortsto "Indianize" the practice of science-for example, in
comparing science favourablywith some elements of classical Indian
philosophy,or tryingto humanize biologicalresearchas Jagdishchandra
Bose did.6 Secondly, there were attemptsto revive Indian systemsof
5 There was a strikingexample of this containmentin 1979, when a science and
technologyexhibit in New Delhi was suddenly dismantled and removed (see Science,27
April 1979, p. 393). Designed for the U.N. Conference on Science and Technology for
Development in Vienna, the exhibitwas criticalof "holymen"(sadhus,rishis,swamis,etc.)
and of the traditional(ayurvedic)systemof medicine. The reportsays images whichwere
believed by the exhibit'scriticsto have nothingto do withscience-that is, picturesof a
recliningfemale (dreaming of tachyons) nude a la Picasso, and portraitsof Marx and
Lenin (users of scientificprinciples)-were displayed to reinforceconceptionsof science.
Scientistsdemanding the restorationof the exhibitare reported to have said the country
"is sinking deeper and deeper into superstition,fatalism,and religious hypocrisy."
Another(unnamed) professorjustifiedthe removalof the exhibitas a rejectionof itsalien
quality: "We have no traditionof genuine doubt in our philosophy,"he said; "one may
. . . accept,reject,or remain passive,but may not doubt or enquire." It willbe remembered
that this was a time of crisis for the "ultra-conservative"factionof the Janata coalition
government.
6 We are fortunatethat Ashis Nandy has completed his veryinsightful
comparison of
JagdishchandraBose, the biologist,and SrinivasaRamanujan, the mathematician.Bose, he
argues, formalized"into a scientificidiom and a research ideology" key elements of his
personal and culturalsurroundings.The studyincludes excellentanalysesof elite Bengali

45

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.61 on Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:02:24 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PacificAffairs
learning and technique. The state's response was to cultivate and
preserve some "traditionalsciences" such as ayurvedic medicine and
even astrology (though support of the latter was sometimes covert).
Curiously, there was littleeffortto present the precolonial historyof
science and technologyin an organized way. The studyof this history
has been carried out by historiansin the face of officialindifference.
These demands for containment,which were responses to the alien
characterof science, have made the proponents of science fearfulof a
popular movementwhich would ultimatelybe "anti-science"because it
sought to make the sciences completelyindigenous. In addition to their
fears about "Indianization,"state representativesare apprehensive that
the state'scultivationof unpopular science mightfurtherwiden the gap
betweenthe livesof the masses and the objectivesof the state.7Justas the
cultivationof science seems to be enhancing the integrationand power
of the state,politicalplanners are fearfulthatthe same process mightfor some significantgroups at least-widen the state's already large
credibilitygap.
CONCLUSIONS

Which of these perceived benefitsof the cultivationof science have

actuallybeen realized? It is clear thatthe practiceof science has, by and
large, avoided "ethniccapture" and retained itsbridging,cosmopolitan
character in South Asia.8 In addition to the effectsof thirtyyears of
politicalprocess (national news of elections,state and culturalachieveintellectualresponses to Bose, and of the rise and decline of Bose's reputationin Europe.
The comparison with Ramanujan makes the book an even richer source. Ashis Nandy,
Alternative
Sciences:Creativity
and Authenticity
in Two Indian Sczentists
(New Delhi: Allied
Publishers,1980).
7 This view is also held by some scientists,but in a slightlydifferentform. See, for
example, the views of K.R. Bhattacharya,a food scientistwith great experience in the
politicsof science: "Science, Technology and Society,"in Satish Saberwal, ed., Towarda
CulturalPolicy (Delhi: Vikas, 1975), pp. 185-91. He argues that, given the alien and
alienated characterof science in India, one must ask "Who in India needs science?" and
mustorientthe choice of problems and the conduct of work on the basis of the answer to
that question. This, he argues, would move researchersaway from their orientationto
technology,obsession withobtainingforeigncollaboration,and uncriticalparticipationin
"the commanding heights"of the economy and state. For a recent studyof scientistsin
India, made more revealingby comparisonswithKenya, see Thomas Eisemon, TheScience
Profession
in theThirdWorld(New York: Praeger, 1982). Compare his interestingdescription of scientificlife at the Universityof Bombay (chap. 5).
8 It is common to hear scientistsin India respond to the assertionthat Indian science
has, by and large, become cosmopolitan, by saying that they nevertheless remain
peripheral to the major world research-centres.They should read how the Danes think
about "transcendingthe burdens of peripheralityin fundamentalresearch,"in Thomas
Scott,"Fundamental Research in a Small Country:Mathematicsin Denmark, 1928-1977,"
Minerva,Summer 1980, pp. 280-3.

46

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.61 on Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:02:24 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Agricultural
and NuclearSciencein India
ments,and so on), comprehensivesecular education, widespread use of
the radio and cinema, and an extraordinaryamount of railwaytravel
among the middle and lower-middleclasses,the cultivationof science,as
well, has played an importantrole in integratingvarious parts of the
country. India has one of the world's largest scientificcommunities.
Agriculturalscientistsand nuclear scientistsare in slightlycloser communicationbecause of the need for common planning at the national
level. None but the most cynical would claim that science has not
contributed to "national advancement," mixed though some of the
blessingsmightbe. Many criticsinsistthatthesecontributionsare stilltoo
limited,because of eitherthe "narrowness'of scienceor the intractability
of social problems.9
Finally,let us consider the importance of public doubts about the
cultivationof science by the state: one key to science's success has been
the autonomyconferredon it by the state,and maintainedby the state
and by the scientists'own values. This autonomyis a basic featureof the
state's science policy. Of course, a big risk to social development and
culturalintegritylies in the factthat the state can conferautonomyon
science in such a way that the scientists'responsibilityfor criticizingthe
stateor societyis totallyunder control.This kind of autonomyis, as in
manyaspects of statecraft,
onlya semblanceof autonomy.Such generalizations must be examined case by case. There are, of course, cultural
benefitsfromauthenticautonomy,ifit can be achieved-not the least of
which is keeping alive an independent and criticalspirit.10And, while
thereare diffusebenefitsfor "culture,"those who enjoy the authorityof
the state frequentlyoppose the workingsof a criticalspirit.
On the one hand, the stateshouldbe evaluated on mattersin which
scientistsoften have exclusive or privilegedinformation-forexample,
9 On returningto office,Prime MinisterIndira Gandhi acknowledgedthiscriticismand
directlyasked scientistshow the country'sresources would cope with the addition of a
million children a month. "[O]nly science can find a solution," she asserted. "So the
political system should improve its methods of supporting, encouraging and making
proper use of science .... We have not yet whollysucceeded in providingfacilitiesor a
general climate which gives full encouragementto intellectualinquiry.... The qualities
our countryneeds are inquiryand innovation-in science,in education,in administration,
in all branchesof life.Scientifictempercan onlycome withscientificthinkingand scientific
living."(Address to Indian Science Congress,January 1982, excerpted in Departmentof
Atomic Energy,NuclearIndia [January1982], pp. 4-5.) It is termslike "scientificliving"
whichmost disturbthe people who dismantledthe science exhibitionin 1979.
10With respect to cultural policy,A. Rahman argued that if science and technology
were to achieve genuine self-reliance,everythingthat "led an Indian to express his
distinctiveidentityby justifyingoutmoded practices,beliefs and world outlook" would
have to be set aside. In addition,withinscience,"the cultureof obedience mustyieldto the
culture of the critic." (A. Rahman, "ScientificKnowledge as the Base of New Cultural
Development,"in Saberwal, Towardsa CulturalPolicy,pp. 195-6.)

47

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.61 on Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:02:24 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Pacific Affairs
on the question of whether to undertake research on nuclear fuel
reprocessing.On the other hand, science itselfshould be evaluated, and
thismustoftenbe done by people who have no privilegedinformationfor example, regarding the desirabilityof adopting the state's recommendationsof a new agriculturaltechnique.Those who evaluate willnot
findthat a knowledge of science policy is enough for theirtask."1As a
matterof fact, most science policy in South Asia-like science policy
elsewhere-bears as little relation to the actual conduct of scientific
researchas theologydoes to the practiceof religion.That is whyscience
policyfindsitsrelationshipswiththe stateso unsettled.It should come as
by the state,
no surprisethatthe various sciences are treateddifferently
and that the state should seem simultaneouslyto cultivatethe sciences
and hold them at arm's length.
The conduct of scientificresearch and its various consequences for
societyare unsettling.No cultural policycan possiblyguarantee thatall
the alleged benefitsforsocietywillbe realized; no policycan ensure that
scientifictalent and resources are used to theirfullestcapacity."What
separates science in India fromscience elsewhere,"a friendremarkedin
and our
Calcutta,"is thatour mistakenideas, our incompetentscientists,
naive excesses, are not drained away, but collect in and inhabitall our
institutions.
This expands our researchinstitutions
at a greatrate. What
we need is a betterdrainage systemin science."
A cultural policy can ensure that mathematics,like classical dance,
existsand persists.This willhardlysatisfythe calculatingpractitionersof
statecraftwho look forcertainties.Will science not lead inevitablyto new
applications,theyask, which will in turn promote "accumulation"and
thusbreak the viciouscirclesof povertyand ignorance?The statecan, of
course, directthe attentionof the sciences to certainpressingproblems.
" Bhaneja has correctlypointed out thatnot only have a large number of researchers
in India become "governmentscientists,"but also, due to the "absence of an autonomous
sectoroutside the governmentscientificinstitutions,MPs have no assistancein forminga
judgement about the scientificqualityof workdone in these institutions."
They thusdo not
know what to do about the frequent complaints they receive about injusticesin laboratories. Balwant Bhaneja, "ParliamentaryInfluence on Science Policy in India," Minerva,
in formingajudgement was revealed in the Shah suicide
Spring 1979, p. 96. This difficulty
affairdiscussed above; it has also reinforcedthe role of foreignscientificadvisors.Bhaneja
also points out how rarely people with scientifictraining enter politics or have any
sustained career in it-unless, of course, they completelyabandon their connection to
research. So science policyin parliamentremains largelyformalisticand uninformed.Of
course, some expertise comes to rest on the border between the civil service and the
scientificcommunity,where a few individuals tryto create and sustain a modicum of
autonomyforthemselves.For a recentreviewof science policies in India, see the excellent
articlesby one science-policyadvisor, Ashok Parthasarathi,"Technological Bridgeheads
for Self-ReliantDevelopment," and "India's Effortsto Build an Autonomous Capacityin
Science and Technology for Development," in Development
Dialogue (Uppsala), 1979:1.

48

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.61 on Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:02:24 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Agricultural
and NuclearSciencein India
Scientistsare frequentlyengaged in the definitionof problems (for
example, "the food problem"), and the state can exhort them and pay
them to work in those areas. This goes on all the time, although
observersin India can pointto manypressingissues whichhave failedto
attractthe attentionof scientists.But stateofficialsmustunderstandthat
the scientistsalso follow theirown noses, and that coercion (to pursue
onlythe state'sproblems) may have veryhigh costsin the long run. With
statepressureinevitablycomes resistance,frequentlyexpressed by a sort
of intellectual"work-to-rule"patternfound in some researchinstitutions
in South Asia, where scientificeducation and researchis treatednot as a
"calling" but simplyas a job. It is interestingthat there has not been
more evidence of the withdrawalof servicesby scientistsin India-as
therehas been by doctors,forexample. On the contrary,some scientists
have complained of the state's neglect of the sciences-of a lack of
interestexcept when some obvious reward can be claimed.
Most unsettledand problematicis the role of the criticaltraditionof
science, and the persistenceof public doubt about science's legitimacy.
There is clearlythe need for continuous evaluation of public policyby
scientists,although the state has never been anxious to hear this
evaluation. There has been well-informedevaluation of this type in
India but, because of the enormous dependence of science upon state
support and goodwill, scientificcriticismcan be controlled and/or
rendered ineffectual.On the other hand, the doubts expressed publicly
about the legitimacyof science contain an anti-intellectualspiritwhich
risesfromthe same bed as the ideologyof scientism.The insistencethat
"we do not doubt," and the hope that"onlysciencecan lead us out of this
darkness,"both spring froman excessive commitmentto attractiveand
deceptive certainties.12 Each concept has its proponents somewhere in
12 Edward Shils has recently written that, although the sciences have their own
traditions,all scientistsmust also account for the persistenceof other traditions."As a
matterof fact,natural scientistswere not as hostile or indifferentto traditionsas their
detractorsand the positivisticphilosophyof science whichwas attributedto themdeclared
and whichsome of themespoused. They by no means spurned the greataccomplishments
and heroic figuresof their past.... Nonetheless, natural scientiststended to be on the
side of enlightenmentand some were in factaggressiveprogressivists.The latterthought
thattraditionwas a 'reactionaryforce'holding back the progressof the human mind.They
shared the disparaging view of 'tradition' as superstitious prejudice. Many natural
scientists,proud of their solid accomplishmentsand contemptuousof the uncertaintyof
the results of other intellectualactivities,thought that their science was an intellectual
undertakingutterlyunlike and completelysuperior to all those otherswhichwere in the
realms of arbitrariness,subjective fantasies, superstition,and uncritical reception of
traditionalbelief." (Tradition[Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 1981], pp. 106-7.)
What Shils does not describe is how the state, in India and elsewhere, has been the
mediatinginstitutionbetween scientists'tendenciesand social reaction,cultivatingscience
(in part) as a means of modulating its relationswithother culturaltraditions.

49

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.61 on Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:02:24 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Pacific Affairs
the stateapparatus, given the latter'ssimultaneousintoleranceof critical
scepticismand naive enthusiasm for technical solutions. The critical
traditionof science must find expression, if not a steady role, in this
uncertain environment,and scientistsmust guard against unrealistic
claims made for science as well as attacksupon it.
This peculiar triangle (the diversityof the sciences, the shifting
interpretationof the state's interests,and the dubious public) will be a
significantfeature of India's cultural life for a long time. Its unsettled
quality is due to the fact that culture is not fixed but is dynamic,and
evolves through the relationships in this triangle. Science itself will
increasinglyneed its critics-not those who threatenits autonomybut
those who would keep it honest and dedicated to fundamentalnational
change. People's criticismsabout the objectivesand procedures of the
scientistsmust be founded in a betterunderstandingof the differences
between sciences, and of the historyof the state's uses and abuses of
scientists'abilities.And these verydoubts,iftheyare to have any validity
whatsoever,mustbe evaluated in the contextof the state'scultivationof
science as cultural policy.

SimonFraserUniversity,
Canada, November1982

50

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.61 on Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:02:24 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions